Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MAY 5, 1992

Volume 2, Number 20

[ Page 1221 ]

The House met at 10:06 a.m.

Prayers.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: It gives me great pleasure to introduce His Excellency Dr. Richard Ellerkmann, the Ambassador of Germany to Canada, and his spouse, who are in the gallery today. Please make them welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm pleased to introduce today a delegation visiting from my constituency of Saanich South. I have the pleasure of introducing a grade 11 class from Spectrum Community School and their teacher Ms. Judith Knight. I would ask the House to make them very welcome.

C. Evans: The best decisions I ever made in my life were when I decided who to live with and where to live. I'd like to introduce my wife, Bonnie Evans, to those of you who represent British Columbia.

Orders of the Day

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

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

Vote 58: minister's office, $308,000.

Hon. D. Marzari: It's my pleasure to present for the consideration of this Legislature the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry Responsible for Culture. These estimates outline the programs within this ministry that support an industry of significant importance in our own economic future as a province, as well as programs that nurture cultural and heritage resources of the people of British Columbia. I am proud to be able to speak in this House today about both those responsibilities.

The development of tourism and the development of arts and culture figure significantly in how we define ourselves and the socioeconomic health of our province. I want first to deal with those aspects of the ministry that deal with tourism.

Tourism has been defined as the revenues generated when people spend more than one night away from home. Tourism revenues are produced within the larger scope of eight constituent industries: food and beverage and accommodation, which amount to 50 percent of total revenues generated; transportation; adventure tourism and recreation; travel trade; attractions; events and conferences; and tourism services.

The tourism industry is represented by a diverse range of economic activities, obviously. While that characteristic has sometimes made it difficult to analyze the tourism industry using traditional manufacturing industry methodologies, that same characteristic, the complex contributions of a range of related industries, makes tourism one of our most important vehicles for economic development -- new jobs, new investment and the diversification of local economies.

I'm also referring to community development. In many communities tourism development serves as a catalyst for the development of a broad range of services and amenities for a community that the resident population alone could not support. Tourism development also acts as a stabilizing force for the regions, for communities that might otherwise be dependent on the strength of a single industry for their economic viability. In these instances tourism provides a wider range of options for development, entrepreneurship and investment and thereby contributes not only to the current health of a local economy but also to a community's prospects for the future.

At the provincial level tourism generated in excess of $5 billion in revenues in 1991. It directly contributes $2.7 billion to our provincial GDP and employs at least 108,000 workers in direct tourism jobs. With an employment growth rate exceeding 3 percent annually over the last ten years, tourism now accounts for approximately 9 percent of all new jobs in this province. It is presently number two as an industry.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

There are four aspects to the work that we must undertake, and will undertake, over the next few years: (1) our strategic and long-range planning capacity must be upgraded; (2) service delivery to the tourism industry must be improved; (3) the range of tourism products that we deliver to the market must be upgraded and updated; and (4) the resource itself, the very essence of our environment for tourism, must be protected.

The development of provincial support for tourism in B.C. should occur within the framework of a strategic plan that offers reasonable security, both to the industry and to government. We are now engaged in the development of a business plan with a long-term vision, one that clearly defines objectives and activities in three-to five-year projections. People who are leaders in the tourism industry know well the value of such a business plan, and many of them have told me that they welcome this strategic approach.

[10:15]

As members of the House are aware, the estimates for my ministry show a considerable reduction in the marketing budget. In part this reflects the need for us to share in the cost-cutting measures that the government has been forced to take to address the fiscal situation that we inherited. The ministry will continue to set clear objectives and strategies in its annual marketing plan and will implement its activities in close coordination with the B.C. tourism industry. We will continue to spend a significant amount on marketing-related services, and we intend to spend this money smarter.

We will continue to sharpen the focus of marketing activities that we are undertaking in partnership with 

[ Page 1222 ]

regional tourism associations and the private sector. For example, this spring we undertook a joint marketing venture with the cities of Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler, aimed at increasing the number of visitors who come to British Columbia from one of our primary markets, the state of California. Because the costs were shared among the four participants, we were able to put our message forward aggressively in the Los Angeles market. Using this kind of partnership to achieve our business objectives means that while we'll be spending less, we will be spending better and will be able to maintain the kind of results our tourism industry has come to rely on.

We will also be focusing our marketing efforts on those products that provide us with a distinct competitive advantage in a market that is increasingly competitive, internationally and even nationally. At the same time, marketing will be contributing to the development of the industry. Marketing applied sensibly and strategically becomes a major tool in the sustainability of tourism.

In the same way that tourism has come of age in terms of the provincial government, communities in our province have been rapidly recognizing the economic potential tourism holds for them. They are also quickly realizing that in order to fully enjoy the results of tourism development, they must keep preservation of the integrity and character of their communities foremost in their minds.

To be successful provincially means working closely with communities, and I want to say to this House and to the people of British Columbia that this government values our partnership marketing programs with regional tourism associations. We will be making similar efforts to make the best use of the limited dollars that are available to us this year.

Attending to community interests is an integral part of a solidly based strategic planning process, and the minister is making consultation with communities, regional associations and representative associations of the tourism industry sectors a major priority. These eight separate sectoral constituencies, along with nine regional marketing associations scattered throughout British Columbia, numerous marketing partners in the corporate arena and the municipal associations in the province which are utilizing the additional 2 percent hotel tax, are all key players in the tourism industry. Their needs and perspectives must be taken into consideration, and we are doing that.

In addition, we are negotiating a Canadian-B.C. partnership agreement for tourism to follow up on the one that recently lapsed. This agreement focuses on marketing activities and services to business.

In order to ensure that these divergent interests are addressed in a cohesive and cooperative planning framework, the industry will be encouraging a strong representative advisory body that integrates the concerns of all participants in the industry throughout the province sectorally and geographically.

Hon. Chair, the basis of sound planning is sound research. The Ministry of Tourism is well respected for the research projects it undertakes, and this work has recently been augmented by the establishment of a tourism satellite account by the Ministry of Finance.

Because of the employment growth rate in the tourism industry, by the year 2001 we can expect an additional 60,000 jobs in the tourism industry in B.C. Research about the kinds of jobs that will be created and the training pressures that will be put on the system is essential. To address this need, the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology has helped us in the funding of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, undertaking research and designing a blueprint for action on education and training which Tourism will be releasing in early summer. It outlines methods the tourism industry will be able to use to attract, train and retain an adequate supply of qualified labour in the industry. This planning work by the Pacific Rim Institute is an essential component in our work to improve tourism service delivery.

I want to talk about the third sector of our work this year -- updating our tourism product. Tourism growth has not occurred evenly throughout the province over the past decade, and some parts of the interior are in serious danger of losing their market share. If the benefits of tourism are to be shared more evenly around the province -- and surely that is one of the reasons why tourism is such an ideal economic tool for regrowth and rebirth -- then tourism businesses must upgrade and invest in quality products. Such investment will only occur, however, if the communities are able to address issues relating to financing, marketing and tourism industry infrastructure. We will continue to work with communities to help them do this essential groundwork and assist them to develop the planning tools they need.

One of the most critical issues that will have to be addressed in order for communities to be able to attract critical and significant investment is natural resource and land use planning. Tourism suppliers often find themselves competing with other users of our natural resources. There is a need to ensure that land use planning and provincial resource management processes are as accountable to tourism interests as they are to such other industries as forestry, mining and agriculture. Again, the precursor to effective planning in this area is research. For this reason the province is undertaking, in cooperation with industry, a project to identify those natural and cultural resources which are most important for the tourism industry. When it is complete, this inventory will support land and water use decision-making, integrated resource management planning and tourism planning.

Our first priority is an inventory of the coastal resources important for the continuing development of marine-based tourism, and a full inventory of provincial natural and cultural resources should be complete in three to five years. This inventory will provide a solid base of information for the tourism industry, government and communities to use to identify opportunities for developing contemporary tourism products and for integrating tourism needs with other kinds of land and water use. When the inventory is complete, it will be a powerful tool and will enable Tourism to participate in the province's decision-making processes 

[ Page 1223 ]

on resource management and land use allocations -- a process, by the way, in which Tourism is already engaged as the inventory is embarked upon.

Carefully managed and safeguarded, our natural tourism resources will increase tremendously in value over the next decade. With the creation of the Commission on Resources and Environment, we want to be sure that Tourism is equipped with the necessary mechanisms to provide effective input into land use planning, and to lay the foundation for communities to attract the investment they need for development. Communities are looking for investment to create development in the food and beverage industry, in accommodation, recreation, transportation, travel trade, events and conferences, and tourism services.

Regardless of the sector, a critical aspect of tourism development has to be consideration for the industry's sustainability. That is to say, in each instance we have to ask: can this industry, developed in this way, sustain operations over the long term without compromising its own future or the operations and future of other industries as well?

Tourism is not a resource extraction industry; it's dependent on natural, cultural, human resources, and in many instances it makes considerable demands on those resources. In order for tourism to be viable and a significant player in the provincial economy, we will have to develop the tourism industry with these resource dependencies in mind.

These considerations are especially compelling in the new wave of international tourism -- the ecotourism product. Ecotourism is defined as travelling to areas of unique natural, scenic and cultural richness for the purpose of observing and absorbing the organic attributes of the region. This new product is generating remarkable interest in worldwide tourism, and British Columbia, with its natural and impressive environmental resources and rich and diverse cultural resources, is exceptionally positioned to be a front-runner in that market. In fact, in September of this year ecotourism and travel operators from around the world will be gathering at Whistler for an international congress. British Columbia has been selected as the host for this world congress not only because of its exceptional ecotourism attributes but also because of the leadership we have displayed in developing standards and techniques for tourism-resource management. Not only will the world's leaders in environmentally and culturally sound tourism be here to share their knowledge and experience but also the largest operators in this fast-developing industry will be able to observe for themselves the spectacular attractions here.

These four areas of activity -- upgrading our planning capacity, improving service delivery, updating the range of tourism product and protecting the resource -- together with our emphasis on marketing partnerships will enable us to build an industry that will serve our province abundantly, well into the future.

I want to take this opportunity to speak about the importance of our cultural resource at the national and provincial level. It is my belief that both are inextricably interwoven and cannot be separated; one supports the other. The impact that the current process of national constitutional reform will have on Canada's culture cannot be disregarded. The health of national cultural agencies has a direct impact on the health of our local cultural institutions. A part of British Columbia's participation in this process is to ensure that our province receives a healthy and proportionate share of national financial and program resources in support of the arts. With 11.6 percent of the Canadian population in 1989, B.C. received 5.3 percent of the total federal dollars allocated by province. Our role goes well beyond simply lobbying federal government for increased resources. British Columbia is home to 20 percent of the aboriginal population of Canada, who speak half the aboriginal languages spoken in Canada. We are home to an increasingly diverse community of first-and second-generation Canadians. As such, British Columbia has a special responsibility with respect to native and diverse culture, which is an obligation of national importance.

Part of the mandate we've been given by the people of our province is to renew and invigorate British Columbia's cultural expression and to work to integrate our viewpoint with the cultural voices of the rest of Canada. In the face of globalization it's imperative that we take a strong and positive national action to ensure that we have a fertile cultural environment in which Canadians can create, develop intellectually and work as cultural workers.

[10:30]

Over the next four years the members of this House and the people of this province will see Culture realize its rightful status in British Columbia. In spite of the financial situation that our government is cleaning up and the extremely difficult budget process we have had to go through this spring and in spite of the need for each and every ministry, including culture, to find ways to lend support to the government's provincial spending priorities, we have still found ways to provide a framework for stability and support to the arts community.

This year Culture does not have to go to another ministry for funds to ensure that creative expression is encouraged and accessible in our province. This year funding for cultural programs is entirely within the ministry's annual allocation. This is an important change in cultural funding and one that reflects government's recognition that the arts community will flourish only if a climate of stability and ongoing support is established. Over the next four years we will be able to demonstrate that commitment with a greater flexibility than is possible right now.

While the government has had to define clearly its spending priorities for the province, arts and culture have also started to define their priorities through the cultural division of the ministry. At the top of government's priority list is the preservation as much as possible of the funding to those individuals, organizations and institutions that do the work of creation and of preservation of the culture and heritage of our province.

The cultural and heritage communities in our province have my commitment that their work will have first priority for scarce dollars. One-third of the cut to the 

[ Page 1224 ]

cultural budget was money that had in previous years been spent on a project now almost complete: the multimillion-dollar asbestos removal at the Royal British Columbia Museum. I would like to take the opportunity to congratulate the staff of the museum on completing that arduous undertaking, which necessitated preparing, cataloguing and moving the whole collection, and to recognize the fine work they have done under very difficult conditions.

The internal operational and administrative budget for the department of culture and historic resources has been reduced. This means we have cut travel budgets, budgets for contract work and purchases. We are, for the most part, taking these cuts internally.

As part of our commitment to stabilizing funding for cultural organizations and programs, we have been able to maintain the framework for financial stability to the indigenous film industry through the provision of $5 million to B.C. Film. Our support for B.C. Film is one way of recognizing the crucial economic role played by the cultural sector in B.C. In the past the province has not recognized the economic potential of the film sector. There has been a lack of a broad, diverse mandate for film-industry support. This is something that we inherited; it is something we intend to correct.

It is essential that we build a strong coordinated working relationship among all government partners and then to use that foundation to establish internal protocols and mechanisms to coordinate all the various programs that are now working for film in this province. To this end the ministry has established an interministerial working group on film-industry policy that has the participation of the ministries of Economic Development, Small Business and Trade, Finance and Advanced Education, as well as the B.C. Film Commission and the B.C. Film fund. This group will oversee preparation of a realistic development strategy for the film industry, coordinate responses and recommend structural, regulatory or financial program changes. As a result, government will be better able to bring support in a coordinated, more effective way to the industry -- an industry which, by the way, brings $250 million a year to our British Columbian economy.

The working group is the result of extensive consultation with members of the film production community. Consultation, consideration, cooperation and planning are the characteristics that will drive the decision-making processes in the ministry. We will be applying this systematic approach and dedicated resources to all areas, including, for example, the need to address the fact that the essential contribution that artists make to the economic, social, and cultural enrichment of the province has not been reflected in their economic or employment status.

My ministry continues to make progress on the development of new heritage legislation. This legislation is intended to provide a framework for the management and conservation of heritage resources in communities and to increase the protection afforded to archaeological sites and artifacts. The work of the department of culture and historic resources, along with that of the Ministry of Tourism, is done by dedicated professionals: individuals with years of experience and considerable expertise in their areas of endeavour. All members of this House share my appreciation of their dedication and commitment to serving the people of the province.

I have personally enjoyed very much working with both sides of the ministry, and enjoy very much the quality of service and information from my senior people and throughout the whole ministry. That concludes my commentary, and I look forward now to hearing questions and comments from the opposition and the third party.

C. Tanner: I'd like to thank the minister for her statement.

I must say that I didn't hear very much of what I wanted to hear. I heard comments like: "We need a strategic plan for the next three to five years." I heard comments like: "The communities are looking for investment." I heard comments like: "The interior might be losing its market share." I heard comments like: "We are going to be looking to help the film industry." What I didn't hear was any commitment to the tourist industry.

In fact, I would say to the minister that I was personally pleased to find that the Tourism ministry, with culture and heritage, was headed by the member for Vancouver-Point Grey. Her commitment to arts and culture in Vancouver and the province is well known. Her previous business experience and familiarity with the retail trade -- my own vocation -- are appreciated. We understood that her long association with the NDP and its leader would enhance her position within the party. While not sharing her point of view, I have personal knowledge, as she does, of what it means to work tirelessly on behalf of one's beliefs.

Therefore it is with reluctance that I make the following statement. The Ministry of Tourism has disappointed the electorate, the industry and this House. During the election, the NDP made only passing reference to tourism. One might almost call it lip service. In item 35 of their platform, "A Better Way," they included three articles. Two were the usual rhetorical NDP comments concerning protection of the environment and working closely with the industry, but one specific commitment promises to actively market all of B.C.'s nine tourist regions and coordinate tourist services.

I have in hand literally dozens of letters from the industry: protests from operators of hotels, motels, tourist facilities, municipalities, regional tourist offices, travel agents, retailers, restaurant owners and resort owners -- the list is endless. But the most important and serious presentation of all was given on April 1 to members of this government by a regional vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia. If I may, I would like to quote from that presentation:

"Because of this enormous variety of businesses, quantifying the value of the industry has been virtually impossible, and it has had no real provincewide voice, so that governments at all levels have never paid it the attention which...it's worth." It is important that we "inform the public and politicians as to what tourism/hospitality means to all of us, which should result in a change from the present policy" -- talking about 

[ Page 1225 ]

the previous government -- "which might be characterized as overtaxing coupled with benign neglect.

In this industry, "$5.2 billion was spent in 1990 on overnight travel. About half of the expenditure was by non-residents of B.C. and $1 billion to $2 billion by international visitors.... Employment in tourism-related industries is estimated to be over 157,000...not including retail. In 1988, tourism-related industries paid over $1 billion in direct and indirect taxes to all governments, including $468 million to this province. B.C.'s 650 hotels alone generated $1.4 billion in revenues in 1988 and...$771 million in GDP -- equal to...B.C.'s petroleum, natural gas and coal-mining industries combined. The food and beverage industry's GDP in 1988 equalled that of residential construction.

"The tourism/hospitality industries were estimated in 1988 to produce 6.9 percent of provincial GDP, third only to forestry, at 9.3 percent, and to mining/energy, at 7.8 percent...."

In fact, it's now second; it has overtaken the mining industry of this province.

"In 1991, while most of North America and Europe suffered a severe downturn in tourism of varying degrees, B.C. was fortunate enough to maintain most of its market at 1990 levels."

The outlook through the next three to four years is cloudy for a number of reasons. I would just like to highlight some of those reasons:

"Continuing recession in North America and Europe and the slowdown in Japan.

"The severely overbuilt situation of the accommodation industry in the U.S., leading to extraordinary discounting....

"The perception in Canada and the U.S. that B.C. is expensive -- indeed, it very often is uncompetitive vis-�-vis the U.S., with higher pricing for food, beverage, accommodation, gasoline...sales taxes and many retail items.

"A deteriorating accommodation industry, particularly in the interior" -- which the minister referred to in her opening statement. "The return on investment in the accommodation industry is generally too low now to warrant the urgently needed refurbishment....

"The overloading of Vancouver's airport...which will seriously impede the growth" in this most important industry.

"The long delays at border crossings, due principally to Canadian shoppers.

"Increasing international competition for the tourist's dollar, coupled with a decline in expenditures on marketing by both levels of government, of which this budget is only the most recent example."

This presentation to the government, which apparently the government has ignored, went on to make some suggestions for action. "It is a truism to state that when business gets tougher, particularly due to increasing competition, one must spend more on marketing. The proposed decrease of $4 million in the Tourism budget has, it is understood, resulted in a cut of $3.7 million in marketing -- at exactly the wrong time." The suggestion is that you should eliminate the sales tax on both accommodation and alcohol. In order to encourage restoration of existing plant, particularly in the interior, you should review the tax on assets. You should allow a wholesale price on bulk purchases of alcohol. I don't know any industry in the world where the person who's retailing the product has to pay the same price for the product to retail as the purchaser does. It's an astounding fact of life in British Columbia that if I want to retail liquor, I've got to go to the liquor board and pay the same price as the person who goes to the store and buys it -- an incredible and totally inappropriate merchandising technique.

[10:45]

They commend the department on the good work that you've been doing for the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, and I commend the minister on her mention of the fact that the Ministry of Advanced Education will be looking at that area, and, as they go on to say, "with appropriate resources, further study on ways and means to achieve the foundation of a degree-granting international institution for hotel management." I hope that might be something we'll see in the very near future.

I also note that the minister, I think, is encouraging the formation of a provincewide federation of tourist and hospitality associations. I understand that we are the only province in Canada that does not have an association of all industry involved with tourism. If this government needs somebody to negotiate with, it is essential that they do everything to encourage the establishment of such an association. I believe I heard that in her speech.

Without belabouring the point -- I think the point's already well made and time does not permit me to go into further detail: "...suffice it to say that while former governments have treated the industry as being of little importance, we are encouraged so far by the appointment of a strong Minister of Tourism and a strong deputy minister, and by their obvious willingness to listen and to learn. We are hopeful that they'll stay at their posts long enough to understand the industry...." May I express that view too. While I might not altogether agree with the minister, I do hope she's going to be around long enough to understand her ministry. That wasn't the case in the past. If I stay in the critic role the same time, we'll get to know each other, and I'm sure the industry will improve as a consequence of our association. In the meantime, I have a lot of criticisms.

"We are, however, extremely discouraged by the proposed cut in Tourism B.C.'s already inadequate budget, and it is our opinion that unless more resources are devoted to the ministry, the industry faces a bleak future." That address was given by a senior member of the Business Council of British Columbia in April, and appears to be have been rejected by the government and the minister.

My first question: why, when there is more need to generate income than spend it, would the government reduce its investments? Why, when the government's increasing expenditures in health, education and social services, is it not increasing rather than reducing expenditures in our largest employing industry and our second-largest -- soon to be the largest -- generator of revenue?

I will, with the minister's help, spend a few hours examining the budget, but let me go back to my first statement. The ministry has disappointed those who voted for her party by not fulfilling the platform promise. It has disappointed the tourist industry by 

[ Page 1226 ]

reducing instead of enhancing investment. And it has disappointed this side of the House, if not your side, because we anticipated that this minister, sitting as she does on Treasury Board, would protect and enhance her ministry. My first question to the minister is this: did she take to Treasury Board an enhanced budget, and was she overruled?

Hon. D. Marzari: Government faced a deficit of staggering proportions this year. I believe that the people of British Columbia understand that, and as we have gone through the estimates process in this House to this point, I even believe that members of the opposition and especially members of the third party understand that. This government was put in the position of swallowing the largest deficit this province has ever seen. To try to cut that potential deficit back, cuts were made. Cuts were not made to statutory services -- education, health, welfare -- nor were they made to those services which provide legal and law services for this province. Cuts had to be made. Cuts were made in those ministries that had discretionary money. Discretionary money does not mean money that is not required for the running of the province. Discretionary money means money that is not statutorily already obligated or pre-spent by statute, law or federal agreement.

I found it not a happy task to sit on Treasury Board or in cabinet. It was one of the most difficult tasks any of us in cabinet had ever done in our lives. I did not find it salutary to try to make 5 percent cuts on efficiency. But I've been in small business -- I have hired and fired -- and tough decisions have to be made. In small business those decisions could be measured in nickels and dimes; in government those decisions must be made in terms of tens of millions of dollars, not only to protect the credit rating of this government and this province and its reputation internationally, but to protect the taxpayers of this province from having to spend upwards of $600 million a year simply to pay off a debt. Six hundred million dollars a year would swallow the Ministry of Tourism and Culture several times over. Decisions were made to cut a number of ministries that had discretionary dollars. Those decisions were made because of a financial mess left to this government. They were not made to detract from the potential of the tourism industry of this province.

In fact, I have a copy of the speech written by that same vice-president of the Business Council of British Columbia, and I have a copy here of the recommendations made by Mr. Lambert in that speech. He talks to the need to complete, as a priority, the evaluation of tourism-hospitality industries, while re-evaluating their value to the province based on today's information, and to start shifting resource proportionate to the value. Did I not just address that in my opening remarks -- the need for an inventory of tourism, which we are presently engaged in, both in a sectoral and a geographical sense?

He also goes on to say: "Tourism is a big piece of our international trade, and our overseas trade offices should have trade officers trained to market tourism." What an innovative idea! Is this not something that I talked about in our previous mini-estimates debate, and the necessity, in the long-term goal we have, of taking our marketing to the international market, most particularly the Pacific Rim?

Another recommendation that Mr. Lambert makes is: "Ensure that the industry's voice carries its appropriate weight in decisions affecting the environment, including land use and resource management -- our greatest attraction." Mr. Lambert could have been writing my speech; that is precisely the business in which the ministry is engaged.

He goes on to say: "The Council of Tourism Associations has recently completed a brief on economic and environmental issues which should be studied by the ministries...." We are studying that report.

Mr. Lambert goes on to say that we should "urge the federal government to undertake the following as soon as possible: arrange fast tourist lanes at the U.S. border" -- I'm talking to the federal minister on this very subject within the week. -- "collect both GST and PST at the border on purchases from the U.S...." This is an area we are investigating thoroughly to find out how we can rationalize GST and PST and how it's collected from our international visitors. It is high on the list of research priorities for discussion with the federal ministers.

He goes onto talk about the good work that the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism is doing, because this is our machine that will promote and develop training programs and encourage young people in our province to think of tourism as a potential career, not as something to be done on summer holidays, not as something that is marginal to the market, but as a career. It is the Pacific Rim Institute that is doing this, which our ministry instigated, has supported and funds. We are receiving good marks on that score from the industry.

He goes onto say that we should encourage the formation of a provincewide federation of tourist and hospitality associations. We are studying this now, and we are working closely with the group that is coming forward. Twice before, the mandate has been thrust upon the community to come up with a broadly-based, cross-sector association. Right now, rather than forcing the community to come together in a common voice, we are working with and encouraging the community to do so. It has failed twice before; I want to ensure that the voice this time is as strong as it possibly can be, has longevity, has continuity, has cohesiveness and is going to be an active and vocal participant in the process. It won't be just us in this House; we'll have an industry spokes-organization out there as well, advising, criticizing and bringing us along.

I must say that the comments made by the member of the opposition to this point have not been helpful. But I really do look forward to hearing questions specifically on the items that we are working on that have come to us through the industry itself, on the specifics of creating the infrastructure, the long-term plan and the stability that this industry so desperately needs. It has been treated as a poor relative by previous administrations. It has faced six deputy ministers and five ministers over the last five years. Each time this 

[ Page 1227 ]

ministry has tried to raise its head, it has been rejected, neglected and treated as some kind of a grand-attraction developer, a gala-event organizer. Within the ministry there have been hard-working people who have tried to keep the dream alive of working towards a sustainable, a strategic and a progressive industry voice in this province. I would hope that the tenor of the debate that we have today carries us on into the development of the tourism industry as a potential number one for our province, a stabilizer, a diversifier, something which we can all be proud of, rather than ashamed of -- picking at the edges.

C. Tanner: In our anxiousness to get at it, the minister and I have forgotten to have the minister introduce those fine people who are sitting with her. Maybe she would like to do that.

Hon. D. Marzari: On my far right, Marr Henderson, the director of finance administration in the ministry; on my near right, the deputy minister, Mr. John Walsh, who has worked with the ministry since November 1991; on my left, the assistant deputy minister in the cultural division, Mr. Barry Kelsey, who is a fine and seasoned bureaucrat, having been in the ministry or worked closely with the cultural community in British Columbia for some 20 years now. Am I right on the 20 years? Not quite 20. These are the fine and professional staff that will be helping me throughout these estimates.

[11:00]

C. Tanner: Madam Chair, not that I mean to embarrass Mr. Kelsey, but I think it should be stated right now that he and I have had a long association through a business that I used to be associated with, to the point where his wife was the beneficiary of some largesse on behalf of the government. In other words, she won a lottery. Maybe the world shouldn't know this and maybe Mr. Kelsey didn't want to know, but in case in future anybody ever accuses me of unduly influencing Mr. Kelsey, I thought we should state it at the beginning that Mrs. Kelsey once had the opportunity to win some money in my store. I don't mean to be flippant, but I never know what's coming from the other side, and I thought I'd protect myself in case it happened.

The minister goes to great pains to pick out -- as I did, quite frankly -- those statements in the presentation by the vice-president of the Business Council of B.C. which enhance what she said. She is not incorrect when she says that some of the things in here.... She's obviously used.... Hopefully, they work together and they're going to develop in the future. I also congratulate the minister on trying to divert my examination off into those areas that she is particularly interested in -- and I am, but that's not what my job is today. As the minister well knows, I've got to see how she plans to spend the money, both in comparison to what the situation was in the past and what she plans to do in the future.

Madam Minister, whatever else he says, you cannot ignore that last statement: "We are, however, extremely discouraged by the proposed cut in Tourism B.C.'s already inadequate budget, and it is our opinion that unless more resources are devoted to the ministry, the industry faces a bleak future." This gentleman is suggesting not only that should you not cut the budget but that you should improve on what the past experience was.

B. Jones: What would you cut?

C. Tanner: A member opposite asked me what I would cut. I would ask the minister this: if she had to do it again, now that she's had the experience and has had a little more opportunity, what would she have taken out? Why would she need, for example, an office in Vancouver and an office in Victoria? Why did she not look at the staff that she has? Maybe it's a tough decision to make, but maybe that's where she might have made some cuts. Would the minister like to comment on that?

Hon. D. Marzari: In the first go-around in the first difficult year of decision-making in a six-week process at Treasury Board, in which we were not able to get into the long-distance and long-term strategic plan that we must each have for individual ministries, there were some formula cuts. That's quite obvious: 5 percent on efficiency savings and then sometimes a further 10 percent and 15 percent on programs. It was my concern that, until we had a strong strategic plan in place, and we firmly knew what complements there should be in the tourism industry and the tourism ministry to service the industry, I was very loathe to take personnel cuts from the marketing, the product development, the research or the service delivery components of the ministry.

There are staff working on programs, which we have already alluded to in the few minutes that we've had in these estimates. Staff are working on everything from putting signs on highways and conferring with Highways staff as to where the blue signs for tourist attractions should be placed, through servicing the info centres throughout the province, to advising individual entrepreneurs walking through the door of the best locations or possibilities for site management, to planning and development around the inventory of coastal waterways.

Our staff in Tourism is in fact stretched doing what it does now, especially with the new mandate that I have approached the ministry with: a clear set of determined priorities to move toward a strategic plan which will serve and enhance the industry rather than detract from it. It is my concern that depleting the number of people in the ministry working with the industry would have done more serious damage to the enterprise than to take some cuts from marketing. I would not want to make marketing cuts again -- certainly not with the severity that they've just occurred. As I have reviewed the files and seen what we've done, I think we have an excellent marketing program.

But I must also tell you that because of the additional 2 percent hotel tax, which is enjoyed now by Vancouver, Victoria and a number of other municipalities, there is 

[ Page 1228 ]

considerably more going into marketing of the British Columbia resource than there was a few years ago. In fact, over the last two years, since the additional 2 percent hotel tax has come on stream, there has been an additional $15 million a year injected into the marketing component of B.C. tourism. This is not necessarily run by us, nor is this budget accountable to us. But this $15 million over the last two years, which promises to promote another $8 million to $10 million this year into the economy for marketing, is something that I intend to work closely with, to partner with -- like the Los Angeles experiment, where we took our message to the California population between San Diego and Santa Barbara -- to ensure that we are able to maximize the marketing dollars we do have. Careful partnering, careful cooperating and better negotiating with the private sector -- so that we can encourage them to pay perhaps a bit more of the marketing dollar -- and strategic planning are the components of what a marketing plan must look like and will look like.

It has been an interesting process to work with a very qualified, prize-winning and award-winning marketing staff; to rationalize, to pare down and to redirect marketing dollars to this point. I'm looking forward to doing that over the next year, when I think you will see a tighter marketing plan, when you will see a more strategic focus, and when you will see some real results -- I hope even statistical results, although these are very difficult to pull in -- on the effectiveness of our marketing.

C. Tanner: Just a comment on what the minister said. Attached to the report that we've both been quoting, the Business Council presentation, "Tourism-Hospitality Industries," and the fact that the minister is talking about the 2 percent hotel tax in both Vancouver and Victoria, is a note from Mr. Hiemstra and J.A. Ismail of the restaurant, hotel and institutional management department of Purdue University. It says that their study on the impact of a tax or rate increase on hotel occupancy showed that the number of rooms rented declines by 4.4 percent for every 10 percent increase in either room rates or taxes. While the minister might fob off on the industry the fact that she's got an income from the tourists themselves, the fact of the matter is that is probably doing as much harm as it is doing good. If not doing any harm, it's at least questionable.

If the minister was so concerned about the fact that in the past we've had six deputies and five ministers, and if the minister is so concerned about the fact that she couldn't cut in her own department because she needs to plan, why then...? And the gentleman sitting beside you, whose expertise I do not understand -- except the fact that he has had some experience within the political philosophy in the party that the minister is a member of -- what expertise does he bring to the department?

Hon. D. Marzari: I must say it has been a special privilege to work closely with Mr. Walsh over the last six months in his role as Deputy Minister of Tourism and Culture. Mr. Walsh brings to this role years of experience as a person who coordinates and integrates, who has organized ideas and concepts and pushed them through to implementation. Not only have I admired his ability to think things through carefully and strategically, as well as theoretically, but the industry, the ministry and his professional colleagues have found him to be a wealth of experience. He puts forward into practice his own philosophy of listening and taking careful note and waiting for the right moment to plan, integrate and put things into place. It's an ability I strongly admire and would look for in any senior administrator in any level of activity, government or whatever I would ever be in. It's a special privilege to work with Mr. Walsh, because we share the same values and can bring those values into a strategic planning process for a ministry that has been operating mechanically but not necessarily with a strategic plan.

C. Tanner: The minister, it seems to me, had two resources available as far as employment is concerned: (1) the industry itself, the nine tourist offices and the expertise that was out in the field working every day on the projects that had to be undertaken; and (2) the expertise within her department. It is not clear to me why she would do one of two things: either spend the money out in the field in those nine tourist regions -- which, incidentally, was promised in the platform of the NDP when they ran in this election.... It was the only firm promise they made as far as tourism is concerned; the others were all rhetoric as far as I'm concerned. That was a firm promise which she hasn't fulfilled. Why would she not spend money out there or, alternatively, promote to the position of deputy minister one of the people within her own department who've had the years of expertise of working within the department?

Hon. D. Marzari: I have said it publicly, and I'll say it in the House: the tourism associations in the nine regions are like gold. These nine tourism regions have evolved over the last number of years first, I would imagine, as voluntary organizations with the intent of promoting and marketing the beauties of their regions, then as non-profit associations basically working as nine separate entities marketing their region with provincial support. Now these nine regions are a multimillion-dollar operation as they coordinate with each other and with their own private sector partners to promote the attractions of their regions. These people and these associations are pure gold.

It was a grave concern to me that these associations might be cut, and it was a serious decision that I made to ensure that administratively these associations will continue to thrive for this budget year. The cuts to the actual administration of the nine regional associations were minor. The cuts to their marketing budgets were more substantial, based on a formula that they agreed with as we went through the process of discussing the limited budget that we had for marketing the regions.

[11:15]

It is now my priority for this budget year to ensure that these regions stay alive and healthy as marketing entities, and I hope ultimately as local economic development entities -- which is what they are. They are in the front trenches of doing economic develop-

[ Page 1229 ]

ment in their regions, and the fact that they don't have planners attached to them to write the formal reports is aside from the fact that they are economic planners in their regions.

It's important to me that they continue to thrive, and to that end we in the ministry have been working out, as best we can, partnership arrangements for some of these regions to work closely with other ongoing marketing activities. For example, in Victoria, Vancouver and the southwest -- as we call the Vancouver mainland and Sechelt -- we have been careful to try to promote the development of a transportation link between the south Island, Sechelt and Vancouver in a marketing program which will be broadcast down the west coast to California. The cost of that marketing program will be borne not just by the regions -- the southwest and the south Island -- but there will also be cost-sharing and partnership created with Tourism Vancouver and Tourism Victoria. In creating this new partnership, it is my hope that it will enrich all organizations, and that all organizations will be able to start thinking about doing joint planning down the line for joint marketing activity.

I believe thus far that the activity is working, that we are able to take and work with the broader community. The regions working with Tourism Victoria and Tourism Vancouver is the beginning of a new relationship which brings new money into the marketing field.

C. Tanner: The minister, of course, is obviously right when she talks about the gold. The gold is out there. The planners are inside, in the House I would think. This is the way I would visualize it. The gold of those people out in the regions is there, but how effective can they be if they haven't got a marketing plan, if they haven't got the money to implement a marketing plan? How effective are the planners in the department if every dollar they spend out there is not matched by the industry? In other words, not only have you cut their budget, but you had an opportunity to double every dollar you invested.

My way of handling that situation would have been to put the money out there and cut it in the department, because you don't need planning if you haven't got anything operating out in the field. I believe the minister is in error. We obviously have a difference of opinion. She carefully avoided answering my other question: why wasn't anybody promoted from within the department when you had all that expertise over many years that's been sitting there waiting, I suspect, to participate in the senior management of the department? Why didn't she promote one of those instead of bringing in somebody else?

Hon. D. Marzari: It is important, in considering together, if you will, the tourism component with the cultural component, that we have an ability to overview both. There are numbers of areas in which culture intersects and interacts with tourism. There are other areas in which they don't want to interact and perhaps shouldn't, but we have a real possibility of doing a great deal. There's a lot of synergy between tourism and culture. It was essential for this new ministry to have someone who could oversee both, and who could bring policy to bear and develop strategy through both with a business plan and some good common sense.

I must say that I have really appreciated and worked well with senior staff in both aspects and both halves of the ministry. We're developing a strategic planning body inside the ministry which will service both sides of the ministry. I think this is one of the most exciting things we're doing right now. But the role of deputy in that situation is one of strategic planner, of coordinator, of listener, of business planner, and that necessarily leaves those people in culture and tourism very much to work on culture and on tourism -- all able people working very ably in the areas of their expertise.

I believe, and believe very strongly, that it was necessary to bring a senior planner to the operation. I don't think you, as a small retailer, would bring in inventory but fire your store manager. That would simply not be good business planning. The whole essence of what we've got to do here is to bring the planning exercise into place and the business administration expertise expertise into place, bring the books into order and start ordering the inventory based on the cloth from which we have to cut.

C. Tanner: Madam Chair, I must tell the minister that I recently got fired. I was the planner and the manager, and I got thrown out of the job because I came here instead. I was replaced by somebody who has a great deal of experience, has been in the industry for some time and understands all aspects of the industry.

I guess the most frustrating thing for me personally, having been fired from that job and arriving at this one, is the fact that in my past political experience, I was a minister of health and had the opportunity to run a department. The most frustrating thing about being on this side of the House is that I just love to sharpen my teeth on your ministry, because I think what you've just described is your job, not the deputy's job. I think that's your job; you're the coordinator and the manager of the department, and they do what you instruct them to do, not what the deputy minister organizes and plans.

I don't think you need a deputy minister, quite frankly, because it's not that big a department. It's a very important one, but I don't think you even need a deputy minister. I think you had enough strong staff there already, and Mr. Walsh is superfluous. You could have saved yourself a few hundred thousand dollars right there, and he wouldn't be there if I had been minister, I'll tell you.

You still haven't answered the question as to why you made the decision to reduce the funds available to your regions and to the marketing plan and not make any similar decreases within the department. What you've said is that, in your opinion, that was the way to go and that you need people within the department for planning in the future. What I'm saying is -- and I'd like the minister to comment -- why not use the expertise who, as the minister admits, have been in the field for literally years, who understand the industry better than the majority of other people involved in the industry and who had the means to produce what I'm 

[ Page 1230 ]

saying could be revenue to the department and would have been in a cheaper fashion?

Hon. D. Marzari: I appreciate the member's confidence in my ability to be deputy. In fact, there are moments when I wish I was deputy. This is a small ministry and a very exciting ministry to be in, and it's very difficult not to get totally caught up in the day-to-day routines and planning that go on down to the smallest nuts and bolts in the ministry. That, however, is not my job.

My job is to represent my ministry politically out there in the community and in this House. The job of a deputy is to pull together strategic plans, to work well, to hire and fire staff and to pull together the best there is in the staff he or she works with.

It's very important to me that the strength of culture and the strength of tourism remain two separate strengths with some areas of intersection. That is the balance I believe we are in the process of achieving, so I appreciate your confidence in my ability. I would love the job some day down the line. I'll wait until two years after I leave the House.

I have made a political and a professional decision that I believe is the right one, and I believe the answer to your question is that this was a political, professional decision which placed a senior person, with good judgment, in the right position at the right time in the right ministry. I believe the future will attest to the results of that decision.

C. Tanner: I breathlessly await the results of that decision.

The minister misunderstood me. Far be it from me to say that she is or isn't competent; I said that I would like to be running the job. Give it four years; I probably will be, with any luck.

Since the deputy minister, in the minister's own words, was hired to fire and hire, could the minister tell us how many people he's hired and fired since he's been appointed?

Hon. D. Marzari: In the last six months there have been no firings, and there have been three hires.

C. Tanner: The most difficult job in any relationship -- as the minister and the deputy minister know -- is having to let staff go. As I'm sure the minister has done in her previous life as a small businessperson, I have had to do it many times, because of circumstances and for various business reasons.

In my view, the minister and her deputy are in error. Including the deputy, she's increased the number of internal staff by four, and she has done nothing to support those important people in the regions, whom she described as gold. It's the regions that you should be supporting financially. They do their work for a lot less than people within the ministry, I suspect. You should be supporting the regions, not increasing the number of staff within the ministry.

Could the minister tell me what those three positions that were hired were and whether she anticipates any more within the budget year?

Hon. D. Marzari: The staff that the deputy has been responsible for hiring in the last six months have basically been to structure the deputy minister's office, to give the deputy minister the administrative support he needs and to liaise, communicate and carry on the ongoing nature of the deputy minister's work. It's a small deputy minister's office, I might add, and one that is proving to be very effective.

While I'm on my feet, can I introduce to the House Mr. Ad van Haaften, on my left, who is the assistant deputy minister on the tourism side of the ministry.

C. Tanner: Just so the minister and her staff can be prepared and so we have some order in the conversation, my intention is to talk about tourism, culture and heritage, in that order. I'd like to spend the rest of this morning talking about the general run of the department. We'll get down to specifics this afternoon -- should we be allowed to continue this afternoon, because there seems to be some doubt as to whether we'll be here this afternoon. We will shuffle it backwards and forwards between us, I'm sure.

I should also mention that members on my side of the House will be interrupting me from time to time to bring their specific concerns, so we might be all over the map a little bit in some areas. As the Minister of Highways commented when he was up, we covered the whole province about three times. I think you can plan on you and me doing it about nine times.

Would the minister tell me the amount of funding this year for Partners in Tourism? How much is it, and how does it compare to last year?

[11:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: The numbers around Partners in Tourism have not been finally formulated for this year's budget, but as soon as they are prepared, I will ensure that the member gets them.

C. Tanner: Is there any likelihood that we can have them before...?

Hon. D. Marzari: Actually, there's a process of discussion going on with the regions, and I would not want to push that consultation in order to have a pretty number for the House -- or a not-pretty number for the House. So I cannot assure the member that we'll have the number by the time our estimates are over, but I will certainly ensure that the second the final conclusions have been reached around distribution of the dollars, the member will receive them.

C. Tanner: Moving ahead a little, it would be advantageous to me, in questioning the minister when we come to the cultural affairs part of her portfolio, to know whether her department has a list of the people who received grants last year.

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, there most definitely is a list of people who received grants last year. I will ensure that the member receives that, if they're not already in the Public Accounts which has been published.

[ Page 1231 ]

C. Tanner: My understanding is they're not within the Public Accounts. When I inquired of the minister's department, they weren't available to me. It was explained to us that they were still being compiled.

The reason I ask the question now is that I will need those grants to adequately criticize or praise the department for what they're going to do next year.

How would the minister describe her role in the Partners in Tourism? How would she describe their role within the department?

Hon. D. Marzari: The Partners in Tourism program is the corporate sector that contributes to and shares in the marketing dollars that take our message out to the world. The partners are not necessarily a cohesive unit -- an association, so to speak. They are individual corporations which our ministry confers and consults with and tries to get a good deal from. Mr. Ad van Haaften has many years of experience in making these good deals. This year he will be under special pressure to make those deals even better.

In other words, where we might have looked for 50-50 partnerships with corporations such as airlines or supermarkets, we might now be looking to 60-40 or even 70-30 partnerships, because both partners in the relationship gain from being able to play off each other. It's important for an airline to be able to talk about B.C.; it's important for B.C. to be able to advertise through an airline in Chicago.

C. Tanner: When the minister is talking about 60-40 or 70-30, who's the 60 and who's the 70?

Hon. D. Marzari: Would the member please repeat the question?

C. Tanner: The minister talked about relationships with their Partners in Tourism in which there will be agreements of 60 and 40 percent and 70 and 30 percent. Who does the minister view as the 70 and 60 percent participant in those relationships?

Hon. D. Marzari: The other party.

C. Tanner: Good luck. I would see it as the other way around. If you want to get the best out of those Partners in Tourism, the government should be prepared to invest their dollars at the very minimum equal to the partner, hopefully more so, because that's public money being put to good use to bring more money into the revenue source for this government. Why does the minister think that she can negotiate agreements with Partners in Tourism where they're going to pay more than 50 percent of their share?

Hon. D. Marzari: The tourism operators still get 40 cents on the dollar from the government. There's a great advantage in going a slightly different route to all the partners concerned. Our job now is to see if we can push a better deal on our marketing dollar.

What makes me think it can be done? I'm a negotiator, and my assistant deputy minister is a very strong and a very good negotiator who's going to be protecting taxpayer dollars in a private-public partnership scheme. That level of tenacity that I've seen displayed over the last number of months will be well put in a negotiating scenario.

C. Tanner: Good luck, Madam Minister. You've got a tough row to hoe with that one.

You did, however, mention a few minutes ago the relationship of travel between Victoria, Vancouver and the Sunshine Coast. Maybe the minister should be looking more at agreements that include more than one partner. That was what I expected to hear from the minister -- where you can include a hotel, an airline and the government, where each participates to the extent of a third, or where you've got a fourth party, a travel agent, and each devotes 25 percent. That would be far more reasonable. I can tell the minister and her senior advisers that they're going to have a very difficult task with the economy as it is today in an industry that is reeling under too much taxation and too much competition, and that they're going to be hard pressed to find any more money than a maximum of 50 percent from the Partners in Tourism.

Hon. D. Marzari: The fact is that this is happening now. In our convention markets there are up to seven partners operating together and putting their money on the table to take the message. My assistant deputy has just informed me that in our Japan market, where we are doing awareness marketing, we are there with six partners. So what we're doing is basically taking the public dollar -- the tax dollar -- and stretching it to its maximum point. We're levering our dollars as wisely as we possibly can. And this is happening, too, with our partners in the nine regions. They are going to be asked, and they will be levering their dollars as best as they possibly can as well.

C. Tanner: I commend the minister. In fact, what you've done is exactly what I suggest. If you can get six times your investment, then obviously you are operating well. I commend you. Please keep it up. Maybe this time next year, when you come back and tell us what's going on in your department, you will tell us you've got ten times.... If you can, I'll finally appreciate some of your senior bureaucrats that I wanted to dismiss so easily just a little earlier on.

Madam Minister, I'm going to defer to my hon. friend here.

L. Hanson: I'd like to get a little clarification of the Partners in Tourism program. By the way, minister, I have received the same letters that I believe my colleague has, or at least a large number of letters, concerned about the lack of funding for tourism promotion. I think I heard the minister say that of the $10 million now allocated to tourism marketing, there hadn't yet been a budget set for that portion of that budget for the Partners in Tourism.

Hon. D. Marzari: That portion of the budget is still being finalized, and consultation is still going on. If it is available before the end of these estimates, it will 

[ Page 1232 ]

certainly be put on the floor. At the moment of conclusion of consultation, the member will certainly receive copies of the result.

L. Hanson: If I understand that correctly, then you have set aside an amount of $10 million, compared to $13.6 million last year, and haven't as yet allocated what that is specifically for.

Hon. D. Marzari: The consultation process around the allocation of marketing dollars to the nine regions started immediately after the budget. In fact, it was at six o'clock on the morning we did our Supply bill estimate that I flew to breakfast with the partners and the regional groups to talk to them directly, one on one, about the cuts. We have yet to come to a conclusion about the marketing dollars to be invested through and with the groups. This will happen imminently, but it must be said to the member that the administrative structures of those nine regions are very important to me as a minister and to the ongoing nature of any job that's to be done in our province for promotion. Those administrative structures -- the directors and their offices -- are not suffering major cutbacks. They are being maintained to the best of our ability within our marketing budget. They will be maintained, and they are doing their jobs. But the absolute number of dollars has not yet been ascertained.

L. Hanson: I'm still a bit confused. The $10 million is not totally allocated to Partners in Tourism; it's allocated to other programs. You have allocated an amount out of the $10 million to the Partners in Tourism program, but you haven't specifically allocated an amount to each region. What I'm trying to understand is that last year.... I think you should be able to provide the figure of what was spent last year on the Partners in Tourism. While I know you haven't allocated specific amounts to specific regions as yet, it seems to me that you would have allocated an amount out of the $10 million that was going to go into the Partners of Tourism but as yet have not decided on the distribution of it.

Hon. D. Marzari: In answer to the question as to how much was expended last year with the partners, it was 3.8 million marketing dollars. If we were to take an across-the-board cut on that program, it would look something like $2.6 million; that would be a 30 percent cut this year. However, the allocations to the individual regions have not been confirmed -- final negotiations have not been conducted at this point -- although we have encouraged the boards to move on with some of their spring planning and spring advertising.

We strongly believe in these boards. Nothing is going to touch the hairs on their heads. We're going to make sure, however, that the marketing budgets that they do end up working with are properly developed and that there is complete consultation in this difficult process. It's not as easy as saying that $2.6 million will be allocated. The overall global figure which will be worked with by the partners has not yet been fully ascertained. It's not an easy process, but it is a process of reasonable good will and negotiation, and we're doing that now.

L. Hanson: I also support the administrations of these various regions. They have done an excellent job in the promotion of tourism. But if I understood what you just told me, last year the global budget for the Partners in Tourism was $3.8 million, and this year the global budget is $2.6 million.

Interjection.

L. Hanson: Well, if you're considering the contribution of the organizations, then I understand what you're saying; I'm afraid I don't understand if the government contribution to those organizations might or might not be $2.6 million. I'm not sure I support it, but it's perfectly understandable for the minister to want to negotiate the best leverage that she possibly can with the $2.6 million. If I read that correctly, you are attempting to get an understanding with the various regions that rather than sharing on a 50-50 basis, they might be sharing on a 60-40 or a 70-30 basis. Therefore the global budget for the Partners in Tourism program could increase considerably. It seems to me that you would not know what portion of your $10 million budget that you have in the Ministry of Tourism will be allocated to the government's share of the Partners in Tourism program.

[11:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: It's not as simple as sitting down with a black felt pen and saying: "You over there get $2.6 million and you over here get $3 million." The business of balancing a marketing budget has everything to do from promoting the local motel and the 34 beds it might have through to attracting visitors with very specific information about British Columbia in what we call the long-haul market around the United States and through Europe.... Then the overseas market, the Pacific Rim marketing, has an entirely different function and entirely different relationship with partners -- an entirely different flavour.

So each one impinges on the other; each one of them has to be reasonably planned. And yes, I am saying -- and I'm not ashamed of saying it -- that right now we are consulting with Partners in Tourism, and I'm not prepared to put an arbitrary number before this House before those consultations are complete.

I must say that in the process, people are not being held up. They are being encouraged to engage in spring programming and marketing activities. It is a process of consultation. It is the price of the value that I feel consultation has, even when we're dealing with fewer dollars, and we will continue that consultation in good faith, with good will, with those people that we all respect and admire for what they've done with very few dollars over the years. And we will adjust and balance that with the implications it has for our long-range and overseas marketing budgets.

L. Hanson: A final question, I suppose, and I will then return it to my colleague.

[ Page 1233 ]

The $10.1 million that you have allocated to tourism marketing must have been based on some plan that you had. If everything is as flexible as I understand some things have to be, then how did you arrive at the $10.1 million?

Hon. D. Marzari: The $10.1 million, which reduced Tourism's marketing budget from some $13 million last year, was a direct result of a budgeting process which this government engaged in to avoid dealing with the largest deficit this province has ever faced, a deficit which was not of our making, a deficit which had to be addressed, a deficit which if we had not addressed it would have seriously impacted on our credit rating, our credibility and our relationship with taxpayers in this province.

How did we arrive at $10.1 million for marketing? Through a very arduous process in Treasury Board and cabinet, which basically said that we had a mess to clean up. And we are cleaning it up: $10.1 million. This is a price that this government is paying for shoddy and slipshod operations in the past. Every time I hear about wasted money in past administrations and think about the value of these tourism marketing dollars, it makes my blood boil.

However, the $10.1 million figure was reached through a reasonable process of budgeting, given the time and the deficit. I will stand by that $10.1 million. I will make it work; I will make it smarter; I will focus it better, with some very competent people in the ministry. And I think you'll find that tourism strategic planning will only improve over time.

L. Hanson: I had suggested that that was the last question, but I guess I'd like to know from the minister, in this mess that she's inherited, where the mess was in the Tourism ministry. Secondly, because of the situation that has been publicized so well by the members of the government, I know that this minister will be a supporter of doing this exact same analysis process about six months before the next election, so the measurement of what has happened in the past will also be available.

Hon. D. Marzari: Well, if we're talking about some of the things that were left for this ministry and other related ministries to clean up, I can only point to Music '91, which spent somewhere between $21 million and $28 million, which benefited neither the cultural industry not the tourism industry of this province, which was engaged upon with some kind of whimsical political plan and which ended up as a bunch of American entertainers coming up to sing in parking-lots and shopping malls.

Now that we've got about eight, nine or even ten studies done from the comptroller general to the auditor general telling us that Music '91 served nobody's interests in this province, with a total expenditure of $21 to $28 million, double to triple the amount of dollars going into the marketing budget for tourism, when I think of it, it is more than one can possibly support. So Music '91, if I may say so, has been replaced by "Face the Music '92," and that's what we're doing right now.

C. Tanner: I'm with the minister on Music '91, by the way. The minister has pinpointed a problem in the regions. It's precisely because they haven't got the budgets -- and the fact that a few of them choked on the breakfast the minister went to after she finished in the House that morning so early -- that we're creating a problem out there right now. They need the money now. They need a plan now, because they need to plan for the immediate future and for the coming season. When can the minister expect to have something for the regions that they can start to work with?

Hon. D. Marzari: We will have something immediately after consultation is over. It is not us that's saying we're not consulting; it's simply a process of negotiation we're both going through right now. There's no bad guy-good guy in this scenario. It's simply a process of discussion that's going on with numbers that nobody particularly likes. But we're doing it, and as I say, we're doing it with reasonable good will and good faith. This House will know the outcome of those consultations the second they're done. I will ensure that the member receives the complete breakdown, both the global budget and the Partners in Tourism budget.

At this point, Madam Chair, I would ask that the committee rise and report progress.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply A, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Clark moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:55 a.m.

[ Page 1234 ]

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; D. Streifel in the chair.

The committee met at 10:09 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

On vote 13: minister's office, $282,139 (continued).

R. Chisholm: Continuing with the Agricultural Land Commission, we have about half a dozen more questions and then we'll go into agriculture policies.

One question I'd like to ask is: with the Stephen Owen commission and the ALC, what is the relationship between these two commissions going to be? Will one be ruling, and one be advising, or what?

Hon. B. Barlee: It will be a cooperative venture. There's consultation going on between Mr. Owen's office, the Agricultural Land Commission and the ministry in general. I think that's the correct way to go, and we concur with that.

R. Chisholm: I take it that the Owen commission will not have any powers to make rulings; it's just going to be advising the ALC.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, this is still under the aegis of the ALC.

R. Chisholm: Will the commission have any affect in changes to the ALC and in any changes the ALC has planned with grading and stock-taking of the land? Will they be involved in this scenario?

Hon. B. Barlee: The present process under the Agricultural Land Commission is a redefining process. There is considerable consultation with the various communities involved, as you know. We have an overview of what the commission's responsibilities are essentially, and we discussed that at considerable length. Essentially they are on a fairly narrow sort of scope, in that they regard the land not entirely from one aspect, but generally for its impact upon the agricultural community.

[10:15]

R. Chisholm: I noticed there is only one name on the list of people representing the ALC on the Owen commission, and that is the secretarial position. Is there anybody else there to consult with or to be appointed to that commission?

Hon. B. Barlee: There is only one individual from our commission.

R. Chisholm: As we've discussed previously, due to pressure on land from urban development, this government needs a plan. What I need to know is what the government is going to do about grading land and stock-taking of land. We've discussed this before, but we've never actually answered the question.

Hon. B. Barlee: The present process is adequate. I don't say it's perfect, but it's adequate. Certainly there is consultation with the various communities, the ministerial districts and the cities involved. I believe that it is a process that has worked quite well. If you examine the background of some decisions made by the Agricultural Land Commission over the last 16 or 17 years, you will find that there has been some give and take. I mentioned the other day that there were 72 applications made to take golf courses out of the ALR. Out of those 72, 64 percent were allowed. That was prior to 1988, so it's prior to OIC 1141. Those 64 percent were allowed, basically because they did not impact upon the capability of the agricultural land reserve. That's the right way to go. The commission is not so narrow that they don't see other areas as well. That's a typical example.

R. Chisholm: I've noticed, hon. minister, that a lot of mushroom farms, turkey farms and that type of operation have been appearing on the Fraser Valley floor and in other areas of the province. I'm just wondering why these operations could not be on higher ground, off the fertile land. There's absolutely no reason that I can see why they bury them in cement.

Hon. B. Barlee: The answer is fairly obvious: that is one of the areas where this is allowed in ALR land. Those individuals own that particular piece of land. I don't think that a particular farmer would appreciate going into the higher areas when he owns 20, 30 or 40 acres on the lower land. It is a permissible sort of activity there.

R. Chisholm: In my final statement I would like to read a letter to the minister. It is from one of those farmers and is about the ALR and its purpose, and some of his ideas.

"By 1996, 40 million acres of farmland in the U.S. may start coming back into production. This is a government program created in 1985 called the conservation reserve. In 1985 the U.S. rural economy was mired in deep depression, with bulging grain stocks and soaring farm bankruptcies. A program was created which paid growers to idle farmlands for ten years.

"The purpose of the program was to cut crop production while protecting farm income. The program's cost is $1.8 billion a year. Nationwide, the reserve may have increased grain prices 10 to 15 percent. The National Grain Trade Council has complained that between the conservation reserve and other programs, the U.S. idled 63 million acres of land last year -- far more than its competitors in world markets.

"Current government farm programs now force growers to retire so much land that they cannot increase production of one crop without cutting back production of another. When this land comes back into production, grain prices will fall, and farmers will switch to other crops and those prices will fall. Overproduction occurs as well.

[ Page 1235 ]

"Canada has no way to protect the Canadian farmers from these price fluctuations, and we, as producers, will bear the cost of falling prices as the overproduction is dumped on world markets. The next time someone states that agricultural land has to be preserved for food production, ask them who is going to preserve the farmer."

I suggest that he is in the right area, and that maybe we should start thinking about how we are going to preserve the farmer. If you read the newspapers these days, you'll see more of it every day.

At this point I'll turn it over to a few people that have a couple of questions.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, I think that individual's comments are generally shortsighted. He refers to the U.S. tendency to set aside lands. This is called a set-aside land policy. It is not unique to the United States; it is happening right around the world. This set-aside policy is happening in the common market. It's their way of approaching a problem that's been with them for many years: the great surpluses produced by the United States, specifically in the midwest. These withdrawn lands may come back into production.

However, I don't find the other part of the argument very compelling. The latter part of the argument is flawed. First of all, I believe that we have to have our own independent source of food supply. We have no question about that at all. That is the reason the agricultural land reserve is there. The ALR is not unique to British Columbia. It happens in every advanced society in the world. Where it has not happened, those societies have suffered. There are a number of reasons they suffer. It impacts not just upon the farmer or our food supply, and it doesn't just impact economically. Remember, when we are creating farm dollars, they tend to stay in the province -- whether it's British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario or Quebec. These are Canadian-made dollars. They tend to stay at home, partly because the farms are about 90 percent owned by British Columbians. This is an extremely important part of our economic package. He says: "We have to preserve the farmland." We're doing that, generally.

I elaborated on this the other day. There's only one agricultural ministry in Canada that has shown a consistent 3 to 5 percent growth year by year through good and bad years -- British Columbia. It is partly because we have diversification that they don't have in other provinces. We have 175 different sector commodities in British Columbia. These 175 choices give us the ability to look for opportunities and options that they don't have in Ontario, Alberta and New Brunswick. We're well positioned. We have to look down the line into the twenty-first century, as I've alluded to before, and say that this land is important to preserve. I mentioned the other day that if we have 20 acres, we try to preserve one acre. That's all -- only 5 percent of the land in British Columbia. It deserves protection.

K. Jones: I'd like to talk about specific areas in my riding of Surrey-Cloverdale, with regard to the ALR. Firstly, I wonder if the minister could give us some background on the decisions made on those which would be kept within the ALR and those which would be taken out -- that is, golf course applications that would be taken out and those that would be allowed to proceed, specifically in the Surrey-Cloverdale area.

Hon. B. Barlee: The rules are all the same, first of all. There were 102 applications before the Agricultural Land Commission. Out of those 102 applications, 60 were disallowed and 42 were allowed to proceed. Some of those 42 impacted upon good farmland, but I think the rules drawn up were fairly logical. Those individuals who were allowed to proceed -- with certain reservations, and I'll qualify those -- had to go through third reading at municipal council, or were in areas where they did not require that approval. Those 42 went through, but there were some provisions. One of the provisions was that there must not be transferability, except within the immediate family. In other words, we don't want speculators flipping that land. We cannot prevent handshake or under-the-table deals, but they would be taking a terrific chance with a handshake deal; in some instances there are millions of dollars at stake. We think we're fairly well protected on that.

Secondly, those courses that are allowed to proceed must be substantially finished within two years -- that is, as of April 6, 1992. By April 6, 1994, they must be substantially finished. This is essentially a safeguard against the difference between a developer and a speculator. I don't think the member for Surrey-Cloverdale would have any difficulty agreeing with me there. We think that some of the speculators may have been taking advantage of a loophole in the law, which was order-in-council 1141. We think that the safeguards we've written in are generally advantageous to the population of the province.

K. Jones: Thank you for that overview. We have a lot of concern that in some cases the properties were not farmable and were ascertained by the Agricultural Land Commission as being in that category, but their application for a golf course was still turned down because of some problem that occurred. One application which was well advanced before council didn't proceed, while a project which came on later did get advanced through council.

There seems to be some problem about what can be protected as agricultural land. Areas identified by your own commission as not suitable for agricultural land are being turned down, and the person is being forced to continue in some form of agriculture. I'm talking specifically of the Hillside farm being identified as not farmable. The commission has encouraged the person to proceed with another application even after that had been cancelled. Could you give us some explanation for the policy in this regard?

Hon. B. Barlee: It is standard procedure that if one of those golf courses is not allowed to proceed, they can appeal -- or reapply, in other words. Any golf course can do that, whether or not it's on prime land. I pretty well covered this in my original answer to the member for Chilliwack. Between 1973 and 1988, 72 individuals applied to have golf courses taken out of the 

[ Page 1236 ]

agricultural land reserve. Out of those 72 applications, 64 percent were allowed to proceed. That was land that did not impact significantly upon the capability of the agricultural scene in that area. It was probably class 5 or class 6 land.

We have literally hundreds of thousands of parcels of land, so I don't know Hillside from the others. But I would assume that the playing-field was level for all of them, and they may reapply if they wish. I think the indications were there prior to order-in-council 1141. We inherited a bit of a mess in 1141. This was the thin edge of the wedge that allowed some speculators to dip into agricultural land reserves. That's why it was cancelled, and we think justifiably so. Otherwise, we'd probably be facing another 100 golf courses that would have come down the line between November and now. If I had been a prudent speculator -- which I'm not -- I would have made sure that this had gone through the readings in council. After all, there are so-called developers -- and they had lots of time; some had several years -- who never did get to council. What were they doing? Were they speculating or were they developing? I would imagine they were doing the former. I haven't a great deal of sympathy for them, to be quite candid.

K. Jones: Mr. Minister, I'd just like to clarify your impressions. Hillside farm has been a working farm; it's been held in the family for 40 years or more. It is at a point where they found it difficult to farm because of the situation. They've got a worm infestation; they've got clay problems. It was identified by the commission as not being a good farm facility, recommended for removal and made available for golf courses. It had gone to council and already received second reading approval; it did not have third reading at that point. That was the case they were stuck in.

[10:30]

They are at the point of near bankruptcy because of the fact that they have been given an assurance that they should be able to proceed with golf courses. They have been doing it on an individual basis -- not as a developer and not as a speculator, but as a person who has found -- as many farmers are finding -- that it is not viable for them to continue farming under the present conditions. Your own commission has looked at the possibilities of making it a viable farm, I presume, because it's made the recommendation that it should proceed as a golf course. They have now been turned down. They are in a very difficult situation.

They went to the commission, and they were encouraged to reapply. On what basis are you going to make the determination on their new application? Or are they just being led on? I think my constituent needs to have a fair and honest answer, so they don't go into further expenditures with no hope of actually accomplishing anything.

The Chair: Hon. members, before we proceed with this, just a point of clarification. In debate on supply, we are to restrict ourselves to the administration of the minister's office, according to standing order 61. Perhaps if I read it, it would aid in the questioning and aid the Chair in determining whether we are in order here: "Only the administrative action of a department is open to debate but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply, nor the conduct of certain high public servants nor the decision of a judicial court." If we would bear that in mind as we approach our questions and answers, it would aid the Chair.

Hon. B. Barlee: I have in the province of British Columbia probably many thousands of parcels of land that want to be withdrawn from the agricultural land reserves. Essentially you are saying that Hillside farms farmed that piece of property for 40 years. I assume they did that relatively successfully. There is, of course, a considerable difference between the price of farmland in the Fraser Valley and the price of developing land in the Fraser Valley.

I find it very hard to believe -- in fact, if they have been, it's a first for the Agricultural Land Commission -- that they were encouraged. I think they were advised that they were allowed to reapply. There's a difference between "encouraged" and "advised," and I think it's "advised." It doesn't mean that the commission issued a letter, and they had no choice. It does not mean that they supported the golf course. In fact, I think it is probably the exact opposite.

This individual applied under OIC 1141, which we had been on record as saying that we would rescind -- which we did. We still allowed people who had got along well in the process -- gone to third reading, or did not require third reading -- to proceed. I think it was even-handed; I believe it was fair-minded. I realize that there are some individuals who are very annoyed about this. They have my regrets. That's too bad, but it will certainly not change the law. But they are allowed to proceed, under the law as it now stands, to reapply.

K. Jones: Further on this, immediately adjoining Hillside farms, which was a dairy farm operation -- it has become uneconomical to be in the dairy business in that area, because of various factors in the industry -- your ministry has approved an application that came in later than this one, before the process.... It was before the commission much later and before council later, but it was given quick approval by council -- third and even fourth reading in a rather clandestine meeting. Perhaps there's some concern there.

This other adjoining property is much larger. I believe it's a 36-hole golf course instead of an 18-hole golf course. It comes through, I believe, a much more substantial agricultural area. It has great housing potential, or certainly adjoining properties have had a great increase in value as a result of it. I'm trying to find out why that one would have gotten approval whereas this other would not have gotten approval. I don't thing that to stand on the basis that it was the council's decision is adequate. The ministry has the mandate to protect agricultural lands, not to provide for the massive removal of agricultural land for a golf course that seems to have some favour. I don't know who it has favour with, but it seems to be getting preferential treatment over another one that has been in the process 

[ Page 1237 ]

for a much longer period. Can you explain what's going on?

Hon. B. Barlee: I don't know what's going on with the councils in your area. I think you'd be more conversant with that than I am.

K. Jones: It's not a council problem.

Hon. B. Barlee: You said that they've perhaps received some favour. They certainly do not receive any favour from the Agricultural Land Commission. They have nothing to do with first readings, second readings or third readings; that is up to the individual developer or speculator. I would assume that they were not very prudent.

I haven't the faintest idea why they didn't get it through the council process. I do know that we do not interfere in that process. They were allowed to proceed, by law, since June 30, 1988. If they did not get it through their own local council, that's too bad. But certainly we cannot do anything about it, nor should we.

K. Jones: Of the agricultural land that is being required for the Northview golf course, could you tell us what percentage will be within the ALR?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly I do not have the percentages of class 1, 2 and 3 land for all 102 golf courses -- which encompass around 20,000 acres -- at my fingertips. They would be available from the Agricultural Land Commission, and a quick call to their office would rectify that. But I certainly don't know exactly what the percentages are. I think it would be a mix of land: probably 2 and 3, right down to about 5 or 6.

K. Jones: The senior official from the Agricultural Land Commission, who is sitting behind you, should be able to provide you with that information, hon. minister. Surely you are playing games here. Does the minister's staff not know what's going on? Do they not have proper records with them?

Hon. B. Barlee: Yes, we do have the records. They are in the Agricultural Land Commission office. If the member so wishes, we can get those figures back to him in due course -- not now, of course.

K. Jones: Could you give us an approximate idea, so that we can have some idea of the impact of that proposal while we're having this discussion? I want to find out whether or not you are truly taking responsibility under the clause to protect farmland. I'm talking about policy here.

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we are talking policy. We have made our stance on this very clear, in that we cancelled OIC 1141. Most of the member's party agreed with that. They felt that this was a flawed process and that it allowed individuals to take land out of the agricultural land reserve that should not be taken out. We came in halfway through the process and managed to keep some of that land within the agricultural land reserve.

As far as the specifics on each individual golf course, I do not have those at my fingertips, and I don't think I should be expected to. We are looking at a broad-based concept for the twenty-first century and what we think we should be doing. We are trying to protect that land, and we are trying not to alienate it. I think that the member probably is aware of that.

As far as the specifics on individual golf courses are concerned, I do not have those figures in front of me. It would require some hours of research to get all the details.

K. Jones: From what you've just said to us, there seems to be some inconsistency in the application of what was a very good concept. There seems to be a great deal of inequity as to whether individuals are being treated fairly and whether the true farmers are being treated appropriately -- versus developers and speculators. That's where the concern is.

Hon. B. Barlee: You're talking about an individual who wants to withdraw his land from the agricultural land reserve. He has been a true farmer for 40 years, and evidently he does not want to be a true farmer now. That perhaps places him in another category. He was operating on exactly the same playing-field as everyone else -- all 102 golf courses; they all had the same rules. The legislation was made the same so we would not be playing favourites; we do not play favourites.

We did not want this land to be alienated from the agricultural land reserve. We inherited a bit of a mess, and we didn't appreciate it. We did what we could to rescind OIC 1141, which, I think, was the right move. Some of the golf courses escaped through the net because they were substantially completed; others had passed third reading. Why this individual did not pass third reading really does not have very much to do with the Agricultural Land Commission. Remember that that law has been in effect since 1988; it's now 1992, so they had ample time. We're certainly not about to make fish out of one and fowl out of another. We cannot make exceptions to the rule.

F. Gingell: Farmers in Delta tell me that a lot of money has been spent recently on studies there. They suggested that it's as much as $400,000. They are concerned that nothing will result. If nothing does result, they would rather that the money was spent on ditching, drainage and irrigation -- major items on their agenda. Mr. Minister, would you acknowledge receipt of the Delta agricultural study -- they're not sure that you have received it -- and that it will be considered in future policy, planning and programs of your ministry.

[10:45]

Hon. B. Barlee: We have been in contact with the Delta council, of course. We had quite a long meeting with them about four or five weeks ago, attended by the mayor and alderpersons in that particular area. The last 

[ Page 1238 ]

major study -- the one that you hold there -- cost $50,000, I believe, which was significant but not anywhere near $400,000. Perhaps the $400,000 figure comes from a succession of studies done by the council and other groups that are very concerned about the situation in Delta. Certainly there should be some ditching there; there should be some drainage continued in the area. We have certain funds set aside, not strictly applying to Delta, but all over the province. By the way, as for irrigation and drainage and so on, we have an ARDSA replacement in Delta. We're making some strides in that area, but the last major study was actually $50,000.

F. Gingell: This study identifies the problem of farmers and farms that are adjacent to, surrounded by and stifled by urban development. Does your ministry recognize that having an agricultural land reserve carries a far wider responsibility than just stopping subdivision and development of quality farmland? As I understand it, the Agricultural Land Commission has no mandate to improve or enhance agricultural land. I believe that the agricultural land reserve requires your ministry to be supportive -- proactive where necessary -- to ensure that farmers can operate, compete and appropriately prosper in the agricultural community. Would you comment on that, please?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think we both realize that agriculture is a form of business. Most of the farmers in British Columbia do well. There are some exceptions because of the type of land they're on, the area they're in, the crop they're growing and so on. For instance, the vegetable growers are not doing very well for a number of reasons; we all know the reasons. As a ministry, we are looking for other options, such as some replacement crops. We're looking forward on that. Certainly we realize that the agricultural land in an area like Delta has other values. It has value as a greenbelt; it has tourism values; it has a number of other values. However, that does not specifically come under the aegis of the ALC. The ALC simply looks at the land value, and that's all it's supposed to look at. Perhaps our ministry has to take a larger look at other values as well: where they tie in economically, socially and so on.

F. Gingell: The farmland in Delta is among the best in Canada. It is high-quality land. An important issue in Delta is, of course, the Roberts Bank backup lands: 4,212 acres of prime farmland. In total, with the Roberts Bank backup lands, the greenbelt lands and a third category, where the road ends and various little bits.... The province owns 23 percent of the agricultural land in Delta. The farmers whose land was expropriated for the Roberts Bank backup lands, many of whom are still farming the land under lease, are concerned about their tenancy in the long-term situation. They are concerned that the provincial government has not clearly and unequivocally dedicated the land to agriculture. Would your ministry please plead and work for the transfer of the administration of that land to your ministry from B.C. Crown Lands? It's a very important issue.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very good question. Certainly those 4,200 acres are still under the aegis of the Agricultural Land Commission, because they are in the ALR. Numerous groups are eyeing that land. I feel, as the member does, that it is not only among the best land in Canada, it is the best land in Canada. Certainly it is class 1 -- a very high-quality class 1. I think that 4,200 acres should be kept in perpetuity.

We are concerned about it; we are negotiating now. Roberts Bank is extremely important in our overall long-term look at agricultural land in the lower mainland, and is probably the most important parcel. That has not escaped us. We've had ongoing discussions about it with both the council and other branches of government. I think that 4,200 acres is seen as one of the prime areas to be preserved in the province.

F. Gingell: I'm encouraged. When you successfully negotiate this and the land comes under your ministry's administration, or until that point while they remain under the jurisdiction of Crown Lands, would you please press for Crown Lands to consider giving the farmers non-cancellable lifetime leases? At the moment, basically all of this land is leased under 20-year lease arrangements, with rent renegotiated every five years. That is fine, and there are no problems with that. The problem is that the Crown can, at any time, cancel the lease. This discourages good agricultural practices -- for the farmers to reinvest in good soil management practices. When they are concerned about tenure, they aren't going to be reinvesting soil quality when they could lose it all. This is a big issue with them.

Hon. B. Barlee: Unfortunately this is a Gordian knot. If we were to allow those farmers who are presently leasing on a 20-year non-cancellable lease basis.... Every government sooner or later is no longer government. We'll say 15 years down the road -- is that a fairly good guess?

An Hon. Member: I was going to say three.

Hon. B. Barlee: I knew I would elicit some comments from various sides of the room. Well, we'll be generous. We'll say that ten years down the road we are no longer government. If they then faced another government who would take a different attitude toward the Delta land and turned it over to Crown Lands permanently, they would have a marvellous case for compensation, which would undoubtedly cost the province millions and millions of dollars. That's why the possibility of going into a non-cancellable lease would be fraught with some peril, economically -- not because I don't trust my own ministry; not because I don't trust my own government. Perhaps down the line we might not be so assured of the future of that land.

F. Gingell: We have to find a solution. I'm sure that there is some better way, because reinvestment in good soil management practices is more important. I would support this government if they were to take some action that would cause the land to stay in agricultural use.

[ Page 1239 ]

Another issue with respect to all Delta farmland is property taxes. I'd like to propose to you that you make a proposal to the minister responsible for the B.C. Assessment Authority that consideration of the terms of the lease on agricultural land be taken into account in arriving at values for tax purposes. If there were a long-term non-cancellable lease, it is obviously agriculture and should be assessed for property tax purposes as agriculture. If the lease is short-term or cancellable on short notice, the land is obviously speculative. Perhaps there is some means of getting the message out that land held for speculation purposes in the agricultural land reserve will be valued higher for property tax purposes.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a fairly good point. We would probably concur that one-year leases are not long enough. Twenty-year leases may be long enough, but one-year leases may not be. We're having some discussions with the other ministries concerning this.

Secondly, concerning farm management, the member has probably realized that in my budget this year we have $100,000 for farm management, plus another $500,000 we can access from the federal government, for a total of $600,000, which is a step in the right direction. We always need more for farm management, as you well know. Any business needs more for management, but we have realized that this is a problem, not just in Delta but in other parts of the province. We've devoted certain funds, and rather significant funds, that impact upon farm management. We do realize that some of those farmers are in a bit of a difficult spot, in that they would like a longer lease. We're quite aware of that.

F. Gingell: Would your ministry ask the Agricultural Land Commission to review the report on the agricultural significance of Burns Bog for cranberry and blueberry operations and production? Ask them to report on the potential for, and the implications of, the inclusion of Burns Bog in the agricultural land reserve.

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, as you know, there are number of studies on Burns Bog. The ALC is evaluating those now to see what its potential is and whether or not it should be included in the agricultural land reserve.

[11:00]

F. Gingell: Or whether or not parts of it should be, because there's a whole raft on the southern side that should be.

Reading Hansard reports of the earlier parts of this question, I realize this subject has already been discussed. I'm just going to ask it because the farmers of Delta are as concerned as farmers everywhere. It's the problems of irrigation, ditching, drainage and the lack of funding. The problems of urban development.... If you've ever been down to South Delta you will know how it is. It is now a community of 20,000 people. It is solid houses, and it's all crushed up against the farmland. It causes them problems with the quality of the runoff water, silting problems and all kinds of things. Recognizing the important role ARDSA played, which I understand has now gone.... Has it not gone?

Hon. B. Barlee: ARDSA is phased out.

F. Gingell: Will the minister find ways to ensure restoration, at the expense of the province, of farm infrastructure degraded not by the farmers, but by the urban development that surrounds them? I appreciate that it's already been asked. I want to get it on the record.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a good question. First of all, I think we both realize -- the member stated that rather succinctly -- that most of the problem, as far as runoff is concerned, is caused by urban expansion. They paved those roads up there, and that water runs straight down the roads right on to those farmers' fields. ARDSA originally had a significant impact. It has now been cancelled. We are looking very seriously at replacing ARDSA. We feel that in areas like that -- and not specifically in Delta, but in many parts of the lower mainland -- the same sort of phenomenon is occurring. It is making it much more difficult. It is not their fault. Essentially it is the problem of the municipal governments in the area, but trying to make them realize that is sometimes even a bigger problem. So we're looking at alternatives to ARDSA.

F. Gingell: Farmers in Delta have great concern with respect to a wildlife habitat replacement proposal and the third runway at the Vancouver International Airport. A copy of a letter from the Delta Farmers' Institute, dated April 12, has been sent to you. I ask you to consider the proposals in this letter and to show your support for the proposal from the Delta Farmers' Institute, in championing their position with the federal authorities. Mr. Minister, have you seen this?

Hon. B. Barlee: As the member for Delta South probably knows, this crosses into several other jurisdictions and several other ministries. We are one of the players; we're unfortunately not the only player. The federal government also plays a part in this, as does the provincial government and, I believe, three or four different ministries. We're aware of it and will be having our input. I can't at this precise time give you a precise answer.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that it is actually a federal issue, but you are a man of great influence, and your counsel and help will be appreciated.

The next issue is also partially federal. You will have heard, I'm sure, of the proposed Roberts Bank container port development. Delta farmers are most concerned that roads and other infrastructure required take their needs into account. They need overpasses, fencing and ditching, and they have asked me to ask you to champion their cause in this very important issue.

Hon. B. Barlee: I have already been championing their cause and their concerns, because their concerns 

[ Page 1240 ]

are our concerns. That infrastructure must be kept in place, because we feel that the first value of that land around Roberts Bank -- and I know the proposals.... That's where we again come up against several other ministries that may have other ideas. I champion the cause of the farmers, and I believe the member for Delta South knows that. I think that we will probably carry the day.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I appreciate that.

Another matter that Delta farmers have brought up to me is that certain chemicals approved for use in the United States are not approved in Canada.

Hon. B. Barlee: We're working on that right now.

F. Gingell: Good. My understanding is that they're not approved in Canada, not because the chemicals don't meet any tests but simply because it isn't worth the cost for the smaller market. I understand that the chemicals aren't allowed in but the berries are, so we get it either way. I really would encourage you to help in this subject.

Hon. B. Barlee: A good question again. We have been in continuous contact with my federal counterpart, the Hon. William McKnight, and he agrees that this is a problem. The federal government, in all fairness to them, is finally moving on this issue. We've been pressing them quite closely. I forget when I received the last letter -- it was probably about two and a half weeks ago -- which indicated there is movement on this, whereas previously there had not been much movement. Part of it is cost, but it places our farmers at a disadvantage, as you well know. We're aware of it and have flagged that issue with the federal government. Of course, it's in their jurisdiction, but I think they are finally listening to us.

F. Gingell: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I'm very pleased.

Alberta farmers who ship their potatoes to British Columbia get their fuel taxes rebated in the amount of 19 cents a litre. B.C. farmers pay taxes on their fuel. Alberta also rebates $50 a tonne for nitrogen fertilizer and $25 a tonne for phosphorous fertilizer. Mr. Minister, will you support the farmers' cry for help for a level playing-field?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the Alberta rebate for fertilizer has been cancelled, so that the costs now are almost exactly the same. They do have a rebate of 10 cents per litre on diesel and 4 cents on gas. We are trying to level the playing-field in that area, but it's only on gas now, not on fertilizer.

F. Gingell: I wrote on the top of my notes here that the way I would address you is as the champion of our farmers. The more you respond, the more I'm being encouraged that, in fact, you will be proactive.

There is a series of issues between various levels of government that has the farmers sitting between the proverbial rock and a hard place. One of them deals with the goods and services tax. It is required to be paid on contract labour, even though it's a zero-based commodity. It takes farmers three months to get a refund. You're talking about 7 percent tax, in the middle of the summer, on what can be $200,000; you're talking $14,000, when a crop is being brought in. It is ridiculous that it is charged. It just creates more red tape, and we look for your help in that area, Mr. Minister. I'd be interested in your comments.

Hon. B. Barlee: That's a very tall mountain to climb. The federal government is very quick to impose taxes and very slow to give them back. It's almost impossible.

Interjection.

Hon. B. Barlee: No, we're much quicker. The three months is indeed.... They're rather fortunate to get it back in three months; sometimes it takes up to six months. Again, we're aware of the problem. We will flag that again with the federal government and hopefully get a little more action than we received the last time.

F. Gingell: Mr. Minister, in the EEC there is now free movement of farm produce, and with it free movement of the various inputs, including labour. We're now into the NAFTA negotiations. In Canada we expect to have, and presently have, the free movement of produce between the U.S. and Canada, but not the free movement of labour. Farmers in Delta tell me that the minimum wage, when they are hiring on an hourly basis, really does affect them. In Washington State they have Mexican contract crews that come up and work on a fixed-price basis. Farmers in B.C. can't use the service of the crews. We can't import them, but we do import the barriers. If you have free trade, it should be all-encompassing. Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Minister?

Hon. B. Barlee: The proposed NAFTA will impact significantly on the field crops in British Columbia; we are both aware of that. I think we're also both aware that the British Columbia farmer does not compete on a level playing-field. You are talking more specifically about labour. That's only part of the overall package; labour is really a fraction of it. They pay a higher price for land, a much higher price for labour, a much higher price for fuel, higher taxes. It goes on and on: interest rates are about one and a half times as much.

At the present time there is not any serious discussion about the free movement of labour from Mexico to British Columbia, partly because that would impact on us significantly. General Motors, for instance, pays 50 cents an hour in one of their plants in Mexico. That would have a dramatic effect on our quality of life and standard of living in Canada, and specifically in British Columbia, since we're referring to British Columbia.

[11:15]

This, as the member for Delta South knows, is primarily a federal problem. We have some input. We 

[ Page 1241 ]

also have some input on the other agreements, such as GATT, which we have made very obvious to the federal government. We have, I think, played a significant role, certainly in GATT, and I anticipate that we will have the same input into this proposed NAFTA. Of course, we have a problem in British Columbia. We are essentially a trading province, so there are certain sectors that feel NAFTA should be continued. Personally, from an agricultural point of view, it's very damaging to us.

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

F. Gingell: I understand and appreciate that it is not a simple problem. We are not looking for Mexican wage rates in Canada.

One last question, Mr. Minister. I left this to the last because it is simply a provincial matter -- something that you can do something about as the new champion of the farming community. Farmers in British Columbia tell me that they pay the highest property taxes in North America. In Delta they pay between $33 and $73 an acre. In Ontario they pay their taxes but are then rebated in full on all of their bills except their residential bills. As I understand it, the province then pays the municipalities the appropriate amount. In Washington State, they pay between $15 and $20 an acre. In Alberta they pay around 25 cents per acre on dry land and as high as $3 on the best irrigated land in southern Alberta.

There's another problem too, Mr. Minister. Farmers are required to pay school taxes on agricultural land. While I appreciate the problems with funding schools and trying to get a logical financial arrangement on the planning of schools, taxing agricultural land really doesn't seem to make sense.

As I said, this is my last question. I did leave it until last because it is one subject that is clearly within the jurisdiction of the provincial government. I look for and beg for your assistance and for your representation of farmers on this particular subject.

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly there is a significant difference. There is a 50 percent reduction in school taxes if this land is within the ALR. That's perhaps some saving grace.

We also realize that Ontario, Washington State and some of our competitors have a much more level playing-field than we have. I have been working on this with other ministries, and we hope that playing-field will be a little more level by this time next year.

R. Chisholm: I'm going to quote for the minister a statement from the B.C. Agriculture magazine: "Dairy and poultry farmers see parallels between GATT's effect and life: we all know we are going to die, but we'd like to make preparations for it." Has the minister commissioned any study on what will happen if GATT forces us to eliminate supply management? What provisions will be available for farmers to adjust?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly this is a very difficult area. I'd like to give you a very short answer, but I will have to give you a slightly longer answer. Our representations under GATT and our intelligence indicate that the Americans are singling out supply management as the strongest part of our agricultural system. If they are to achieve their economic aims -- and certainly there's an economic aim, or war, being conducted by the Americans -- they will undermine one of the key sectors of the Canadian and British Columbian agricultural scene. We feel that it's important for us not to accept or adopt a fallback position at this particular time. I have mentioned that to both the federal Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of International Trade, Hon. Michael Wilson, and I think they understand our position.

We led eight provinces in an attack on the GATT provisions, as indicated by Arthur Dunkel, the chief U.S. negotiator. I think we achieved the attention of both the U.S. negotiators and the federal government. I am hoping that GATT will not take apart the supply-management system.

R. Chisholm: I know what you've done with the federal government and who you've talked to there. But in case this should happen, what are you as a government doing to help assist farmers to adjust to a new system that may be implemented?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, we cannot adopt a public fallback position -- I think the member understands that -- because of political tactics. Secondly, alluding to his question, I will say that we are always looking for options and alternatives in the agricultural industry. If this were to occur, it would have a significant economic impact upon supply management -- specifically on milk producers, chickens, turkeys, eggs and so on -- and the various people covered under the supply-management system. It would also probably cost British Columbia about half of its $450 million per year, and that's a ballpark figure -- I'm not sure of that.

We have indicated to the BCFA that we have not adopted a fallback position, nor will we until that occurs. We do, however, have long-term options for various groups that are under some economic pressure.

R. Chisholm: I'm not necessarily saying that you have to have a fallback position, Mr. Minister; I'm saying that there are alternatives, like there are alternatives to what you produce from what is grown. For instance, from grains we can produce ethanol. We can take wheat, barley, potatoes, sugar cane and sugar beets and produce cornstarch to produce plastic films, plastic bags, egg cartons, etc. -- it goes on. We can produce soybeans, and they can be made into ink which is 10 percent cheaper than the ink we use presently, and it's sharper and lasts longer. Rapeseed can be used for oils in industrial use, pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and soap. I'm saying that maybe your ministry should be looking into alternatives to what we are actually producing at the present time.

When are we going to develop products at home that we can compete in in markets abroad -- for example, fewer raspberries, which we cannot sell, but develop pears which we can sell? What are you doing to diversify and assist farmers in changing? What pro-

[ Page 1242 ]

grams are you bringing in, and what sort of financing is available to support this in your budget?

Hon. B. Barlee: We are doing several things. First of all, five years ago we had virtually no ginseng in the province; we have one of the largest ginseng producers in the world right now. We had no kiwi fruit in the province; we are now producing kiwi fruit. These are just some areas where our extension staff is working.

We have also studied very closely.... For instance, you mentioned the ethanol possibility. Unfortunately, ethanol will only work if the price of gasoline goes out of sight. I believe it was Manitoba where the ethanol was tried. They have to subsidize ethanol to 43 cents a litre, and that's just the subsidy from the public purse. Certainly the public cannot afford to subsidize any fuel such as ethanol for 43 cents a litre. If the price were to go up to $1 a litre, it might be reasonable, but the price of gasoline is now averaging about 52.9, so it doesn't make a lot of sense. We also have a food services branch that is working on various things, and we met with some of them the other day. So we're looking forward to this; we have the options.

R. Chisholm: I realize that you have picked on one or two of these items. All I'm saying and suggesting to you is that there are articles, there are substances that we can produce from our product if there is a little bit of initiative, a little bit of foresight and some financing put towards it. I'm asking you, what in your budget has been allotted to develop or produce new products from the products that we're producing now?

Hon. B. Barlee: First of all, the ministry has been shifting -- certainly in the last six months and even prior to that -- to value-added products. We're very aware of it. We just took a tour with the Food Marketing Board the other day, which I believe I mentioned to the member last week. This was a very, very illustrative tour in that we realize that for British Columbia farmers and British Columbia fishermen to get full value-added price from their product, we have to look at other ways of marketing that product. The ministry is geared this way and has been geared this way for a number of years.

R. Chisholm: I'll leave that one for a while, because I don't seem to be getting anywhere. I've heard that answer a couple of times, Mr. Minister.

Let's go on to another area. You might have seen this document, as produced by the federal government. It's called "Compare the Share." It talks about farm-gate prices, process prices, and what it ends up costing the consumer at the retail end. For instance, a kilogram of corn is 14 cents at the farm-gate price. By the time you pay for it, in corn flakes, it's $4.28. Wheat that goes into a box of crackers is 5 cents, but by the time you pay for the cracker, it's $3.79. Again, we go into milk products. Cheese is $4.58. To process it, it becomes $5.17, and by the time it hits the retail outlets, it's $11.52. Chicken is $1.22 at the farm-gate, $2.56 after being processed and $4.73 at the retail.

What is your government and your department doing about looking at the astronomical retail profits that are being made by this industry, and yet are not being received at the farm-gate level? Are you looking into this? Are you trying to do anything about this situation?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly we're looking into it. I've read the entire list, which was done by a Conservative member. Unfortunately, the federal government, under the Conservatives,have done very little about it. I think that farmers, generally speaking, are not getting their share. There are some exceptions to the rule. One that was not mentioned was the price of beef, where the farmer gets about 50 percent. So we have to work, unfortunately, in some respects with everybody in the food chain. We work with the producer, we work with the processor, we work with the wholesaler, we work with the retailer, and all of those take a certain cut. We're aware of this and we hope that with a comprehensive "Buy B.C." program, we can probably level some of those vast differences. One of the major ones was in corn, but it isn't the only one. There are other areas as well. That is not typical right across the board. There are certain areas where the producer gets a reasonable return -- in fact, quite a good return. But there are exceptions, and certainly, "Compare the Share" points out the exceptions.

R. Chisholm: I'll have to correct the minister on who designed this. It was the Hon. Ralph Ferguson, MP for Lambton-Middlesex, and he happens to be a Liberal.

Hon. B. Barlee: We were talking about Conservatives, so I thought he was a Conservative.

R. Chisholm: There you go. The problem here is, what are you saying to the retailer who is putting on these astronomical profits -- the profit margin? This is costing us and the consumer an enormous amount of money, and it is not being realized at the farm level.

Hon. B. Barlee: The average retailer makes 1 percent per dollar. In some instances this is enough, in other instances it is not. We in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have to work with every segment of the food chain. That means we work with the retailer as well. It's a very political sort of arrangement. I cannot wander into one of the major retailers and say: "I'm sorry, you're taking a little too much." We have to do that in a more subtle way. We have to point out the advantages of letting our own suppliers in British Columbia receive a reasonable return for their produce. I think some of the retailers are realizing this. A coherent and long-term "Buy B.C." program will cure some of the ills that are in the chain. That is not just the retailer but also the wholesaler and processors in some areas, so it runs right down the chain.

[11:30]

R. Chisholm: We'll leave that one for a while, and we'll get back to it a little later.

[ Page 1243 ]

Let's talk about dairy marketing boards for a little while. Back in 1985 the courts ruled that five dissident farmers must comply with marketing board rules and not sell outside the quota. Due to political interference by people in the previous government, the farmers continued to operate outside the law. These people are not bound by the same rules, and are abusing the system. They now number 33, and rising. They are opening up cheese factories which are not subject to the same stringent rules of health inspection. Their farms are not either. Is this minister going to enforce the rulings of the courts and marketing boards, or are these dissident farmers going to continue to become richer while abusing the system? Is the legitimate farmer going to have to get militant about the situation to correct it?

Hon. B. Barlee: I think that's a fairly good question. First of all, some of those cases are before the courts right now. Certainly I believe there is a major decision coming down from the judge on December 6 of this year -- or the case goes to court on December 6; one of the two.

Secondly, I think we made a fairly strong statement in the throne speech that we do back the marketing board concept. Under the marketing board acts there is the capability of the marketing boards to govern their own specific areas. That is written into the law, and that's why these so-called dissident producers -- not just the five original dissidents but other individuals who are trying to break the system -- will be going before the courts. It is within the jurisdiction of the marketing boards to take them to court, and we indeed approve of that.

Mr. Chisholm: I realize that they're going to court over different situations, but the original rulings were against the dissident farmers. When are the rulings going to be enforced? When are people allowed to break the law in this country and continue to do so for a matter of seven or eight years without being brought within the boundaries of the law? What is the minister going to do about these people?

Hon. B. Barlee: That's why the legislation has been drawn up that way. They have, under their aegis, the responsibility and the power to enforce the laws governing the supply management system. We fully expect those laws will be enforced. I anticipate that the courts will rule in favour of the marketing boards. I don't see where we have any real problems. The original rulings are presently before the courts. I can't comment a great deal more on that.

R. Chisholm: I remind the minister that you are responsible for the marketing boards, and it's up to you to back the marketing boards. When rulings come down from the courts, it is your responsibility to ensure that they are adhered to. What action will the minister take against those farmers who operate outside of the supply management system, whether it be dairy or other?

Hon. B. Barlee: We've had ongoing discussions with the various marketing boards that govern those areas, including the superboard.

R. Chisholm: When the current Minister of Agriculture was in opposition, he was very opposed to high fuel costs for farmers, because it did nothing but hurt the industry. How successful, now that you are minister, have you been in convincing the Finance minister to lower costs for fuel for farmers and those in the agriculture industry? Is this government committed to ethanol fuels? Where is it indicated in this budget?

Hon. B. Barlee: The ethanol fuel is not economically plausible at this particular time with the price of fuel averaging around 52.9 cents. Our ministry has done quite a bit of work on this. We have gone over all the background, all the experiments tried with ethanol, and it simply does not make any sense economically, with the price of fuel the way it is now. I can't really comment anymore on ethanol, because our research indicates that it is simply not in the ballpark. Minister Zirnhelt is also doing a study on ethanol.

The other question was referring to gas. Gas prices, of course, have been a bone of contention with me for many years. The price of gas in B.C. and elsewhere in Canada is much higher than it should be. You'll notice in the last budget that the price of gas went up of 1 cent -- actually, of 1 cent. That's all. The other advantage in gasoline was this: the previous government had a tendency -- in fact, it was written into the legislation -- that gas would go up every three or four months by 1 cent per litre. This has been done away with now, so there will be no more automatic increases to the price of gasoline in British Columbia.

If there are to be any increases, that will be fully debated on the floor of the House. I think that's extremely important and a step in the right direction. I also think that farmers should get a better break in gasoline; I'm working toward that end.

R. Chisholm: What consideration has been given to changing the quota structure and pricing agreements of the egg, grape, hog, milk, mushroom, oyster, tree-fruit, turkey and vegetable marketing boards?

Hon. B. Barlee: Certainly the quota structure is governed by those individual boards, but those individual boards are under the umbrella of the British Columbia Marketing Board. That is what we call the superboard. If there's anything wrong there, the chairman and the members of the British Columbia Marketing Board then approach the various boards -- it could be the Egg Marketing Board, the Chicken Marketing Board or the Milk Marketing Board -- and flag an issue with them that they think may impact upon the consumers, or if the price is too high.

So it's a self-governing agenda that works well. It's not perfect, but generally it works well. The provision of the superboard and the members on the superboard, including the chairman, overlooking the other boards tends to make the system really quite responsible, both 

[ Page 1244 ]

from the consumers' and from the farmers' or producers' point of view.

R. Chisholm: Conflict exists between the superboard and the Egg Board. This deep-seated animosity between the two regulatory bodies has been detrimental to the operation of the system. Certain key regulations imposed on egg producers such as the maximum egg price, the clawback on quota transfers, otherwise known as the new entrance policy, the failure to clearly require a quota for all producers -- the dissident case in its new face as a niche market -- are undesirable intrusions into policy-making beyond the B.C. Marketing Board's mandate of supervision.

The Clair-Buckley report makes some good recommendations. Will the minister use it as a basis for clarifying the roles of the superboard as far as policy-making and appeals are concerned?

Hon. B. Barlee: We will be giving you some recommendations on the Buckley report very soon. Secondly, concerning the position and the powers of the superboard, we have reappointed the chairman of the superboard. After examining what has been achieved under the superboard, we feel that it's basically a pretty sound system.

However, time rolls on, so I move that the committee rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:40 a.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1992, 2001: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada