Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, JUNE 8, 1992

Volume 4, Number 6

[ Page 2255 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction of Bills

HUMAN RIGHTS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

VISUAL IDENTITY REVIEW

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2256 ]

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

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

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

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

Hon. L. Boone: I'm happy to talk about this, because I want to correct some information that the member opposite gave. There's no intention by this government to paint all the buses or ferries -- the transits -- or any such thing as that. We are merely asking for proposals to show a way that we can make a cohesive signage plan throughout the province. This is not to say that we are going to do this right now. But if there comes a time when we are looking at putting in some new signage or looking at new letterheads -- something along those lines -- then we will certainly be looking at trying to implement one logo so the government will save money. It's not the intention of this government right now to spend a lot of taxpayers' dollars repainting buses or ferries or anything such as that.

The Speaker: Final supplemental, hon. member.

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

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

[2:15]

NATIVE TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING STUDY

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

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

[ Page 2257 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the House please come to order.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Hon. R. Blencoe: Mr. Audain has had an extensive career as a housing policy consultant. He served with the Ontario Housing Corporation in Toronto, and later with the Canadian Council of Social Development in Ottawa. He served as the special adviser to the Minister of Housing in the former government, after which he established his own consulting practice. He served as commissioner of the inquiry on mobile homes undertaken in the mid-seventies. He entered the development industry, joined the Polygon group of companies and was appointed president and chief executive officer in 1982. Polygon is one of the most successful companies building homes in the province of British Columbia, having created several thousand townhouses and apartments throughout greater Vancouver. Mr. Audain brings extensive years of experience to the housing profession.

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

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

[ Page 2258 ]

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

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

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

Ministerial Statement

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION WEEK

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply. In Section A will be Government Services ministry. In Section B will be Tourism and Culture. I might advise the House that from 6 to 10 p.m. tonight we will reconstitute and do bills, which will be discussed with opposition parties during the course of the day.

[2:30]

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

Presenting Petitions

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

Orders of the Day

Hon. G. Clark: I call Committee of Supply, both sections. In section A will be Government Services; in section B will be Tourism and Culture.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF TOURISM AND
MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CULTURE

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2259 ]

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. D. Marzari: I would be pleased to read into the record the actual budgets being allocated to the nine tourism regions on this day. I'm glad that the chair of Partners in Tourism is sitting in the gallery to hear these numbers. First of all, the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island will receive for its administration contract, which is the contract that keeps the office going, keeps the executive director hired and provides support and backup services, the actual program contract -- that is, those dollars that are dedicated and partnered with private contractors for marketing.... The marketing budget for the Tourism Association for Vancouver Island -- TAVI -- is $400,600. The Tourism Association of Southwestern B.C. has an administration contract of $100,732 and a program contract -- that is, a marketing budget -- of $355,400. The Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association's administration contract is $89,750; its marketing budget is set at $502,500. The Kootenay Country Tourist Association has an administration contract for $80,000, and its program contract is set at $209,600. The High Country Tourism Association has a contract of $80,000 and a marketing contract of $251,200. The Cariboo Tourist Association has an administration contract of $80,000 and a program contract of $247,200. North-By-Northwest Tourism Association has an administration contract at $90,000 and a program contract at $169,600.

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

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

The total allotted to Partners in Tourism, which is in itself a reflection of government's intention to work closely with local and regional operations, resorts and people who work in tourism in the regions.... The total amount that this government is investing in the administration contracts is $790,310. The total program contract that this government is investing in our regions for '92-93 is $2,592,900. The Partners in Tourism program is an integral part of marketing for our government. It is a program that enables local tourism associations to market best, and to market what they know best, in their regions. Coupled with the sectoral associations that have formed in this province and provide a backbone to the skiing, fishing and outdoors guiding and outfitting operations, it is another aspect to tourism and tourism marketing in this province. They are dealt with through other kinds of partnering programs.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2260 ]

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

[2:45]

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Dear Mr. Clark:

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

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

Hon. D. Marzari: I'm glad the member raised the issue of the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island. I spent last Friday in Gold River at the annual general meeting of the Vancouver Island Tourism Association, talked with them and explained -- just before they went into a workshop to discuss their mission, their raison d'�tre and their new budget -- exactly what had happened. Yes, in fact, the marketing side of the overall program, Partners in Tourism, did take a 33 percent cut overall this year. That is something that was a natural consequence of a budget cutback which affected many ministries in this government. It is something that I have talked about to the groups, the partners and the tourism industry. It is something I would not want to see happen on a sustained basis.

It's very important that we build our marketing side to ensure that tourism is properly focused, that the marketing is properly directed and that our local partners in tourism do not suffer. However, it is also very important to note that while the marketing side of the budget -- that is, that side of the budget which the local tourism associations partner with the private sector to generate the brochures and material that they produce every year.... The actual administration side of their budget was maintained at a reasonable level so that they could continue to function, keep their office doors open and maintain salaries to their executive directors so that their executive directors could complain about the fact that they don't have enough marketing money and build toward a future point in time where we can all work together from the very local to the very international on the best possible marketing campaign for British Columbia.

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

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

C. Tanner: The moneys that the department allocates for marketing in those areas of her budget -- the one she just alluded to in the list of the nine regions -- are not only the dollars that the department allocates but also the dollars raised within the industry to match the dollars raised by the department. So what the minister has accomplished is this: she has kept all the bureaucrats in place, she has cut the marketing arm of her department by 33 percent, and enhanced the loss of that equivalent money from the industry. When you take away 33 percent, you're actually taking away 66 percent of the market if they're matched dollars, so to speak. It is our contention, Madam Minister, insofar as your department is concerned, that you might have served the public better had you not brought on more staff, had you perhaps frozen staff instead of bringing more in, and spent the money on marketing rather than on personnel. It's those very dollars which the publisher of the visitor magazine is complaining about; it's those very dollars that probably do some of the best work, certainly locally, within the department. Would the minister like to comment on the fact that not only has she cut 33 percent out of her budget in the marketing area but also 33 percent out of the money that would be matched dollars from the industry?

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

[ Page 2261 ]

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

The other issue, the overall marketing budget being cut, has to do with the fact that a lot of what goes on in tourism is awareness marketing; yes, the Super, Natural pictures, the colour glossies that get distributed, the posters that everyone has seen, that maybe some of you have in your offices. That is the awareness program which takes material around the world. A good chunk of what goes on in tourism marketing and tourism product development has to do with bringing conventions to British Columbia; it has to do with attending trade shows around North America and indeed on the Pacific Rim, and lately in Europe, to ensure that we are bringing to British Columbia the convention visitor, who very often ends as a repeat visitor on a personal vacation. We do trade shows. We do conference planning. We do development of convention planning. It's a range of services which Tourism has to offer, not just on the marketing side, but also on the product development side.

Tourism also offers, through its staff, the opportunity for developers, or resort owners who want to expand, or someone involved in ecotourism who wants to expand their business, to come to our ministry. As product development people, we are there to assist them in the development of a business plan; to assist them in getting to the right location, to the right bank, perhaps, or to the right department or ministry in government; to help their plan grow, to ensure that their plan is consistent with zoning in the regions -- to help people, basically, do business in this province as tourism promoters; to plug them into western diversification funds, if necessary, and to federal government agencies, if necessary.

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

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

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

To cut back on those essential services to communities would not be the wisest move for us to engage in at this point. Rather the smart thing to do, the right thing to do, I believe, is to develop a strategic plan for the ministry, especially in tourism; create a business plan and then develop and build our marketing component of that plan around properly evaluated markets, properly focused images for those markets and properly focused services, so that we can ensure that when we take a message out to a market, it's hitting the right people, that we're getting tourists to come back, that we're properly evaluating the numbers that walk through our portals into British Columbia, and so that we can have some idea that our marketing is, in effect, being properly received and is truly worthwhile.

[3:00]

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2262 ]

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

I don't particularly want to talk about future policy during an estimates session, but I can tell the member that such an exposition might be of great interest to the ministry in terms of our potential market on the Pacific Rim, which the demographics are certainly telling us is one that we must maintain our market share in and develop our market in. I will certainly do everything I can to pull together the relevant information around this exposition. Perhaps the member might be good enough to offer me the information that he has gleaned thus far in his research. I would very much appreciate receiving it and reciprocating by letting him know what we think we might be able to do in planning towards 1994.

A. Warnke: Actually, I'm a bit surprised, because I always recognize the awkwardness in estimates in asking the minister anything with regard to future policy. I clearly understand that this is to be avoided. On the other hand, I suppose I assumed at the outset that we had some sort of invitation because it was not too long ago that I personally met the mayor of Wakayama. I was certainly under some sort of impression that perhaps we in British Columbia are aware of this particular event. While I recognize that a government cannot respond to future policy or hypothetical situations, perhaps it would be appropriate if I asked the minister what sorts of steps can be taken in this coming year to prepare for such an event, especially when it comes to the allocation of moneys and articulating policies.

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

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

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

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

Leave granted.

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

Hon. D. Marzari: Japan is our largest overseas tourism market. We had 189,000 direct arrivals in British Columbia in 1990. In 1991 the volume might have dropped a small amount. In 1992 we have reason to expect that that volume will increase again. Japan is the fastest-growing market for British Columbia. Believe it or not, it has grown 80 percent over the last four years. British Columbia really is fortunate to be located on the Pacific Rim, which can look to this vast new market, Japan through Korea, to build its tourism industry. Developing that niche, keeping it, promoting it and helping it grow is extremely important. The Japanese visitor, on average, brings about $150 a day into the B.C. economy, which is tenfold what we might expect to receive from, for example, a United Kingdom visitor -- another reason that it's a very important market for us.

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

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

[ Page 2263 ]

I believe the member is asking if there is room in our budget to manoeuvre, to develop. In any planning process, we have to first pull in the relevant information, take a look at the materials you have thus far, contact the mayor or the exposition director general, and find out what our involvement might be. Then we do an evaluation as to at what level British Columbia might want to become involved. I do not believe that we necessarily want to put a massive investment into Japan as much as we want to bring Japanese investment and tourism dollars to British Columbia. I very much think that what we do here will have to be carefully considered as a marketing exercise to ensure that dollars are properly spent from a marketing point of view -- not just showing the flag, which is perhaps nice to do in Spain right now, but to use it as a marketing tool to ensure that what we invest comes back to us, from an area which has given us excellent business to this point and an area in which we must expand our awareness and imaging.

A. Warnke: I'm obviously pleased with some of the remarks made by the minister, especially when it comes to the question of how much room there is to manoeuvre. Clearly what's illustrated in this particular case is that the government was perhaps slightly taken off guard about the matter of such an event taking place. It is always good to have that room to manoeuvre and to have at least some funds available. I certainly respect and appreciate the minister's remarks. When there is something like a proposal or, in this particular case, an event that has suddenly come to government's attention, I do not expect the government automatically to embrace that until all the facts come forth. I understand that.

[3:15]

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

The Japanese wanted to become involved in Expo 86. Now that Expo 86 is out of the way, we should not be saying that all we're really interested in from here on out is Japanese investment in Canada. There has to be some reciprocity as well. This is why my earlier remarks about being sensitive to what's happening in Japan are extremely important. Once the Japanese have been involved in our exposition here, there should be some reciprocity, and we must recognize that. It goes both ways. I think it is a tremendous opportunity to become involved in more than just showing the flag; it's an opportunity to show the Japanese people, in particular, that we're really keen and interested. The minister may choose to respond to that remark. She seems to have responded quite well.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2264 ]

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

This brings me back to the comment I made in the first place, in that the minister mentioned there are obligations within the department for conventions and for the industry -- to give them help and to deliver service. Surely, minister, your first and obvious responsibility is to expand as much as possible those people coming to B.C. The way you're going to do that is by getting the total commitment of the industry to your program. It's my understanding that while you've got those contracts out there, some of them aren't yet signed. There seems to be some discontent in the industry about the decision you've made and the one that I'm arguing with you about, in that you should be putting more, not less, money into the marketing. While you can try to maintain the personnel, it is essential to put your money first into the marketing area. Could the minister tell me how many of the contracts she has have been signed, and which ones they are?

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

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

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

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

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

It is a market that we've got to study, assess, reciprocate with and come to understand as an exchange across the water, through the Pacific, which is going to benefit us greatly over the decade to come. To lose a niche -- as you know, Mr. Member, from retail -- and to have increased competition build up around you and not to stay afloat on those waters is a major mistake. So we have to stay there, and we have to invest there. We have to plan how we invest -- true -- and that's something we're doing now. It has to be kept in dynamic tension with the international and the short-haul markets, which our Partners in Tourism represent. They must also be kept afloat, because it's crucial, to me and to government, that they provide what visitors come for and come to.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2265 ]

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

[3:30]

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

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

What I'm suggesting to the minister is that, while it's probably money well spent now, I wouldn't see that you would expand it at all in the immediate future. You should be expanding to your local market. In that view -- and I'm talking in general about her department now -- we used to spend $20 million on tourism, of which almost a fifth was salaries and benefits and everything that goes with salaries. The major part of the money that we're spending within this department goes in one lump towards advertising and publications. Could the minister, for the benefit of the nine tourism sectors, tell us how much of the advertising concerning publications and advertisements goes towards the B.C. area, or does it all sit in the allocations that you make to each of the tourist areas?

Hon. D. Marzari: I hope I understood the member's question correctly. The Partners in Tourism does not prepare materials for long-haul markets -- that is, around the Pacific Rim or Europe. The Partners in Tourism program is generally servicing local tourism. The member is quite right; local tourism represents 60 percent of the total volume of people moving around the province as tourists in British Columbia. Sixty percent of our tourism business is, in fact, our own people going to another place to spend a night for a convention, to visit family or whatever. The majority of the exercise behind Partners in Tourism does relate to the brochures and the materials that service the local market and service the short-haul market. When someone in Washington or Oregon phones the 1-800 number and receives a response, they might well receive some of our Partners in Tourism brochures in the mail.

Our Partners in Tourism material services what we call the short-haul market, or the market that is local or just south or east of our borders. Consequently the budget reflects that. The local partners do not attempt to go overseas and do not attempt to throw themselves into the larger picture in marketing, which is quite separate and distinct in the budget and which does awareness marketing. It, too, is partnered. For example, I described to the member -- the last time we met across the estimates debate -- the program that Tourism B.C. engaged in with the Victoria tourism association, the Vancouver tourism association and with Whistler to package a visual-awareness audio radio campaign for the California market in March. That total campaign cost us, as a total partnership, about $450,000. Because all four partners engaged themselves in that campaign, all four partners can now sit back and hopefully receive the evaluations on how well that campaign actually did. I have not seen the final numbers on that yet, and there's no way of knowing whether or not people will travel from California, whether they heard our message or whether there are other reasons to push people north this summer. In any event, it is an evaluation that I look forward to.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2266 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With respect to the long-haul markets, the Canadian and American markets, we're looking at a 41 percent equivalent, but certainly not less than the Partners in Tourism. We're not talking about one area being adversely impacted. We're talking about an overall cut here. The overseas markets took a smaller cut, but I must say that we spend smaller dollars there. To stay afloat in the competitive regime that exists with other countries and provinces in the overseas market.... When I say that we cut 17 and 18 percent there, which is what we cut on the overseas market, you have to understand that we're dealing with marketing budgets of one-third of what they are locally and in the longer-haul markets in the states, for example, and the rest of Canada. Basically, you're looking at a 33 percent cut on the North American continent, and you're looking at a much smaller marketing budget on the overseas markets, but you're looking at a smaller cut as well in order to maintain our competitiveness there. You're not comparing dollars there; you're just comparing statistics.

[3:45]

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

Hon. D. Marzari: We are going to be, and are in the process, engaged in a strategic planning study of the effectiveness of our marketing, both local, long haul and international. That study is taking a close look at the whole range of marketing we have engaged in in this province. Some programs may be there out of habit. Some other programs may be there because they were a bright whim ten years ago but are no longer relevant. Some programs might be there because there is marketing, cooperative or partnership money available for them. Right now it's very important for us to take a good look, and that is precisely what we are doing at this very moment in time. The results of that survey will be made available for the member when they come in.

It is important, I think, for all members in this House to understand that there is a business planning process that we have to engage in for this very important industry, this number-two industry in the province. The more we understand that the infrastructure of that industry is not chainsaws and trees falling and lumber yards and mills.... The infrastructure of this industry happens to be mom-and-pop operations in the regions and good marketing. The marketing survey that we're doing now will inform the decisions next year, I hope, a great deal more than I could be informed this year in making decisions. But the decisions that were made, I believe, were made in reasonable faith that we were going to be able to survive this year, and get through and maintain our markets as best we can, and work with improved information towards better decisions in the years to come. We all must admit that our marketing 

[ Page 2267 ]

budgets over the last number of years, particularly since Expo, have not been analyzed to the depth that they should have been. If they had been analyzed properly, particularly since Expo, have not been analyzed to the depth that they should have been. If they had been analyzed properly in the last five years and if the money had been properly expended, we would not have witnessed some of the money-losing events that we did. But because tourism, particularly, has not been given the profile that it deserves and needs if it's going to become a major economic generator for the province, good planning has not been guaranteed. I'm sure it has been there. We've done excellent marketing, and British Columbia has won many awards for that. But I daresay that some of the basic questions have not been asked in the past, particularly since '87, in order to have an integrated and sophisticated look at how we carry out our marketing -- how we market smarter and better -- and focus it into the future.

I'm pleased that we have the tools we've got for this planning exercise. We have an excellent award-winning marketing division. We have partners -- people who are angry now but who are very much behind the business of promoting their regions, who are on stream for doing things better and for doing them well and who are ready to engage in planning. We have an excellent product-delivery system and an excellent service-delivery mechanism in the ministry. We also have a growing, interested and, I think, dynamic strategic planning division that is beginning to crack some new ice and make new arrangements and to expand the horizons of the ministry to pull in Ottawa in ways that it hasn't been pulled in before, and to push and lobby with me in a meaningful way for things like the Seattle ferry.

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

C. Tanner: The minister is making a good case, and she's starting to convince me a bit. But there's a basic flaw in her argument, in my view. Maybe it's just a difference of opinion between us -- between sitting on that side of the House and on this side. The difference is that you inherited a department that had been messed around, quite frankly, for the previous five years. The money allocations for that department were out of proportion to what they had to spend it on. Some of the senior staff were obviously disappointed by the fact that in the previous five years they had seen, five or six -- there were so many of them; it is hard to remember how many -- deputy ministers and ministers. The minister came in and had to make a decision.

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

Next year, please be assured that I'll be watching very closely and will be reading the words that she just used about the menu, the recipe and the ingredients, because if I'm prepared to accept them now, this time, this year, I'm going to be questioning them very closely next year. Having made the mistake, we'll forgive you, but next year you can't make the same mistake again. You've got the people in place; you've got the ingredients, as you say; you've got the minister, who is hopefully going to still be there next year, because the habit in that department has been to come and go like swinging doors. Hopefully she'll be there. I'll be here; I'll be asking these same questions, but I'll have the words from the minister's own mouth to question her as to why these things that she says are going to happen now haven't happened.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2268 ]

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

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

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

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

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

[4:00]

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

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

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

D. Mitchell: I welcome the minister's comments with respect to Whistler. Whistler does bring a tremendous benefit to tourism in British Columbia. There has been a tremendous investment in Whistler itself, which has helped to bring about that attraction to British Columbia. Almost $1.5 billion has been invested in Whistler over the past number of years. As a winter ski resort it runs second only to Vail, Colorado, for the number of skier visits. In the last year that records were kept, 1990-91, there were some 1.3 million skier visits to Whistler alone. In 1992, this year, Whistler resort experienced nearly 418,000 destination-vacation skier visits. Whistler is growing. As an attraction, it brings a tremendous benefit to British Columbia.

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

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

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

[ Page 2269 ]

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

[M. Lord in the chair.]

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

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

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

I don't see anything stopping Whistler from continuing on its climb as an international tourist destination. It's a jigsaw puzzle, is it not? It's not simply a question of marketing Whistler; it's a question of getting airlines to land their planes in Vancouver so that people can get off those planes with their ski equipment to go to Whistler. It's a question of attracting the European market to regard travelling in something other than the summertime to the west coast for skiing. It's a jigsaw puzzle of marketing, of product development, of balancing the demographics of who is arriving and who is coming with what they're spending and how we market it, and create the cycle that develops growth in a region that is sustainable and does not conflict with local desires and aspirations and very local visions for what people in Whistler want. I dare say that Whistler wants to be small and collegial, but at the same time it's becoming very big very fast. What we have to do in working with Whistler is to help stabilize and ensure that the ski industry is properly marketed and that Whistler can manage to maintain and enjoy its own success.

D. Mitchell: I'm pleased with the minister's comments, because I think that she has had a chance in the past few months to acquaint herself with some of the challenges faced by Whistler in the context of tourism in British Columbia. I would point out, however, that Whistler is attempting to become much more than simply a winter destination resort. It's attempting to become a year-round resort, focusing on the drive-in trade throughout this portion of North America. It's becoming very successful and becoming a year-round resort. In fact, while the minister indicates that Whistler can do very well on its own, the truth is that it will require continued and active support on the part of the government.

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

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

My question to the minister is that surely it's not simply interesting that we've been so successful. It's by virtue of the concerted efforts of a group of entrepreneurial-minded British Columbians who have helped build a vision for tourism for British Columbia, in particular in the Whistler context. It's not simply by accident that the government has helped play a role. I think the minister points out quite correctly that, in fact, it was the first New Democratic Party government back in the early seventies that helped chart the vision for what Whistler would become. Over the past number of years it was a government of a different persuasion that helped assist in the building and development of what has become a world-class tourism centre. Hopefully it's up to another government that this minister is a part of to help Whistler lead British Columbia's tourism into the next stage.

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

[ Page 2270 ]

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

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

In my first remarks as quoted from the Whistler newspaper I was not necessarily referring to the expertise, caring and intelligence of the Whistler promoters and developers and ski-resort visionaries. I was referring, in fact, to riding on the crest of a wave in this whole industry. The business of tourism in this province has been taken for granted. It has been the goose; it has laid golden eggs. We have not given it proper credibility. Neither have we given it the planning expertise, the strategizing or networking that needs to go on inside the industry. This province has attempted, in a number of half-hearted ways in the last five years, but really has not found a niche for tourism, which, in my opinion, is going to stabilize this economy and help it grow and give our kids something to be proud of somewhere down the road. It was the tourism industry itself and the former government's relation to it that concerned me. It was time to stop riding the crest of a wave and get down to business and take the business of tourism seriously.

[4:15]

The member asked about the foundation stones for how we get off that wave and how we get down to business. Two of those foundation stones are most definitely in the business plan for the Tourism ministry itself. That business plan is now in draft form and reflects some of the visions and aspirations for what the ministry itself would like to do. It has involved everyone throughout the ministry. It has involved the industry. The industry right now, through the provincial tourism advisory council, is reviewing the draft business plan for tourism. It is involving the Partners in Tourism association, as we invite them to get involved with the draft business plan as well. I assure the member that as we involve the cornerstones of the industry's planning, we will involve the community as we go. The business plan should be out of draft form and into some final form within the next month or so. It is very important for the consultation process, of course, to see itself through.

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

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

It's a great little document if you're stopping at the business of marketing, but it does not serve to talk about the necessary help that's needed to promote infrastructure and service development, quality delivery, upgrading of training, investigation of marketing, research and strategy. It doesn't begin to promote what we need to do in terms of protecting our regions and ensuring that they are included. It doesn't begin to talk about the resource itself, what is out there. The act as it presently stands does not talk to the Inside Passage and the necessity for the business of tourism to protect the views on the Inside Passage off Sechelt over to the Island and the necessity of a pocket-cruise industry and a large cruise ship industry. It can't be denied that our cruise ship industry is growing and is a very important industry for the west coast tourism trade. It's important that somewhere in regulation or legislation we be able to say that there are certain viewscapes that should not be violated without serious consideration of tourism value; there are certain regions that attract tourists for hiking or hunting which should not be violated without a discussion of tourism values; there are certain areas that should be zoned perhaps for tourism or resort use so that developers can be facilitated in the completion of their dreams of a group of cabins, perhaps on a river, that might be incorporated inside a piece of legislation.

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

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

[ Page 2271 ]

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

As for the Tourism budget that was presented to this committee for approval, it is unfortunate in some respects that some portions of the budget have been cut. We recognize full well what the minister has said in terms of priorities. Governing is all about choosing, and some difficult choices obviously had to be made during this budget year in terms of the tough fiscal environment that the government was facing. It's unfortunate that the Partners in Tourism program was dealt with in the way it was, because when we talk about tourism we are talking not only about Whistler and large operators who have been very successful there, but about small operators and medium-sized operators, who in the past have benefited tremendously by the Partners in Tourism program. One would hope that program isn't simply going to be axed for all time, or that it's not heading the way of the dinosaurs. That program was good because it combined the best elements of the business experience of British Columbians involved in the industry with government in matching programs so there could be a true partnership between government and the private sector. I think that's the way we have to go.

I'd like to ask a question to the minister about the travel information centres throughout the province, because these are centres that help regions that require assistance for visitors to our province. The travel information centres are well known to all British Columbians in their local communities. The ministry funds summer staff through the travel information centres. We heard some comments earlier this spring from the minister and from her colleague the Minister of Advanced Education about actually boosting summer employment for students, but I'm having a hard time finding out where employment has actually been boosted. I can tell you that in my own constituency in Squamish, for example -- another area that relies quite a bit on tourism -- the travel information centre operated by the Chamber of Commerce has had to cut summer staff by two positions because the funding has been cut. I wonder if the minister could inform the committee if her ministry is planning to cut funding for travel information centres in the province.

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

D. Mitchell: Squamish.

Hon. D. Marzari: At Squamish. In fact, I was at Squamish last Sunday and met two young women working in the travel information centre who are brand-new employees. My guess is that the budget has probably not been cut there, but maintained. I will certainly check that and try to find out why there would be two new employees there if, in fact, they suffered a cut. I have a feeling that Squamish was left at par, as all the travel information centres that I know of were. In fact, the travel information centre program.... I believe there are 145 information centres in the province, all of which are basically run by diligent volunteers, who very often do a job above and beyond the call of duty. I saw at their annual general meeting how they talk about fund-raising at their local level to try to keep their doors open. Obviously, travel information is the one thing that people have come to expect in British Columbia as they tour around -- to know that we've got clean, bright, interesting facilities, and that we have informed and trained staff servicing those facilities.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

[ Page 2272 ]

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

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

[4:30]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 2273 ]

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

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

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

For years now every provincial government in this country has said that the federal government has had the habit of funding initial projects, then walking away from them and leaving them in the lap of the provincial government to pick up the pieces and carry them on an ongoing basis. If I understand Ann Pollock's advice to the ministry in Equity magazine in January, she is saying that that is the obligation of the ministry. I would hope that the minister is disagreeing with her consultant in this case, because it's certainly not my philosophy. The minister's quite right that the bread and butter of this industry has got to be right around near home. Those other things are -- if you like -- the jam on the bread and butter. We need the others, but we most certainly need to continue to, as she says, "farm the existing ones."

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

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

In a newspaper article on June 6 in the Vancouver Sun, there's a quotation: "'The B.C. government has refused to cooperate with Ottawa in getting B.C. a piece of a $129 million federal tourism promotion program,' Tourism and Small Business Minister Tom Hockin charged Friday in the House of Commons." There's four or five other points in here, but rather than go through them.... If the minister could tell us if those agreements are signed, then I needn't read the rest of it; if they aren't, then I've got lots to say.

Hon. D. Marzari: In the past the provincial government has had a relationship with the federal government around the development of product and marketing. This relationship, I believe, terminated for the five-year plan in March of 1992. It has been our concern. In fact, in March of '92 I met with the federal Minister of Tourism here in Victoria, and we discussed the continuation of the WEPA agreement. That's a $5 million agreement which is spread over five years. Staff in the Tourism ministry have been working closely with federal staff to pull together the necessary agreements and to ensure that the necessary moneys are put up at both sides of the agreement. It's been a difficult budget year for us, so we've had to adjust some of our existing dollars to try to make them qualify as new dollars under the federal stipulation.

Three weeks ago I was in Ottawa with staff on both cultural and tourism matters and managed to meet with four ministers or their staffs to speak to a number of issues pertaining to the Seattle-Victoria ferry link, to tourism in general and more specifically to the WEPA agreement. It was decided at those meetings that we would proceed to the final dotting of the i's and the crossing of the t's to develop that agreement. On Friday morning the minister, Mr. Hockin, was addressed in the House during question period and asked what he was doing for tourism and, in the kind of response which is often given in question period, he suggested that the questioner look to his own province and discover that, in fact, British Columbia did not yet have an agreement; hence the rather volatile newspaper story about B.C. dragging their heels. In fact, I talked to the federal minister this morning, in a friendly way, and we are going to try to tie this one up as quickly as possible. He and I shall be discussing the issue further tomorrow to see whether or not the money that we put forward for the agreement is going to be considered unencumbered enough for the federal government to be able to share in it.

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

[4:45]

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

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

[ Page 2274 ]

The minister made reference two or three times today to the fact that B.C. tourism is not only the second-largest industry but certainly the comer as a generator of revenue to this province. I want to, once more, emphasize what my reaction would have been if I'd been in the minister's place six or seven months ago. It certainly answers a number of these questions at one shot. I agree with the minister: tourism is the coming industry in this province, and environmental concerns are important to that tourism industry. We are seeing a decline in those industries such as forestry and mining, and we will see an increase in tourism. Keeping that in mind, surely the minister and the government and the Minister of Finance and the Treasury Board reaction should be: let's invest as many dollars as we possibly can in expanding that industry. We spent $20 million last year. My first thought was, well, let's spend $40 million this year, not save $4 million and knock it down to $16 million. It's paying dividends for the province. It's paying dividends for the taxpayer in that it's, hopefully, generating the money which will enable the government to spend money on social programs and education and health. But we've got to generate the cash in the first place.

I must emphasize again that, in my view, the government made a basic error when they decided to cut the budget. If at the same time as they increased the Tourism budget they'd increased the Culture budget, it seems to me that the benefits from that too would have come back home. It would have been a daring way for the minister and the government to start their tenure in office. It would have said to the tourism industry of this province: "We believe in you. We're going to help you. We're going to help make you successful, because if you are successful, we're successful." I put to the minister that the attitude the ministry took towards the industry has created such hard feelings that it's going to take more than a year to recover. The government, the public and this ministry are going to suffer from some of the hard feelings that have been created, by the minister's own admission, in some of those various areas that are out there right now trying to hustle a dollar, a good part of which will benefit all the province.

In the second half of the first year of her ministry would the minister be prepared to go back to Treasury Board, go back to the Minister of Finance and say: "Look, we might have made a mistake here. I think we should revisit it. We're having trouble finding $5 million for the federal government program. Mr. Finance Minister, maybe we should be looking for $20 million. Tell me why you can't give me $10 million of it now so that I can get out there and put that to work so that next fall the tourism industry in this province will be up and vibrant and raring to go, waiting to get those tourist dollars that could come into the province"? Would the minister, finally -- I know I'm flogging this one to death -- tell me again why she can't do that? Why can't she go back to Treasury Board and say: "Treasury Board, we've made a basic error here. We've got money we've got to put to work to build the tourism industry in this province"

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

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

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

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

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

C. Tanner: I guess we've had our philosophical disagreement, and we'd better leave it alone. As I said previously, I'm not convinced by what the minister says. But she has justified the action she has taken and made a reasonable case from her point of view, so we'll leave that.

[ Page 2275 ]

I'm going to change the subject completely. What facilities, if any, does the Ministry of Tourism make for handicapped tourists?

Hon. D. Marzari: I should say that our Accommodations Guide, which is put out annually, does have a section that informs people who are physically challenged about what facilities are open to them and what facilities they can access.

Far more useful, perhaps, for the purposes of the physically challenged has been the Independence '92 convention in downtown Vancouver. For the purposes of Vancouver, that convention, all by itself, managed to work with hotels, taxi companies and the city to guarantee that there was wheelchair access to virtually every hotel in the downtown Vancouver area. The transportation companies, the cab companies and the city engineer were able to make wheelchair ramps available on a much better basis than they had been before.

Our Accommodations Guide makes reference to accessible locations, locales and places, but more important was the actual action of doing Independence '92, which I think has probably created a small revolution in the minds of the so-called physically able. I think there is a new sensitivity in this province and certainly in the city of Vancouver to just how many people need treatment and physical access. I don't dare call it special treatment, because it suggests that these people are not mainstream. There is a mainstream of people with physical disadvantages that have to be taken care of, and Tourism certainly plays its part through the Accommodation Guide

C. Tanner: I'm asking a bunch of varied questions all to do with Tourism, but not specific cases. I notice that there is a 22 percent increase in employee benefits in the marketing department. Is there any particular reason? It seems like a large increase in just that one particular area.

Hon. D. Marzari: If the same member could ask a few more questions, then as we're looking up the answers, I can deliver them to him all at once.

C. Tanner: There is an almost 45 percent increase in office equipment in code 69; and 60 percent in code 50, which is utilities, material supplies and vehicles. Again, why is it such a large increase? I'm sure there are reasons, but could you tell me what they are?

Could the minister tell us why there is a 43 percent increase in the supplementary salary cost of tourism services and development? Under code 80, in grants, what accounts for the 517 percent increase, from $17,000 to $105,000 -- an increase of $88,000 in the tourism service department grants? Can the minister provide some details? Are you getting this, Madam Minister, or am I going too quickly?

Hon. D. Marzari: Because the questions are technical in nature, I will bring these answers back for you tomorrow, when we will have a chance to look closely at the STOBs and rationalize the numbers with yours. I can guarantee that the creation of a minister's office and a deputy minister's office had a great deal to do with certain of those increases, and systems upgrade had a great deal to do with some of the others. I will give you specific answers tomorrow.

[5:00]

C. Tanner: There appears to be, unlike some of the others, a 70 percent cut in 68, in information systems. Can you tell me the cause of that and what effect the reduction has had?

Hon. D. Marzari: Similarly, I will return tomorrow with a response on a 70 percent cut in information systems.

I would like to add that a note has been sent to me basically saying that our ministry has cooperated in the development of the disability training awareness program for the tourism industry in order to make the industry more aware of the issue in general. We are cooperating with the Man In Motion initiatives. We're working with the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities to implement initiatives around Tourism's involvement with disability training awareness. We are definitely in there -- the total extent to which I'm not sure, but I do believe we are working on a brochure that will be readily available to anyone coming into the province or on the ferry to make them aware of what's available for them.

W. Hurd: I have a question regarding the tendering policies of the Ministry of Tourism. We heard a stirring rendition in Committee B from the Minster of Government Services about the importance of tendering for acquiring the best, most cost-effective means of establishing the price of contracts. Perhaps the minister could describe for the committee the direction she gives her deputy regarding the tendering of contracts in such areas as advertising, and the assessment or the success of the various programs provided by the ministry.

Hon. D. Marzari: Madam Chair, I believe this is another one of those questions that we've been through at length on other occasions during the course of these estimates. I trust that the member will go back and read Hansard, and that he will understand that a few weeks ago we went through these questions ad nauseam, and that they have in fact been answered. I want to simply add in the process of today's estimates that, in fact, all contract procedures that I have engaged in and that all of my colleagues have engaged in were well within government management operating policy. I feel I should say that for the record today. But we have canvassed the subject; we have gone through the subject. I'm sure that every member of the House is now aware of what should be tendered, what doesn't need to be tendered, what can be tendered, when proposal bids are called, when there's a bidding list and when there's not, what fairness should look like, etc. I believe the House has been properly informed on this matter.

[ Page 2276 ]

W. Hurd: The committee is particularly interested in the parameters of the deputy in awarding these types of contracts, however. Is there a ceiling or a figure the ministry has that allows the latitude of the deputy minister to simply award the contract? Or is it always the requirement of the ministry that proper tendering be in place for awarding any contracts, in particular the Pradinuk Advertising contract and the Viewpoints Research contract in the amounts of $25,000 and $50,000? Can the minister describe to the committee whether, because of the dollar figures involved, they represented amounts that provided the deputy with the latitude to award those contracts without a competitive bidding process in place, or was a competitive bidding process available?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe that this, too, was a question that was canvassed in our estimates debate a few weeks ago.

W. Hurd: Again on the matter of tendering, would it not be fair or appropriate for the committee to ask whether the deputy minister has the latitude to award contracts without proper tendering? Is it the intention of this ministry to tender all contracts in the future no matter what the amount and to make the record of tenders available to this House and the people of the province?

Hon. D. Marzari: The issue has been canvassed before. It is more than fair for the House and the committee to be informed as to the answers to those questions. The committee has been informed. We have canvassed this subject thoroughly. Government procedures were properly followed and will continue to be properly followed.

W. Hurd: With respect to the Pradinuk and Viewpoints Research contracts, is the minister satisfied that all appropriate guidelines were followed and that she was fully apprised by the deputy minister as to the terms of reference of these contracts and how they were awarded?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes.

C. Tanner: During the questions that one of the other members from this side of the House asked, there was mention of the 2 percent hotel sales tax. Let's take Whistler as an example. Could the minister tell me whether or not the tourist areas receive the complete amount of the tax raised there? If not, what happens to the balance?

Hon. D. Marzari: That additional 2 percent hotel tax that municipalities are eligible to apply for and receive through the provincial government is generally spent through an arrangement with the municipality or the tourist association and does not necessarily have to be spent on marketing. It can be spent on tourism infrastructure and product development. In the Whistler case, the lion's share of the money is spent, I understand, on product development.

C. Tanner: That tax started out on a voluntary basis, and subsequently the province brought in legislation to enable the municipalities to impose it if the industry wants it. What would the minister's opinion be -- I guess I'm asking her to speculate to some extent -- if it was suggested that that 2 percent would be better administered by the industry and shouldn't even flow through the coffers of the government? Would it not be more beneficial to the industry if there wasn't any government interference at all in that?

Hon. D. Marzari: We've just spent three hours discussing the necessity for coordinated and integrated planning, working together with all of the partners involved in tourism development and tourism marketing. And yet 2 percent is collected from a number of municipalities from the hotel tax and basically handed back by the provincial government to those municipalities. To this point, that program has evolved and grown like topsy, and no accountability has been asked back by the provincial government.

It's interesting. If you believe in planning and cooperation and integration, a provincial government would want to ensure that there were some strings attached to that money. As of this moment, legislatively, there really are no strings attached to that money, and the only way in which the tourism associations speak to us is on a completely voluntary basis, which is not a bad thing. But it's my hope that over the next year we forge closer and closer working relationships to Whistler, Victoria and Vancouver, who over the last two years, between them, have received $15 million. You can imagine that $15 million is a good percentage of what the province itself spends on tourism and tourism marketing.

Now subtract Whistler, because Whistler basically invests in its own, I believe, skating rink and conference centre. When you think about the marketing dollars and the infrastructure dollars that are going into Vancouver and Victoria, you can see how extremely important it is that my ministry work closely and open the door to cooperative arrangements with Victoria and Vancouver. In fact, those doors were opened in the spring campaign in Los Angeles and continue to be opened in the summer campaign to bring tourists to the south Island, and we have a campaign operating there in cooperation.

It is my express hope that when we look at the Tourism budget we not only consider the budget that we have here in this ministry to be debated in this House, but that we also consider that because of moneys collected -- mind you, on a voluntary basis -- from municipalities, there is a wealth of marketing dollars out there in our two largest communities that is being used to promote Vancouver and Victoria, our gateway cities. I do believe that with good cooperation and lots of co-planning and working together, we're going to be able to really use those marketing dollars to better ensure that our efforts integrate with Victoria's and Vancouver's efforts, that their efforts take into consideration something broader than perhaps the city centres, and that we'll really be able to take a global budget and do some remarkable and interesting things 

[ Page 2277 ]

when we start coupling that with federal dollars under a WEPA grant and coupling that once again with co-op dollars from the private sector.

I do believe that there's a real challenge there. There is a real receptivity on the part of my ministry, Victoria and Vancouver to work together, and I'm hoping that we'll see some real results in terms of total marketing dollars spent and focus for that expenditure in the next year.

Hon. T. Perry: I've been sitting here and finding the discussion so interesting. I thought with your permission I would ask a couple of very quick questions to the hon. minister. One of them is local to my riding, in a sense, and to the city of Vancouver. The other two have a bit more provincial import. I'll just raise the three of them and perhaps the minister would be kind enough to enlighten me.

The first one relates to the ethnic diversity of restaurants in Vancouver. My riding has a proliferation of wonderful Japanese, Thai, Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Cambodian restaurants, as well as some of the finest Greek restaurants in the world, not to mention about 100 other ethnic groups. I'm curious whether the ministry is giving any promotion in its advertising aimed at the American and European market for the diversity of food available in my riding and my city.

[5:15]

The second question is a bit more provincial. Could the minister tell me a bit about what the ministry has been able to do or might be envisaging in the future to promote wilderness tourism and liaisons with the river and trails network proposals that the Ministry of Environment is studying?

The third question is about tourism involving the aboriginal resource. I was lucky enough in my duties as Minister of Advanced Education to visit that fascinating U'Mista Museum in Alert Bay, and I was curious what exciting things are going to promote those wonderful cultural resources in B.C. for our visitors from abroad.

Hon. D. Marzari: I can see my hon. colleague and I are going to have serious disagreement about who has the best Greek restaurants in their riding.

Most of our international marketing and long-haul marketing is based on image projection about British Columbia. It basically does not get down to the particular restaurants in Little Mountain; however, the Tourism ministry is and does work closely with the B.C. Restaurant Association, and I have had regular meetings with the restaurant association, and when it's time to market we will market together. I know the restaurants are very relieved this year not to have had an additional 6 percent restaurant meal tax foisted upon them by government. They're feeling somewhat relieved. But I know that they are looking for increased tourism to help them out of their doldrums, particularly on the south island.

Wilderness tourism. This ministry is directly involved in the development of an international eco-tourism conference with 800 delegates, probably the largest of its kind in the world, although to say an eco-tourism conference is the largest of its kind is sort of a conceptual oxymoron, since small is beautiful in eco-tourism. That conference will be held in Whistler this fall, so I will ensure that the hon. member receives word of that conference. B.C. is a very logical place to hold that conference at this time since the issues that face us are issues of sustainability of the resource and product development. No one can develop an eco-tourism product better than the people here on the west coast in British Columbia. We have had some years experience even before eco-tourism was invented as a word. Our guide outfitters, our fishing and angling associations, our small cabins in the wilderness have been there protecting the resource for us and developing business for themselves.

Aboriginal tourism is very much on my mind as we work with and talk to the federal government about moneys that are available for aboriginal tourism to do some product development. There are some excellent examples of accommodation being built in B.C. In fact, there will be an opening of a native hotel-resort on Little Shuswap Lake within the next month. Certainly we all know about Cape Mudge and the Mudge band and their very successful efforts at their small motel accommodation unit. It is an issue in an area that I believe deserves a great deal of sensitive exploration.

I want to be very assured as we develop this field of aboriginal tourism that the bands and the councils themselves are wholly behind any initiatives that are taken. I want to ensure that the people we work with are working in close consultation with bands and councils. If there is even one slight chance that a band or council might feel exploited by an onslaught of tourists coming to or near a reserve, I want to be made aware of that. I think it is important that the community be allowed to develop its tourism resource in a way that it deems fit and proper. Government must give every assistance without pushing. I hope I have come close to answering your three questions, hon. member, and I will pursue all three.

C. Tanner: Madam Chair, I've got to comment on the unique occasion that occurred just now in the House. Here we have two members of the same party in adjacent ridings -- the same caucus and the same cabinet -- asking each other questions. When they answer, they applaud them. Thank you.

Unfortunately my next question concerns the very question that the member asked, but he didn't ask the question correctly. I'd like to get back to where I was before the member for Point Grey decided to ask his colleague in cabinet what's going on with the policies toward tourism. It appeared to me as if the minister was saying there's going to be a change in policy with regard to the 2 percent of the money that is raised in Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler. It started out on a volunteer basis for the benefit of the local rural area. It was utilized through legislation so the various municipalities could raise the income. Apparently, from what the minister says, it has been highly successful because they've raised some $15 million over the space of the program.

[ Page 2278 ]

The minister appeared to be saying that they're now going to look at what I assume is one of two things: either a different distribution of that money or, alternatively, the imposition of that tax throughout the province in order to raise more money.

Hon. D. Marzari: No. I hope the member does not carry away that impression from this question and answer session, because that would be very dangerous to the relationships which have developed between the province's marketing division and Victoria and Vancouver tourist associations. The relationship right now is a cooperative one, and we are marketing cooperatively. We are talking to each other. We are working out our marketing plans and sharing some of our statistics as we try to evolve our marketing plans.

There is no suggestion anywhere along the line that the 2 percent would be withdrawn, nor is there -- horror of horrors -- a suggestion that the 2 percent be inflicted upon other municipalities. It's very important that this 2 percent program be a voluntary one, applied for by a municipality that wants to market itself as a tourist destination or develop its infrastructure. That's crucial.

It is also exceedingly important, once municipalities receive those 2 percent dollars we collect, that we continue to work together, that we don't allow the fact of separate accounts for marketing to interfere with good, solid planning that can occur when people and associations work together. With our marketing budget at the provincial level -- no matter how small it may seem -- with the Vancouver tourism association's marketing budget and with Victoria added to that, we can pack quite a wallop, to put it in technical terms, when we take our product to market, whether it be international, California or even local.

So cooperation on convention planning and on trade conferencing: when Vancouver goes to Europe, we should be in Europe; when Victoria goes to the Pacific Rim, we should be there. Maybe all three of us don't need to be in all places at all times, but we should be carrying each other's messages. That's something I want to improve upon over the years to come.

C. Tanner: I did misunderstand the member, and I appreciate her correction of my misunderstanding.

There are two other questions that arise from it. Is the 2 percent that's raised in Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler taken into account when you're negotiating with those areas as far as their regional allocation grants are concerned?

Hon. D. Marzari: In terms of the cutbacks that our nine Partners in Tourism had to face this year, there was a consideration for the southwest, which is the Vancouver area, and TAVI, which is the Tourism Association of Vancouver Island, that the synergy that's created by having two large marketing budgets within a few miles of the suburban areas and their events could help those two partners to survive the cutback in marketing. It certainly was one of the things that was considered when we made those final cuts to Partners in Tourism.

I am very aware that Vancouver tourism is not necessarily responsible for the Sechelt, and I'm very aware that Victoria tourism is not necessarily responsible for Chemainus. Similarly we have worked closely with both regional partners and tourism associations to try to create a cooperative relationship this summer with a marketing scheme that is driven by all four. In fact, it's an attempt to bring American tourists north, to get them to take the ferries and use the whole Island and come to Vancouver, take the ferry and travel around the Sechelt -- linking the Sechelt with Vancouver Island. The whole concept is built around the circle tour and B.C. Ferries.

So our beginning was to say to the partners, which were seriously affected by the cutbacks, and the tourism associations that the five of us could work together and perhaps create something bigger than the sum of its parts. Throwing in the ferries as the cherry on top to tie the whole thing together was what our marketing people did for us. The simple answer to your question is yes, we have relied on the synergy between Victoria and Vancouver to help drive a larger cooperative enterprise here, in terms of marketing the whole of southwestern B.C.

C. Tanner: For some time -- and I think it would be truthful to say particularly since this government has taken office -- the tourist industry in British Columbia has been concerned by the fact that they don't have an association of the total industry in this province in the same way that tourist industries in other provinces have one. There are many associations representing restaurants, motels, hotels or people in the tourist industry selling souvenirs, and things like that, but there is not one association for the whole tourism industry. It's my suspicion that it's a shortcoming of the industry and probably of the government -- for the government to have somebody to deal with. Is there any merit in talking about some portion of that 2 percent from the larger areas being used to help form an association for the whole province? What is your department doing to help put that association in place, to bring us into 1992 and in line with other associations across the country?

[5:30]

Hon. D. Marzari: On a couple of occasions in the past number of years the government has been directly involved in trying to encourage an industry-wide representative group to advise the minister on tourism. Oddly enough, that exercise hasn't worked, and I'm not quite sure why. I'm looking at it now to find out why, when a government encourages a group to come along, it splinters and falls apart. I'm not sure why it has happened. It's quite possible that attempts thus far have fallen apart because it was government's terms upon which people were pulled together. If a group wants to be a delegatory group -- that is, a group that sends people to a central association, carrying the will of the group -- and then government imposes its agenda on the top, this is what may have prevented it from actually meeting and surviving.

I'm aware that at this moment a council of tourism regions and associations is coming together, and I'm 

[ Page 2279 ]

very happy that it's happening. In fact, one of our consultants, Ann Pollock, whose name you took in vain a few moments ago.... I think you did her a grave injustice, because this is a woman who has been working, both professionally and at a level of personal commitment, to try to ensure that the industry comes together and stays together, and who has been looking over many years for a coherent tourism policy in our province. You quoted her perhaps slightly out of context, because no consultant is more committed, I believe, to the meshing of interests, both sectoral and geographic, in this province than Ms. Pollock. More informed than many of the highest academics, and better skilled than many people in the field, she has been indispensable to this ministry over the last five very fractious years as a valuable and professional worker in the field of tourism. I would say that your comments about her weren't entirely well taken, as she has worked to pull together yet another attempt to pull the industry together.

A more up to the moment and recent event has been my pulling together, or rehydration, shall we call it, of the provincial tourism advisory committee, which was established by legislation a few years ago -- I'm not sure when it had its first meeting -- to advise ministers over the years on what track to take and on what road to travel in terms of tourism planning and budget expenditure. Two weeks ago I had the privilege of meeting with a 22-member newly re-formed Provincial Tourism Advisory Council, which is basically comprised of representatives of the sectors across the province with representation from Partners in Tourism in the form of Mr. Corbett. We began the process of looking at our business plan and exchanging information with each other about the state of the art in tourism today in B.C. and about available federal dollars and what we should be doing over the next five years. I look forward to working with the Provincial Tourism Advisory Council.

That does not detract from the fact that the industry itself needs a federation, a place where representatives can come representing their individual sectors or their individual geographic regions. PTAC is advisory to the minister. The people carry no responsibility to report back or to carry consensus opinions from within their own industry or sector. I would hope that a council of tourism associations and industries would be truly reflective of the grass roots in the industry -- sectoral and regional in this province. I'm hoping that it evolves.

Should the minister get involved and perk it along? I don't believe so. I believe it has to come together. I will be a friendly observer but not a participant in its evolution. As it evolves, I will be very supportive and so will the ministry, and we will provide whatever assistance is required. I do believe that it has to happen without the hand of government. In the meantime, I will continue to work with PTAC, which as an industry adviser -- not a spokesperson, but an adviser -- will continue to help me as we evolve our plan.

C. Tanner: The minister didn't mention the suggestion of some utilization of that 2 percent towards the implementation of the suggestion that the minister has. Do the other provinces have legislation recognizing that association, and would the minister think that might be a good thing here? If the industry gets the encouragement and we both agree that it would be beneficial to the province, to the government and to the industry if they had such an association, would the minister be prepared to put legislation forward and give them some recognition?

The Chair: The Chair would just like to remind both sides of the House that this is not the appropriate venue for discussing future legislation or the need for legislation.

Minister, would you like to continue?

Hon. D. Marzari: We have become very discursive in our question and answering.

I want to encourage the formation of a province-wide association. I think that is crucial for the development. I do not know whether other provinces have legislation, and I will find that out for the member. Would legislation be in order? I don't know. That's something I think should be discussed as: (a) we get the information that we require from other provinces, and (b) would depend on whether or not the association itself required legislation.

C. Tanner: I appreciate the remarks that the Chair made concerning our discussions this afternoon, except I think we're both motivated by the same thing, and that's to the benefit of the province and the benefit of the industry. Sometimes we cannot help but go a little further than perhaps the jurisdiction of this particular debate.

The member for Vancouver-Little Mountain touched on a subject that by coincidence was the next one I was going to mention. Appreciating that the aboriginal community is enjoying a renewed interest in their culture and history, and their contribution to the tourist industry has grown and is growing, and that because in many cases they're in isolated communities with few economic opportunities frequently the only way they can find economic benefit is by moving from their homes, I was going to ask whether the Partners in Tourism program allocated any funds or programming to bringing into fruition plans for aboriginal communities to assist or to be part of the tourist industry.

Hon. D. Marzari: Presently in the province there is a First Nations Tourism Association, and under the able leadership of Mr. Barry Parker it has put together quite a comprehensive document to solidify the association and give it the ability to do some of the development work that you are talking about. We are reviewing that at this very moment.

In the ministry we are also doing an inventory of what exists now in terms of aboriginal participation in the tourism industry, and that should be done by the end of the summer.

Also we have taken the initiative to ask bands and councils whether they would like to have their reserves on the British Columbia road map -- a small, seemingly insignificant detail, but something which is very impor-

[ Page 2280 ]

tant and is being handled by requests for permission to do so.

We will continue to work with the association and those providers of service that are presently up and running. We will do everything we can to try to ensure that aboriginal tourism becomes a reality in this province. As I said before, we will work with the federal program which presently exists to do that, and plug bands and councils into whatever funding is available as their programs evolve. Yes, we will be doing all the promotion and all the development we can as we do our inventory and develop our marketing and research capability. It must all proceed at the pace which the native community is ready to proceed at; that is rule number one.

C. Tanner: Would the negotiation with the federal government that is ongoing and hopefully will be concluded very shortly include funding for that type of program?

Hon. D. Marzari: We're exploring that in partnership, but I'm also aware that there is a separate program in Ministry of Tourism federally for aboriginal tourism.

C. Tanner: Madam Chair, that virtually completes the general questions I have in tourism, other than the answers to those questions which the minister said she'd bring back tomorrow. It would be my suggestion, unless the minister wishes to do otherwise, that we start the cultural part of our questions and answers tomorrow rather than today.

Hon. D. Marzari: I have no difficulty with starting Culture now, if you'd like to proceed onto questions relating to the cultural part of my portfolio.

C. Tanner: I beg your pardon; another one of my colleagues has some tourism questions.

D. Symons: My interests are from page 200 in the estimates book, to give you a clue as to where I am working from. I am looking under the vote description, part A. In there mention is made of expenses for the administration of the B.C. Steamship Company. I'm just wondering what the current status of that steamship company is, what moneys are being put into it and what its projected plans are for this year.

Hon. D. Marzari: The B.C. Steamship Company is a small, almost invisible Crown corporation that basically has within its budget the taxes it needs to pay to stay alive. It is constituted; it does have a board. It is, I guess, capable of doing business according to its mandate, and it has been the agency responsible for putting forward the tender calls for the Seattle-Victoria ferry and will probably be the agency that puts forward the tender calls at the end of June, when we go back to the market to solicit proposals on next summer's Seattle-Victoria ferry.

D. Symons: Part A refers to the administration costs for the B.C. Steamship Company. I wonder under which STOB that would appear. How much would be put aside for that particular cost?

[5:45]

Hon. D. Marzari: It's a Crown corporation, and therefore it is not part of the operating budget of the province and is not necessarily under review. But I will get the information for the member.

C. Tanner: In the same vein, in the past two years, probably longer, the provincial government has had a lease on various docks in and around Victoria. There has been some question as to whether or not we have passed up income in using the availability of those docks. Could the minister comment on whether or not that is true? Have we passed up income? Are we looking at another year with a dock sitting completely idle until such time as we get a contract through the Steamship Company?

Hon. D. Marzari: Yes, the provincial government does have a standing lease with the federal Coast Guard on the Belleville Street site, for example. We've maintained that lease, being the middle people between the Coast Guard and whoever leases the site. That lease costs us something on the order of $27,000 to $30,000 for the season. It was that lease that was going to cost Sea Containers, when taken to its market value, closer to $235,000 for this season. This provincial government has some work to do with the Coast Guard federally to try to ensure that the leases that are exacted on that site by the Coast Guard are within reason and reflect a truer market value according to what a private operator might be able to afford. What I'm saying to the member is that this provincial government is hanging on to those leases so that we can work closely with the federal government to ensure that we ultimately get our Seattle-Victoria ferry running in the way that Victoria needs it for its tourism. We can do that as an honest broker and look toward, as I did a few weeks ago when I went to Ottawa, getting a break on that lease rate.

Thirdly, the reason I think it's important that we hang on to those leases right now and not alienate them by signing anything long-term with a company other than for what we truly want -- which is a car-carrying ferry -- is that in the last analysis, a few years down the road, hopefully it will be possible for the whole Inner Harbour to be zoned and planned in a comprehensive way, so that the whole harbour will have a harbour plan and people in Victoria can come to expect a mixed-use facility in that Inner Harbour, with mixed use of that actual dock at Belleville Street.

So yes, we're hanging on to the lease, and, yes, it's appropriate that we do so. It's not appropriate to alienate that lease to any individual concern right now, because we've got our eye on the prize, a car-carrying passenger ferry, and the second prize, which is, of course, the integrated land use concept which I hope that the Inner Harbour ultimately will come to enjoy.

C. Tanner: The minister said "leases" sometimes and "lease" other times. I assume she's talking about both the lease in the Inner Harbour and the lease at 

[ Page 2281 ]

Ogden Point. Did I understand the minister to say that the price she quoted of, I think, $30,000 or $26,000 was for both of them?

Hon. D. Marzari: No. I was quoting the Belleville lease when I quoted that and showed the discrepancy between the Coast Guard's market value and what we're paying each year. I just wanted to show the member that we were not in fact paying the Coast Guard's interpretation of market value for that site; that we are hanging on to that lease until we get the ferry.

Even now I gather we are allowing the casual pocket cruiser to line up at the Belville Street site, but not on any kind of a sub-lease basis.

C. Tanner: And the Ogden Point dock facility?

Hon. D. Marzari: I don't have either our costs or the so-called market costs for Ogden Point for the member, but I'll certainly get them. At this moment there is nobody docking at Ogden Point.

D. Symons: I wonder if I could just revisit the answer I had before. The way I'm reading this information on page 200 under your ministry operations, vote 59 is that the implication is these are moneys coming from vote 59 rather than from a Crown corporation. I am again seeking information on how much money -- and where this would appear in here -- is going towards B.C. Steamships, because it says they're one of the things under part (c) "Tourism." The subvote provides for: "...managing the operations of B.C. Steamship Company...." If it's providing for that, I'm wondering where it provides for it and how much it provides for it.

Hon. D. Marzari: There is no voted money for B.C. Steamships. As a Crown corporation it runs its own show. The truth of the matter is that it's basically Tourism staff that run it, because it's a bit of a shell corporation, I guess, as a Crown corporation. You will see that our staff is running it. But as a Crown corporation it does not have voted money.

D. Symons: One further question, again on B.C. Steamships. I would assume from answers given that this is not a money-making organization at this time. It's probably money-losing. Therefore, if it's losing money paying debts, where is the money to pay off these expenses coming from?

Hon. D. Marzari: I believe the corporation received some assets when its ship was privatized. However, those assets are used basically to pay its taxes and to cover some minimal administrative costs. It is not a money-maker; neither is it a money-loser. I do believe that it collects its interest and covers its taxes. That seems to be the status. If there is anything that differs from my interpretation to you after I have a chance to talk to my financial manager Mr. Henderson, I will let you know.

D. Symons: I think that answers my question. I was noting the time and was going to suggest that the committee may care to rise and report progress.

Motion approved.

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. A. Hagen: I move that the House stand adjourned for five minutes.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:56 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

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

The committee met at 2:39 p.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
GOVERNMENT SERVICES

On vote 45: minister's office, $330,000.

Hon. L. Boone: Before I begin on this vote, I would like to introduce the officials that we have here today -- we have majority in this House right now: Mr. Doug Allen, who is my deputy minister; John Mochrie, the assistant deputy minister; David Richardson, the executive director of public and corporate relations; Steve Hutchings, the chief executive officer of the Purchasing Commission; John Cook from the Superannuation Commission; Ted Evans, president and chief executive officer of the B.C. Systems Corporation; Dennis Truss, president and chief executive officer of B.C. Buildings Corporation; and Doug Penrose, director of finance administration of the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

I'm very pleased to be able to introduce the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. This is a new ministry that's made up of programs from the old Provincial Secretary and the Ministry of Government Management Services. In a nutshell, its purpose is to keep the institution of government running smoothly and efficiently. We do this by providing key services to the executive branch, to other ministries, to employees and to communities throughout the province.

Our overriding objective is to administer these services in the most cost-effective way. My intention here is to provide an overview and not to go into great 

[ Page 2282 ]

detail. I'm sure my colleague will do that later on. But I will try to give a sense of the scope of the ministry's responsibilities and to touch on its role in achieving government's broader objectives.

With a gross budget of $236.4 million, recoveries of $143.8 million, for a net budget of $92.7 million, the ministry incorporates a wide range of diverse programs and services. They include the Purchasing Commission, which is made up of product sales and services, purchasing and supply or development and travel management services; the Superannuation Commission, which is responsible for administering all British Columbia public sector pension plans; protocol and special events; services to Government House and the legislative buildings; community grants; the Centre for Executive and Management Development; information and privacy branch; the B.C. archives and records service; the policy coordination and government communications offices, with cross-government responsibilities for ensuring that government's communications and policy objectives are met; appointments to boards and commissions, where we have already begun to achieve much greater regional, gender and ethnic balance -- I would refer interested members to a Times-Colonist article of June 1 that was headed "College Boards Reflecting More Women, Minority Groups"; Enquiry B.C. is our toll-free information and expert referral number, and that number handles over 30,000 calls a month, or more than 300,000 calls a year; the Premier's Advisory Council for Persons With Disabilities; and the Public Service Commission.

Though not one of the bigger ministries -- we have just over 900 staff -- this ministry has a significant impact on the overall performance of government. For instance, it supports the achievement of the following government objectives: the delivery of open, accessible and fair government; government efficiency and affordability; economic development, especially in the small business sector; and environmental protection.

Let me give you just a few examples of how the Ministry of Government Services supports these goals.

First, openness and fairness in government are advanced by the ministry in a number of ways: through its competitive tendering practices for all major government purchases; through Enquiry B.C., which, as I said, is making government a whole lot more accessible for 300,000 people a year; and through the information and privacy initiative, for which we share responsibility with the Attorney-General. The latter is not just a matter of writing legislation -- adding another law to the books. It's a matter of changing the way government thinks about the information it holds. We have already begun to bring about that change of attitude.

Competitive tendering, on the other hand, not only makes government more accessible; it makes it more affordable. Let me give you an example. Through an agreement put together by the Purchasing Commission, government will save 30 percent on wheelchairs supplied to social assistance recipients. The savings on the maintenance contract alone will be over $350,000 over two years.

Rationalization of the government air fleet service will save $1.2 million in air ambulance charter costs. Coordinated regional travel for public employees on government business will save ministries 10 percent on travel costs, and probably a lot more on time. Getting the very best for the taxpayers' dollars is always important for government. It is especially so in challenging economic times. It is at times like this that the cost-saving services of this ministry take on added importance. When the cost of government is held in check through efficiency, the money can be spent on programs for people.

[2:45]

With regard to this ministry's role in economic development, the Purchasing Commission works to find B.C. companies that can supply the government with goods or services currently being purchased from companies outside the province. They are also on the lookout for regional companies that can compete for government business. During one quarter in the last fiscal year, the commission placed $7.44 million worth of service, maintenance and repair tenders with companies from the Kelowna area. The ministry's first-buy initiative helps B.C. firms sell their newly developed and advanced technological products and services to government. This enables firms to get a track record in order to obtain further contracts. One such company sold innovative medical devices to the government in 1990; projected sales for this fiscal year are $500,000, most of which are offshore. These purchasing policies have a tremendous impact on businesses throughout the province.

Our ministry is a leader across Canada in developing environmental procurement policy. A full 95 percent of our envelopes and business cards are printed with vegetable-based ink and recycled paper. The Queen's Printer is working with the private sector printing industry to establish new environmental standards and guidelines. Environmental practices will be taken into account when private sector printers are pre-qualified as suppliers to the government. The ministry worked with a private company in Penticton to develop a biowaste container for hospitals. The container, made from recycled cardboard, replaces a plastic container.

No government can function smoothly without good recordkeeping and archival services. Cross-government leadership in this field is provided by our provincial archives and records services. To give you an idea of the scope of record management in B.C., the government currently stores 1.2 million cubic feet of records and generates 210,000 cubic feet annually. Information is a fundamental resource of government. Vital records of long-term value must be preserved. Remedial preservation is an important part of the provincial archives' responsibility. Records management services are vital to the successful implementation of the information and privacy legislation. Implementation of this important legislation will place increased demands on the resources of the provincial archives and records services.

Protocol events and the operation of Government House play a big part in establishing good relations with other governments and developing good working relationships between our province and other countries and trading partners around the world. This ministry 

[ Page 2283 ]

also provides services that keep this very building operating.

As I mentioned in the outline of the ministry's programs, the Ministry of Government Services administers pensions not only for provincial government employees but also for all public sector employees, including municipal employees, teachers and colleges. The commission serves over 710 public sector employers, approximately 200,000 active plan members and 55,000 pensioners.

I want to say a few words about the lotteries, because there seems to be some confusion among members of this House, and possibly the public at large, about the status of the Lottery Fund and the use of lottery revenue. The 1992-93 budget eliminated the Lottery Fund; it does not exist. Therefore it is no longer appropriate to talk about groups applying for lottery grants. Revenue from the sale of lottery tickets is now divided equally between health care and general revenue. This is an important step. It means that lottery revenue is subject to the same accountability as other government revenue. Like other revenue, it will be used to fund the programs and services provided to all of the people in the province -- programs and services such as health care, education, environmental protection and so on.

This ministry will administer a new community grants program. This is not a lottery grant program; it is a voted appropriation from general revenue. Our aim is to make this program equally accessible to all community groups, and we are obtaining public input into the guidelines now. Most of the funds in this year's community grants program will be used to honour commitments made in the past, but when we finish the public consultation process I am sure we will have a grants program that will give maximum public benefit for the funds available.

To summarize, the ministry is a provider of central services. It helps the government do more with less, and it keeps the machinery of government running efficiently. This is a lean ministry with a focus on service. The ministry's clients range from visiting heads of states to office assistants, and the same philosophy of quality service is extended to each one.

I will end my remarks now, but I'd like to just qualify them before the opposition starts. We will do our best throughout these estimates to answer any questions that we can. On those questions that we are not able to answer immediately, we will endeavour to get answers for you as soon as possible. We may not always be able to get them within the same day, but we will certainly bring the answers back to you just as soon as we can.

K. Jones: I really appreciate the minister's words, her giving us this overview of the ministry, and her willingness to work in giving us a clear answer to the questions that we will be bringing forward. It is very commendable, and we appreciate that cooperation. It will probably speed the process that we're trying to work our way through here today.

As the official opposition critic, I've had the opportunity to meet with various heads of the ministry, with the minister's blessing. They have been very cooperative. I've found the staff to be exceedingly competent and very capable in the record, by and large. There may be some specific areas that we may have concerns about, and we'll be asking questions about these, for the benefit of the people of British Columbia.

I'd like to give you a brief outline of how we're going to approach it. I've already indicated the outline to the minister and to the official opposition. But for those people and other members of the committee who haven't received that information, I would like to indicate that we'll be starting with the minister's office vote. We'll then go onto the Public Service Commission; the Superannuation Commission; B.C. Systems Corporation; B.C. Buildings Corporation; B.C. Lottery Corporation; Community Grants; B.C. Purchasing Commission; Government Air Services; vehicle fleet and travel management; archives and records service; Queen's Printer; warehousing; protocol; freedom of information and privacy; appointments to agencies, boards and commissions; government communications office; policy coordination; Premier's Advisory Council for Persons with Disabilities; Service Quality B.C.; and Enquiry B.C.

Originally, we had proposed that we would include the registries of societies and corporations. I've had a note from the minister indicating that, as they are within the vote under the Finance minister's estimates, she will be dealing with the questions related to these at that time. I believe they will be coming immediately after these, or depending on when the next session starts, on the estimates for the Minister of Finance.

I'd like to ask the minister to give us an outline of her philosophy, now that she has been into the job for six months and she has had a chance to look at this ministry and the direction in which it should be going. She has given us an indication in her introductory remarks that she feels that it should be a service-quality philosophy. Could she elaborate a little further on the overall philosophy encompassing the ministry? Also, could she give us an indication of a mission statement for the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: It couldn't come at a better time, actually. We're currently working on some of these very issues within the ministry. After a great deal of soul-searching and thinking, I think we've come to some pretty good ideas as to where we want this ministry to go. We see it as being people-oriented. We see it as being a people-first ministry -- a ministry that considers employees, in their actions, who work with people and provide a quality service to the people that they are working for.

This is where this ministry, I think, differs considerably from other ministries: our contact with the general public is relatively small compared to that for other ministries. We are here to provide services as a whole to the government. We do want to make sure that we provide the services; that we are not a managing group -- that we relate to the needs of ministries; that we respond to their needs; and that we are not there to manage or control ministries, but to provide the 

[ Page 2284 ]

services and to suggest ways that they can operate in a more efficient manner.

We would like to see ourselves -- and this is one of the things I have spoken about -- as a ministry that is fair and treats people with fairness; a ministry that deals with some of the issues that we are concerned with, such as employment equity; a ministry that sees equality for women; a ministry that gives opportunities to minorities and the disabled; and a ministry that truly represents British Columbia in terms of its employment.

K. Jones: It looks like you've really done a lot of work on this. It's good to see that you and your staff have addressed that at such an early stage of your ministry. Have you at this time established a mission statement for the ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: That is what we're working on right now. As I said, over the past couple of weeks we have spent many hours working on this. Within a short time we will have a mission statement that we can make available to everybody.

K. Jones: I'd like to look at the first vote, for your minister's office. This vote grew roughly $50,000 between the estimates of 1991 and 1992. This minister has kept them roughly at the same level. Although you will be quite right in pointing out that, in going back a year, purchases of this parliament are beyond your responsibility, I am wondering if the officials present could explain to us why the $50,000 increase took place between '90-91 and '91-92, from the $284,000 in total to the $333,000 now in your vote.

Hon. L. Boone: I guess we need some clarification as to what you are comparing it with, because this is a brand-new ministry. Are you looking strictly at Provincial Secretary in the past, or are you looking at Government Management Services? This ministry combined the two of them. It's a brand-new ministry, and I don't think we have increased the budget whatsoever.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister is indicating that the difference is because the restructuring of the ministries has caused this to stay the same -- that the increase that occurred two years ago, or the '90-91 estimates we're talking about, not the current change....

The Chair: Hon. member, I would offer you a caution. We're dealing with the ministry estimates of the current year, not the '90-91 year. It is a new ministry, as the minister has stated.

[3:00]

K. Jones: Okay, we'll take that into consideration. While we are still on vote 45 for the minister's office, I wonder if the minister could indicate for the House where the $309,000, under total salaries and benefits, is expended in running her office. In other words, how many employees are provided for under STOB 1, and what are the salaries for each of those employees?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, I have ministerial assistants here in my office in Victoria; I have an executive assistant in Prince George; I have an administration assistant here in Victoria and three other staff people. The total salaries for all of them are $225,000. If you want a breakdown on each individual, I'll have to get that to you later on. But the three staff people are under the government contracts. I believe there is an OA-2, a clerk 3, a clerk-steno 4 and two clerk 3 employees. I can get you the salary rates of the others later, because they are OIC appointments.

K. Jones: We appreciate that detailing. The concern has been that there appeared to be some increase in salaries for senior staff since the government changeover, and we wanted to get some feeling as to why this was being done. Do you have any indication to give us?

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know what the previous government's salary rates were. I know that my people are being paid at totally appropriate levels -- in keeping with every other MA and AA and EA within the province. There is nothing excessive in their salaries whatsoever. In fact, they provide us with very good work for the money that they are paid, and they should probably be paid a lot more for the work they do.

K. Jones: I'm sure that the minister is correct; they probably should be paid more. In most cases, for the number of hours that they put in, they are probably as underpaid as many people in support roles.

With respect to your office, I'm wondering if the minister's use of a government jet is billed to her office vote.

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not. All ministry travel is absorbed within the government air budget. For ministry employees it's charged back, but for ministers it's absorbed within the government air budget.

K. Jones: Does the minister have a vehicle assigned to her? Is the cost of that taken out of her office budget?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, I do have vehicle that's assigned to me. It is taken out of the office budget, and we are taxed appropriately on that use as well.

K. Jones: During the first six months of office, has the minister, under her direct ministerial responsibility, issued any sort of memorandum to any of the Crown corporations or ministerial operations under her responsibility with respect to maintaining a ceiling on or cutting back on expenditures?

Hon. L. Boone: We've not issued any formal memorandum per se, but I've met with all of the corporation boards and their directors within a very short time of coming into office. We made it clear to them that this government had a mandate to reduce its deficit and that we expected the corporations to participate and to do whatever they could to assist us, whether it be through suggesting ways and means the government can save money, as B.C. Systems has done, or any 

[ Page 2285 ]

way that we can reduce the debt. And they can assist us in those ways, because these companies do pay dividends to the government for the work they provide to us. It's clear, and I think they know the mandate. Their mission statements that I've read just recently and some of their yearly reports that are coming out have indicated that they also acknowledge the fact that they have a role to play in reducing the government deficit.

K. Jones: Could the minister list any specific expenditures that have been cut under her direction in the first six months of office?

Hon. L. Boone: We have reduced travel expenses. As you know, we eliminated an entire section of my ministry, and not without pain, I might say. We lost a very good employee and a very worthwhile section of the ministry there. Advertising has been reduced; data and word processing have been reduced; the building occupancy charges have been reduced; and, as you well know, grants through the community grant program have also been reduced.

K. Jones: For further elaboration on that, could you give us an indication of how building occupancy charges have been reduced?

Hon. L. Boone: Through operating costs of the legislative building here. And we've reduced electrical systems, utility maintenance systems and various areas such as that.

K. Jones: In other words, you're saying that you reduced the operating costs, not the occupancy costs per se. Is that what you're saying? Yes? Okay.

You said you've eliminated an entire section. Is that the section Mr. Peter Clark was heading up? What is Mr. Clark doing now?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, that was the area we cut. Mr. Clark was with service quality and is helping there and is also assisting with Economic Development right now.

K. Jones: Does that mean Mr. Clark is no longer paid out of your vote?

Hon. L. Boone: Through service quality. He's paid by the ministry responsible, so it's journal-vouchered back. He is currently being paid by Economic Development.

K. Jones: Could the minister be more specific with regard to a list? Could we receive a list from the minister as to all the expenditure cuts? It doesn't have to be right now, but if you could provide it to us in the next week or so, showing what's happened since you've taken office.... At the moment I'll step down on this particular aspect and see if anybody else has a question to ask in this area, and maybe I'll return shortly.

Hon. L. Boone: You're on pension, is that what you're saying?

K. Jones: Not yet.

I'd like to ask about consultants hired by approval of this minister. I'd like to verbally put to her a question related to the question we've had on the order paper for almost three months, with no answer. It will be a different question. I'd like to know if any consultants have been hired through the minister's office. I'd like to know how those consultants were hired and for what projects and what the contract arrangements were in each case. Perhaps you would be good enough to supply the names of the people involved in those contracts as well.

Hon. L. Boone: None have been hired through my office.

K. Jones: Just a procedural question. The area of designation of or identification of government offices and government corporations.... At what stage on this agenda do you think that item would come up most appropriately? Is it under this section or a later section?

Hon. L. Boone: You can do whatever you want.

K. Jones: I just wanted to identify if there was a particular area and if there were some staff people she wanted to have available for that.

Hon. L. Boone: If he's referring to the identification that took place in question period, that would probably be under government communications.

K. Jones: If no one else has further questions in this vote 45, I will stand down and we can go on with the vote.

W. Hurd: With respect to the tendering policies of the government, has the minister outlined any funds in the budget to improve the performance of tendering in the public sector, particularly the B.C. Systems Corporation and the B.C. Buildings Corporation with regard to the tendering of space they might require for their needs?

Hon. L. Boone: Those budgets are not within my budget here. I'm more than happy to answer questions if you have specific ones about those various ministry policies. There are no moneys in this vote for B.C. Systems or any of the other areas. The executive directors are here, and I'm sure that, if you've got specific questions with regard to tendering in BCBC or B.C. Systems, they'd be more than happy to answer them.

W. Hurd: Just a further line of questioning on B.C. Systems and B.C. Buildings.... Do they prepare an annual report for the minister, particularly with respect to tendering they might do during the course of a fiscal year? Or is it incumbent upon the members of the opposition to approach these two Crown corporations directly to request that information?

[3:15]

[ Page 2286 ]

Hon. L. Boone: These corporations do prepare annual reports, but I've just been advised that the tendering is not outlined in that. They do talk about their expenditures and the various things like that. If you have any specific questions or want some information from them with regard to the tendering that's taken place, I'd be more than happy to get that information for you.

W. Hurd: Perhaps the minister could outline exactly what reporting schedule there is with B.C. Systems and B.C. Buildings in terms of what they're required to do under the umbrella of her ministry. If they don't issue reports to the minister on their tendering policies, perhaps she can outline exactly what those two corporations do in terms of annual reporting. How does the minister supervise these particular corporations?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, these are corporations, and they have boards that they report to. They do supply me with a copy of their annual report. I do attend their board meetings, or a representative from my office or somebody from the Crown corporations secretariat attends their board meetings, as well, to keep in touch with what's going on. It is the government's responsibility to provide the policy. The policy is then interpreted by the board, and they make the management decisions on how these corporations are operated. The management decisions, with regard to the operation of those boards, do not take place in my ministry offices.

W. Hurd: Further on B.C. Systems and the B.C. Buildings Corporation, the committee assumes that these two corporations are funded by Government Services. Can the minister describe what audit procedure is in place with respect to the funds that these two corporations expend during the course of a fiscal year? I would assume their operations are the subject of a government or outside audit.

Hon. L. Boone: These two corporations are funded through fees that are paid. B.C. Systems charges a fee to operations for their services. BCBC charges a fee to ministries for the services provided them. Their operations dollars come from the fees. They are audited both internally and externally. I'm not sure what other information the member would like on that.

W. Hurd: If I am to interpret the remarks correctly, then, the only direction provided by the Ministry of Government Services to these two corporations is in the area of policy. Can the minister perhaps describe the budget within her ministry's office for establishing policies for these two corporations, and how that's developed? Is it done in a consultative manner with the boards, or is it a directive provided by the ministry? I realize it is a policy area, but I would assume that some funds are expended by the ministry within the parameters of the ministry to establish the directives and goals for these two corporations.

Hon. L. Boone: We do not have dollars set aside for the establishment of policy in these areas. Policy is established through interaction with the board and me, and we do interact with the board chairpersons as need be. Also, policy is set by the Crown Corporations Committee. I think it's important to note that this is the first time that Crown corporations have had any accountability to government through a committee, which is the Crown Corporations Committee. Policies are taken to that committee, debated and passed by cabinet. Those are the directives that go to the Crown corporations.

K. Jones: Just following up on this, is that committee the Crown corporations secretariat?

Hon. L. Boone: It is the Cabinet Committee on Crown Corporations. Included in it are ministers who have responsibility for the Crowns, as well as the Minister of Women's Equality. The Crown secretary does participate in that committee as a staff person, not as a voting member of the committee.

K. Jones: I find it interesting to note the high regard that has been expressed over the years for the CEOs of the ministry's operations. The former official opposition critic remarked on it in both 1989 and 1990. He said he was quite impressed with them, and, as I said, I feel very much the same way. But on this matter it's nice to quote the former critic from page 10630 of Hansard: "I thought we were being well served by the CEOs. I was impressed by the enthusiasm" -- which I very much noticed as well. He said he was impressed by the enthusiasm with which they seemed to approach their job and by the freedom and openness they displayed to him as critic. That's very important with these corporations. For the public to be well served in the expenditure of their dollars and in the provision of services, we need to feel free in opposition to approach these CEOs, and they need to sense from the government of the day a freedom to converse with all Members of the Legislative Assembly. I can report that it is there right now, so let's not lose it. Do you have any feeling that there would be any change in that in the future?

Hon. L. Boone: Not unless you abuse it. It's clear that in my ministry we have taken the position right from day one that the freedom-of-information legislation, although not passed right now, is here. We want the atmosphere of openness to start right now, so where possible we do provide the information that is requested. We would sometimes like a little longer time-frame. If necessary, we ask for that. If the information is there, if we have it available and if it meets the guidelines that the current freedom-of-information legislation is bringing in, then my directions to staff have been to comply and make that information available.

K. Jones: I'd like to look now at the Public Service Commission. I'll begin my remarks by commenting on the very successful meeting we had with the current commissioner, Mr. Graeme Roberts, who spent time 

[ Page 2287 ]

with me in detailing the appeal process for the Public Service Commission and the hiring and promotion procedures that fall under his responsibility. We might try a little preventive medicine with respect to future patronage appointments by this government, and this minister, by raising the question of the commission appointments. Do you still have a vacancy on the commission at this moment?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, we still have a vacancy.

K. Jones: Do you have, at the moment, the continuing appointments of Mr. Bill Irwin, a former superintendent of brokers, and Mr. Gordon Van Dyck, a former business manager for the IBEW?

Hon. L. Boone: Yes, they're still members of the commission.

K. Jones: Then I would like to respectfully suggest to the minister that perhaps this appeal board have someone added to it with some business background, perhaps a woman. I would like to obtain her thoughts on this suggestion.

Hon. L. Boone: We are looking over all our appointments and would be more than happy to take any suggestions that the hon. member has for the commissions. Whether it be this commission or the other boards we have, we're open to suggestions for names and resumés. You'll find that getting the names is often easy, but getting the resumés out of people is often a little more difficult. Please, if you have somebody in mind, get the resumés for us.

K. Jones: I appreciate that. We've also experienced difficulties in getting resumés before the House. I think Peat Marwick was one of them, wasn't it?

There seems to be a greater number of appeals coming to the commission at this time. I wonder if the minister could comment on her view as to why.

Hon. L. Boone: The stats that I have here show that we've gone from 42 to 26 to 21 to 32. I wouldn't say it's an outrageous increase. I really have no idea why these appeals are taking place.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister could explain what these figures represent, because I don't know. They're just figures. Are they four years ago? Are they annual figures or are they quarterly figures?

Hon. L. Boone: That was the number of hearings that were held. In fiscal '88-89 there were 42, in '89-90 there were 26, in '90-91 there were 21 and in '91-92 there were 32. So there has been an increase in the last year. As I say, I'm not sure; maybe people are moving more, more jobs coming up for postings. I have no idea why that could be. It would strictly be guessing for me to say why these were increasing at this point in time.

K. Jones: Do you have a representative of the Public Service Commission here backing up?

Hon. L. Boone: No.

K. Jones: If you could look into that and maybe bring it back to us at an early date -- just give us an indication of why....

I wonder if the minister would make a commitment to the House at this time with respect to the publication of various appeal decisions during the coming year. We'd like to hear from the minister an assurance that these appeals from various grievances, for either hirings or promotions, will be public during the present fiscal year, and if not, at least available to the members of this House to review in confidence.

I would add that, with the very large number of patronage appointments from this government, the morale in the public service is not what it could be at the moment. We in the opposition are concerned that the number of grievances to the Public Service Commission is increasing at this particular time. We'd like to hold the government accountable by being able to review appeal decisions during the next 12-month period.

The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.

D. Schreck: No, I was just rising to speak.

The Chair: The member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.

D. Schreck: The opposition critic brings up a point that I think has to offend all members of this House and all members of the public service, when a few positions in ministerial offices are filled, and the opposition critic then takes those positions to generalize to over 30,000 public employees. There's absolutely no basis to substantiate the sort of criticism we're hearing in this chamber today. It's offensive to the unions involved; it's offensive to the management staff involved; it's offensive to the thousands of volunteers who are working without compensation on boards and commissions; and it's very regrettable that it would be brought up in the debates of these estimates. As was mentioned in the chamber during question period, what we should be doing is thanking the volunteers who are working at no cost whatsoever for this government, and we should be congratulating and building up the morale of the tens of thousands of staff.

[3:30]

The Chair: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock on a point of order.

W. Hurd: Is the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale rising on a point of order or to address the question on behalf of the minister?

D. Schreck: I'm sure that the rookie opposition will learn that every member of the House has an equal opportunity to participate in debates and to contribute their views. I'm proud to say that I find the comments of the opposition to be offensive to thousands of people, 

[ Page 2288 ]

including many who are my constituents. I hope that we can raise the level of debate and continue in the vein that was originally started. When men and women in British Columbia either are employed or volunteer to work for the government of British Columbia, we should be congratulating them for their work.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll go back to your original question, which is about the commission. The commission is independent. All results of the hearings are made public; they are available unless the commissioner rules otherwise. This minister does not interfere in the workings of the commissioner. If he chooses to rule one way or the other, that is totally up to him.

I'd like to comment as well a little bit on morale. I think it is fair to say that after five years of turmoil in the previous government, the morale among government workers was not the best. This government is doing what we can to try and turn things around to make government workers know that they and their work are valued. We're doing that in a number of ways. One of them we just talked about: in our own ministry we have been working to establish a mission statement and to try to figure out how we can put people first within our own ministry.

K. Jones: Responding to the minister, the statement I made was not a question of what the future situation is going to be like. I hope it will improve, but the current indications are that there has been a great deal of difficulty with the staff changes that are occurring in the ministries. There is a definite morale problem in quite a few areas.

Contrary to the other member's statement, it is not meant to impugn; it was meant to improve the situation for the workers in the area. I am fully cognizant of the need to support the working people, having been one in my previous life.

Interjections.

K. Jones: I'm now a slave and a servant, not just a working person.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

K. Jones: The people in our ministries need as much support as possible from us, the policy makers. It is my purpose in bringing that forward to see an improvement in the morale. I believe that is what the minister just stated -- that she plans to make that improvement through the good efforts of setting some direction. I hope it will be a matter of developing communication vehicles with the workers at all levels, so there will be much better sharing and participation by this government's employees, who are represented by you in this particular area. I hope it would still be the same throughout all the ministries.

I notice, by the way, that Mr. Roberts and the staff at the Public Service Commission are providing the appeal function on a total voted expenditure of only $262,275. That is somewhat less than last year's total voted expenditure of $276,079. I suppose the minister should be congratulated for making a cut in at least this area, but at the same time I would like to congratulate Mr. Roberts and the commission for managing on this small budget. I would presume that perhaps the reason for the small budget is that for some part of the past year there was a reduction of staff on the commission. Therefore they didn't have to have as much of an expenditure this last six months.

Hon. L. Boone: It is a very small budget; you're right. He does some very good work with that small budget. We had to make cuts; all of us had to make cuts within our ministries. In this section the commission is operating with three commissioners rather than four, and they are paid on a per diem basis. So we have been able to make some efficiencies there. No part of this ministry was left untouched in the budgetary process. Everybody took their fair share of the pain, I'm afraid.

K. Jones: Before I proceed I'll give an opportunity for any other members who wish to comment on the Public Service Commission.

W. Hurd: I wanted to open a line of questioning regarding the Superannuation Commission. I know that the hon. member for Delta South will have another line of questioning on this issue. Earlier this year the opposition availed itself of an opportunity to meet with the auditor general. One of the issues that came to light was the huge unfunded pension liability to teachers and public service employees. Could there be any funds available to the minister under this particular classification, to identify means of dealing with that unfunded liability? Does she have any recommendations as to how it can be dealt with?

Hon. L. Boone: You will have to bear with me on this, because this is a technical area. I'd like to get the information correct as I give it to you.

Currently the policy with regard to the funding of the unfunded liabilities is being worked out between the Minister of Finance and me, but Mr. Cook from superannuation has instructed me that the dollars that are paid to the unfunded liabilities for that area come from the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Education for the teachers, and the Minister of Health for the hospital workers, etc. You would have to question those particular ministers with regards to that area.

F. Gingell: Recognizing that the superannuation commissioner does report to this minister, could the minister give us any instructions that will identify those areas which are appropriate for us to deal with here -- or those that we should deal with through the Ministry of Finance, because all of the pension amounts are included in the Minister of Finance's estimates and then charged out to the other ministries.

But I do have some pension questions I would like to ask.

Hon. L. Boone: The Superannuation Commission deals with the administration of the pension funds. The 

[ Page 2289 ]

Minister of Finance is responsible for payments, investing those funds, and all of those areas there.

F. Gingell: May I ask the minister, then, what is the government's policy with regard to pension plan funding? You appreciate that there are discussions going on about the amount of the unfunded liabilities, whatever they may be, and these arise from underfunding in past years. Could we deal with what the government's policy is?

Hon. L. Boone: I will read the current policy, which is under review, into the record. The funding policy established for the public sector pension plans is a level contribution funding policy -- that is, it expresses employer contributions as a constant percentage of future payrolls, which, together with the future employee contributions and income from the existing fund, will finance all future benefits of the plan. Now, if you understand that...

F. Gingell: Well, there you go.

Hon. L. Boone: I'll get another reading of that later on.

This constant percentage equals: (1) the percentage of payroll needed to finance benefits of new employees over their working lifetimes; plus (2) the percentage of payroll needed to maintain the unfunded actuarial liability as a constant percentage of payroll, provided the actuarial consumptions on which the contributions are based are realized -- that is, the unfunded liability is never amortized.

F. Gingell: Could the minister please advise us, then, whether the government is presently paying amounts that fall under that policy into the pension funds?

Hon. L. Boone: No, they're not.

F. Gingell: Does the government intend to start to make payments in accordance with that policy?

Hon. L. Boone: I am currently reviewing that with the Minister of Finance.

F. Gingell: In the process of your ongoing discussions with the Minister of Finance, are you treating those pension funds for which the government is completely liable differently than those which they administer and for which they are not liable?

Hon. L. Boone: No, we're looking at all of them right now. We'll be reviewing all of the pension funds that are within this responsibility.

F. Gingell: I'm afraid that a line of questioning is always going to be responded by saying to that it's under discussion.

There are some concerns that I have that I would like to try and get specific answers to. I guess they primarily deal with the fact that actuarial evaluations, both approved by your commissioner, Mr. Cook, and agreed to by the auditor general, do indicate that we are currently underfunding the pension requirements. I'm concerned that not a lot of time pass before something is done about this. When do you anticipate that your meetings and discussions with the Minister of Finance will arrive at some firm conclusions and changes in present government policy, if such is deemed appropriate?

[3:45]

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously I can't speculate on that future policy area. We will be doing this over the next few months. I'm not guaranteeing that we will have a policy out of that in the next few months, but we will certainly have some direction.

F. Gingell: One of the items of concern to me with respect to pensions is that it doesn't seem to be widely appreciated by people in the government pension funds that all the inflation-indexing arrangements are based purely and simply upon sufficient moneys being in those funds for it to be paid. There is a concern that people in the plan don't necessarily understand the details of it. There have been recommendations by the auditor general that government -- which I presume would be your ministry -- would carry out a communications program that would make these individuals well aware of the facts. I was wondering whether you are planning on such a communications program.

Hon. L. Boone: This is a hard issue to address here, because what you're talking about, I think, is based on the auditor general's undocumented belief that plan members assume that they are guaranteed inflation indexing following retirement. Is that what you're indicating?

F. Gingell: Yes.

Hon. L. Boone: I can assure you that the organizations which represent the plan members, such as the BCGEU, the BCTF, HEU, CUPE, etc., with which the government consults, are very aware of the promise of the statute. There's no doubt in my mind that they understand that the plans do not provide a guarantee of full indexing.

F. Gingell: There has been a very clear auditor's qualification in the Public Accounts for the past two years that deals with the fact that our unfunded pension liability is not reported therein. It is, as we all know, dealt with in the form of notes in the auditor general's report. Could you advise us if it is the policy of this new government to meet the recommendations of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, and make full disclosure and record these various liabilities in the Public Accounts?

Hon. L. Boone: The financial statements are prepared by the Minister of Finance. You'd have to question him on this issue.

[ Page 2290 ]

F. Gingell: From a position of policy, in the administration of the fund, would it be the policy of your ministry to ensure that if any changes take place in the benefits or the terms of any of the pension funds administered by your ministry, the resulting costs of those changes, as they relate to past service, would be funded at that time?

Hon. L. Boone: What you're talking about, again, is future policy. We'd have to review all of these issues and come up with those. I can't tell you at this particular time what the stand would be in the future.

W. Hurd: Just a further line of questioning on the unfunded pension liabilities. As the minister may know, the auditor general has identified what he considers to be a serious problem with allocation and accounting. Realizing that it may be within the Minister of Finance's purview to deal with the problem, I guess my concern is from a layman's standpoint and from that of the teachers and the other people in the province who are relying on the public pension system to fund their retirement years. Has the minister any advice to members of this committee, including members of the government side of the House, who may receive expressions of concern from members of the public service about the viability of their pension plans? Would it be within the purview of her ministry to assure these individuals that in fact they're going to receive their pensions, or should they direct those inquiries to the Minister of Finance as well?

Hon. L. Boone: We can assure you that these people will be receiving their pensions.

W. Hurd: But if they have any concerns about the message from the auditor general, should they phone the Ministry of Finance?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated, the Minister of Finance and I are reviewing the unfunded liability and how that will be addressed in the next little while. If people have concerns, by all means they can address them to the Minister of Finance or me, as we will be working together on this issue.

F. Gingell: Recognizing and appreciating that you are dealing with this and that the timing is somewhat unfortunate at this point.... Just to differentiate between those pension funds for which the government is responsible and actually provides funding directly through the budget.... There are two other pension funds -- the one for the municipal workers and the Teachers' Pension Fund -- where your responsibilities primarily focus on setting rates. Is there any intention at this time to make any changes in those rates, which are set by legislation, I believe?

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously that's future policy. I can't comment on that.

F. Gingell: It may be future policy, but it does apply to 1992-93. If your ministry doesn't do anything about it, in those two particular funds we will finish up at the end of the year with an ever-growing unfunded liability. I don't see it as being policy so much as whether you intend to take any action on it.

Hon. L. Boone: Intending to take action is the same thing as future policy. At this point I can't comment on what we haven't made public.

D. Schreck: As fascinating as the discussion is on pension plans, liabilities and alternative methods of valuation and funding, all members should be aware that these matters have been canvassed extensively in the Public Accounts Committee, the Chair of which is present in this committee today.

The Chair: The Chair recognizes the member for Delta South on a point of order.

F. Gingell: As the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale rightly says, as he sits there with a grin on his face, I am the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. We have discussed many of these items. The Public Accounts Committee deals only with matters from the past or matters that have been brought up in the auditor's report. I believe that it is perfectly appropriate for us to have this opportunity to talk to the minister. The minister must think that it's appropriate too, or the superannuation commissioner wouldn't be here. I don't really appreciate having lectures given to me by the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale about what's appropriate for us to ask and what isn't. If it is inappropriate, I'm sure the Chairman will advise us.

The Chair: Your point of order is well taken, hon. member.

D. Schreck: I did have the floor before that point of order was raised. I think the point of order is interesting. It leaves us the problem of dealing with what's in the past and what is contemplated as future policy, and therefore a very narrow line of current matters and estimates to debate. I look forward to exciting debate on that very narrow line of current matters, hon. member.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. member, for your wise comments.

K. Jones: Perhaps the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale is trying to direct the Chair on the way the debate should be considered. Perhaps the member should be sitting in the Chair rather than at the far end of the room, if that's the case. We have a very capable Chair...

The Chair: Order, hon. member.

K. Jones: ...and I don't think....

[ Page 2291 ]

The Chair: Order, hon. member, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Vancouver-Kensington on a point of order.

U. Dosanjh: I think the hon. member's comments bordered on contempt of the Chair. I just want to point this out.

The Chair: The Chair has allowed considerable latitude and freedom in these debates to establish a tone that would be acceptable to the whole committee. If it is the desire of the committee that the debate be tightened up, the Chair will certainly accommodate that.

K. Jones: It was absolutely not my intention to suggest that there was anything wrong with the Chair. In fact, I was in the process of trying to clarify that statement, so that there was no misinterpretation, when you asked me to sit down so you could hear the appeal. It was only to suggest that the statements that were being made were statements that would have perhaps been made if the person had been sitting in the Chair. They should not have been made from the other end of the room. I have full confidence in the Chair and wanted to make that very clear.

The Chair: Thank you for the clarification, hon. member.

K. Jones: I'd like to further the questioning on superannuation. Could the minister elaborate further on early retirement proposals? I understand that some teachers are currently contemplating their decision as to whether or not to take early retirement based on an 80-year pension formula with a combination of service credits and age. Perhaps age 55 would be the minimum basis for an early retirement.

Hon. L. Boone: They may be contemplating it, but that doesn't mean that they can get it. The 80-year plan is what they want. The B.C. Teachers' Federation is just one of many groups that have approached the government with regard to improvements to their pension benefits. Those areas are being reviewed, and a decision will be made on some of those issues in the future.

K. Jones: What would be the impact of this early retirement on the pension program?

[4:00]

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The minister has announced that that's possibly under consideration for the future. I think it would require a very in-depth conclusion and examination by the minister to even attempt to answer that question. If we would contain our questions to those that are currently under the purview of the Minister of Government Services.

K. Jones: I see that the superannuation commissioner is immediately beside the minister -- a very qualified technical adviser and a person who is fully knowledgeable of the impact, I believe. I should hope that they would be. If it is being contemplated, I would think that it is being contemplated currently. I would therefore appeal your good consideration....

The Chair: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the member for Vancouver-Kensington on a point of order.

U. Dosanjh: I don't know why we're doing this. Remarks from the hon. member amount to a challenge to the Chair. I don't think that should be done. I just wanted to point that out.

The Chair: We'll return to the vote under discussion. Do you have a further question on vote 45, hon. member?

K. Jones: I'd like to have the minister indicate whether there is funding in this budget for study of the early retirement formula and process.

Hon. L. Boone: There is money in the budget for a review. That is a review that encompasses a great many things, not necessarily strictly the early retirement as put forth by the teachers.

K. Jones: Could the minister elaborate on what this review constitutes?

Hon. L. Boone: I do not like to seem like I'm fudging on things here, but this is currently the composition of a document that we will be taking to cabinet in the next couple of days. I don't feel that I can answer this question at this point in time.

K. Jones: Does that mean that any time the minister finds a question difficult, it can be considered as something going to cabinet -- and therefore there is no requirement to respond to questions in estimates? I thought the estimates process was supposed to be an open review of the budgetary allocation to the minister. I would hope that we would get straightforward, clear answers in that regard.

Hon. L. Boone: You are getting straightforward, clear answers. The problem that I have is that if I'm taking a document to cabinet that has not been approved by cabinet -- the terms of the review and those sorts of things -- I am not at liberty to discuss those issues or to bring them forth to the public. It has not been approved by cabinet yet. When it is approved, then the public and youf will know about it, but I'm not at liberty to approve something that has not yet received cabinet approval.

K. Jones: Could the minister give us an indication of whether early retirement is part of this review?

Hon. L. Boone: I have indicated that it is going to be an overall review encompassing many different aspects of pensions: government pensions, how pensions are administered, all kinds of different things. It could very well be that early retirement is a part of that. 

[ Page 2292 ]

It may come up as a part of it. As I say, all of those things will be approved by cabinet in the future.

K. Jones: I think we've probably got as much as we're going to get out of that particular area.

Moving on to the B.C. Systems Corporation, I find very little scrutiny from the former opposition has occurred over the last four to five years. If you review Hansard debates on the Crown corporation from the last spring session, the questions from the then opposition barely account for more than two inches of type in all of the last year's Hansard. That's quite shocking from an opposition that was claiming to be protecting the public's interest through that time.

In the last five years, overall you have been a sorry bunch as an opposition. I'm sorry to say it, but the Hansard record speaks for itself. In July 1987, when the minister was in opposition, she had a very brief question to the Minister of Health making reference to the B.C. Systems Corporation. In November '87 she made passing reference to the fact that B.C. Systems Corporation was being considered for privatization. In December 1987, when the Minister of Finance was in opposition, he made passing reference only to B.C. Systems Corporation and its potential participation in an early retirement plan. Funny, that term comes back again. They were discussing it back in '87, and they still haven't made a decision on it. Surely the government today would have been well prepared, I would think, to have that question of early retirement clear in their minds by now.

Then we get to 1988. There's a private member's statement by the member for New Westminster, the now Deputy Premier, commenting on a proposal by B.C. Systems Corporation to create a database for land registry, which is now in place and working quite nicely, I believe, in spite of the concerns raised by that member at that time. And that was in the second session of the thirty-fourth parliament. Then there was a very brief reference to privatization by the member for Coquitlam on April 10, 1989.

That is really all the folks opposite had to offer in five years of opposition. It's really quite shocking. Well, Mr. Chair, this opposition has taken the time to visit the Systems Corporation. We met with the chief executive officer and tried to get a true understanding of exactly what is going on.

As I mentioned during second reading debate, we still only have the annual report for the 1990-91 fiscal year. I was hoping that the 1991-92 annual report could have been tabled by this time. I referred in my remarks during the budget debate that the 1990-91 annual report had listed the building at 4000 Seymour Street in Victoria as a $29 million asset, and I referred to it at the time as a white elephant. For many years it was known as that in the Victoria community, but I am pleased to say, following my visit, that I find that this is no longer true. B.C. Systems Corporation makes use of the majority of that building. I believe I am correct in saying it won't be long before they have paid off the debt and will own the building outright. Can the minister confirm that?

Hon. L. Boone: The debt on the building matures in the year 2001, and that's when it will be owned outright.

K. Jones: I believe that is due in part to the outstanding management of the chief executive officer, Mr. Ted Evans. I think the B.C. Systems Corporation board of directors deserve some credit for putting that corporation on a much firmer financial footing. My congratulations to you and your board, Mr. Evans.

That strong financial situation has in fact allowed B.C. Systems Corporation to pay a dividend to government in recent years. I wonder if the minister would be good enough to recount those dividends for the record -- say, going back to roughly 1986 on a year-by-year basis -- and also bring us up to date and indicate what the dividend should be for the 1992-93 fiscal year.

Hon. L. Boone: This is going a little beyond, to go back to 1986. That was when we first came into opposition here, but to expect me to answer questions that go back that far.... I will ask the corporation to get that information to you at some other time. I would ask that the member please try to restrict his questions to something a little more relevant to my time around here.

K. Jones: The latter part of that question asked what the dividend would be for the 1992-93 fiscal year. I believe that is within your period.

Hon. L. Boone: It will be $3 million.

K. Jones: I also had some questions during my budget remarks on April 7, on page 556 of Hansard, that I wondered if the minister could comment on. Mr. Evans provided some satisfactory answers when I met with him. But I would also like the minister to make some comment on my questions regarding competition with smaller firms and how this government is encouraging the Systems Corporation to assist the growth of high-tech industry in this province through their unique position as a major player in this industry.

Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Systems, as government's principal provider of information technology services, influences the private sector as it plans and implements its technology direction. It does not dictate private sector practices. Rather, it makes every effort to support and develop the private sector. B.C. Systems has programs to raise private sector awareness of its strategic direction and priorities, thus assisting these companies to respond to the opportunities present. Private sector information technology companies were paid $73 million, or 48 percent of the services purchased by B.C. Systems in 1991-92.

K. Jones: For the record, I think it would be worth stating how many employees work for the corporation as of March 31, 1991, and how many worked for them as of this March 31.

[ Page 2293 ]

Hon. L. Boone: The number for this March is 865. We do not have the information for the previous year, but Mr. Evans has indicated that he would be happy to get that information for you.

K. Jones: I would like to ask the minister if she could indicate to us where BCSC is going. What are its plans? What is its direction? What is its mandate? Is its mandate going to change under your ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: B.C. Systems' service delivery role is very clear, and you've noted that in your responses. They provide a very good service for the government. We recognize the opportunity to undertake provincewide systems initiatives that would foster the social and economic development of B.C. B.C. Systems could be the catalyst around which the private sector mobilizes to take part in some of these initiatives. B.C. Systems' mandate will be revisited to address this opportunity. I think they've also recognized that they play an important part in this government, helping various ministries save money, and will be doing whatever they can to assist ministries and recognize areas where they can reduce their costs.

[4:15]

K. Jones: Could you give us an outline of the 1995 strategic plan of the Systems Corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: We're looking at 1991-92. To give you an estimate of the strategic plan for '95 is really not relevant to these estimates at all. I think if you want the strategic plan, we can provide it for you at a later date.

K. Jones: As with all planning, it is always current and it is always relevant. It is usually done on an ongoing basis and is very important as to whether there is a purpose in what's going on today and as to what will be done in the future. What we're doing today has to have a basis for planning the future. It also has an impact on how the future results. I think they are very much tied together, and planning is very much an essential part of every operation. I would further ask if you could give us some idea, in a little more detail, of what the strategic plan is for the ministry.

Hon. L. Boone: Philosophically, I agree that we all have to plan, and we are planning. We're working very hard. I'm working hard with the various boards -- B.C. Systems board, B.C. Lottery Corporation and the BCBC board -- to bring about plans and to work on the directions in which we want this government to go. Within this ministry, we are developing a strategic plan. As I said, philosophically I certainly agree that those are areas that we must be doing. Technically, this particular time here is to give you an opportunity to question me on the budget for '92-93. To get into the whole philosophical idea of the planning process for the ministry over a five-year plan really is not pertinent to these estimates, nor is it something that we can do at this particular time.

K. Jones: Planning is not a philosophical approach, it is a factual approach, especially when you're talking about a three-year plan. It means that you've got some direction already determined, and you have it included in your current budget for the current year. The facts are that you must have some plans to do things this year. Specifically what are they?

Hon. L. Boone: That we're aware of the need for an information system strategy is pointed out in the financial review of government services. An information management group is working with the deputy minister's steering committee on a number of information management projects that will ultimately provide governmentwide strategic direction for information systems.

K. Jones: Could you define specific capital projects or systems development projects that you plan to have implemented this year?

Hon. L. Boone: Are you looking within the ministry now, or are you looking within B.C. Systems as to what they are doing throughout their operations to assist other ministries?

K. Jones: We're reviewing B.C. Systems now.

Hon. L. Boone: I would need to get more information on that. I think that that sort of technical thing is something that I would need to get a lot more information from B.C. Systems on. Within the ministry, I can tell you that there will be new systems put into the buildings here and the legislative buildings; that's within our own ministry. As to other individual ministries and what have you, I think we would have to get a more in-depth report back to you.

K. Jones: I have time to allow you a few minutes to consult with your CEO. I think you should probably be able to get some key items identified through the CEO. He knows what he's doing -- I think -- if you trust him.

Hon. L. Boone: Within the ministries, the CEO has indicated that it is just a matter of maintaining what is taking place right now; maintaining the data systems, keeping the various ministries up to date on the latest technology, and keeping their data systems up to date.

K. Jones: Can we clarify that there is no development work going on in the B.C. Systems Corporation at the present time, and no new projects being planned in this next year? They are just in a maintenance mode, and they have not, over the past year, done the planning required to bring forward projects this year?

Hon. L. Boone: The various ministries put forth their plans and then B.C. Systems responds to the ministries' requests according to the plans. Apparently there is a great deal of detail and it's very complex. Mr. Evans has indicated that he would be happy to meet with the member and go through it in detail at a later date.

[ Page 2294 ]

K. Jones: Just to refresh the minister's knowledge a little bit, I understand that this year the minister has put out a request for a proposal for an integrated backbone network and integrated backbone facilities through the B.C. Systems Corporation. I was wondering what the minister proposes to do with that information and how much that cost, or will cost.

Hon. L. Boone: It wasn't the minister; it would be B.C. Systems, through its board, that put out those proposals. I would have to get information as to what was going on with that.

The request for proposal is just the staff time and the cost of putting it together.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate that the people bringing forward these proposals will be doing them -- the proposal development, the detail work -- for free? Is there not going to be a charge for the extensive engineering work that I would imagine would be required for such a proposal? We're talking about the provincewide network and the providing of complex facilities that are being asked for in this proposal call. Surely some costs must be going to be addressed through a contract, where they will get their costs recovered, or else there are going to be costs upfront.

Hon. L. Boone: There's a cost to the bidders who are putting together the proposals, but not to the government. They will be bidding on this, and the companies that do so, do so at their own cost, not at the government's.

K. Jones: Could you tell us when these bids will be coming in, who the bidders are and if you've got a select bid already established? Was it publicly tendered?

Hon. L. Boone: Hon. Chair, at this point I have answered as much as I can. I think it's important that the member understand that the management of the corporation is done by a board. I do not have anything to do with the tenders; I have no indication that the tenders are going out, and I do not see them. I would be more than happy to answer some questions with regard to how B.C. Systems interacts. But to get into the daily operation and the budget of this corporation is really not appropriate for these estimates.

K. Jones: The minister is ultimately responsible for all the actions of the Crown corporations under her purview and should be aware of what's going on within her ministerial area. The B.C. Systems Corporation reports directly to you through the CEO. I would think that the CEO is obviously keeping you informed of what's going on, being a very competent CEO, as he is; I have not the slightest doubt about that. I would think that you do know -- or you should know -- about these. The question of tendering....

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the hon. minister on a point of order.

Hon. L. Boone: I ask the member to withdraw that. He's questioning my answer in the past, and I don't like that at all. When I tell you I don't know something, that means that I'm not aware of it. I really don't like you implying that I'm being less than honest here.

The Chair: Thank you, hon. minister. Hon. member, the minister has stated many times that the control of the board of directors of these corporations is not directly associated with these estimates. I'm sure that if you indicated that she was being less than forthright or impugned her, you would withdraw those accusations. Please restrict your questions to the area under the control of the minister. Again, if the impression is that you have indicated that the minister's answers are not acceptable, I'm sure it would be an unconditional withdrawal on your part.

We will carry on with the examination of those areas of the ministry that are under the minister's responsibility.

K. Jones: I hope that the minister didn't feel that I was personally attacking her; it's the office in which she is sitting. It's not a personal reproach. It was strictly a question of the position.

The Chair: Order, hon. member. The Chair recognizes the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale on a point of order.

D. Schreck: Hon. Chair, the member has been asked to make an unconditional withdrawal of offending remarks. That would be appropriate.

The Chair: Does the member withdraw the offending remarks?

K. Jones: Could the person who was offended please indicate which remarks offended? I don't recognize that there were offending remarks.

[4:30]

The Chair: Hon. member, do you withdraw the offending remarks?

K. Jones: If we knew what was offending....

The Chair: Hon. member!

K. Jones: I'll withdraw everything I've said. Is that what the Chair is asking for? I don't know which part was offending.

The Chair: Hon. member, stand and the Chair will recognize you.

K. Jones: I'm terribly confused. I don't know what the problem was. If it will satisfy the situation, I'll snake whatever's necessary.

The Chair: Do you withdraw the offending remarks, hon. member?

[ Page 2295 ]

K. Jones: I withdraw the offending remark, whatever it is, Mr. Chairman. I hope that satisfies the member.

The Chair: Do you have a question under vote 45?

K. Jones: Yes. Could the minister please make herself aware of the proposals for integrated backbone network and bring to us the people who were involved in the tendering; the timing of when the proposal will be received; and an indication of what part of the Crown corporation's budget this project would be brought forward under, since she's indicated to us that there's no new development in the Crown corporation of B.C. Systems Corporation.

Hon. L. Boone: As I said earlier, I'm more than happy to talk about what's in this budget, which is vote 45. There's nothing in vote 45 or any of the other votes within this area that deals with the administration or the actual financial running of B.C. Systems. I'd be happy to answer questions with regards to the policy areas concerning B.C. Systems, but I do not think it's appropriate to take up the time of this committee, bringing back information here with regard to the administration of the board of B.C. Systems. If the member is interested, the CEO has indicated that he can spend some time going over these various issues with you and will make all the information available to you on a one-to-one basis. To draw these things out in this committee is really not appropriate.

K. Jones: Mr. Chairman, could you specifically instruct the minister as to how the opposition is able to review the processes of the Crown corporations that are within her purview -- that there is no other vehicle, as far as I'm aware, whereby the Crown corporations can be examined, and that this is the only location under which these areas of her responsibility can be addressed?

The Chair: Hon. member, the minister has just clarified her area of responsibility for the committee; how it is affected; and where, if any, there is an overlap between the Crown corporations and the boards. She's also offered to the hon. member to have these questions examined away from the committee, as they are not part of these estimates at this time. I would ask again that you contain your questions under the vote currently before us, or we will call the vote or go on to another questioner.

K. Jones: At this stage, I will pause to see if there are others who wish to enter the debate.

W. Hurd: A question regarding the registry of companies, societies, cooperatives and personal property. Perhaps the minister can identify programs within her ministerial estimates that would tighten up the procedures for the filing of annual reports by societies -- the requirement that they furnish a set of audited financial records. Have funds been identified during the current fiscal year to tighten up the reporting of societies, particularly charitable societies, in the province?

Hon. L. Boone: I already gave the critic the information. That is found under the Ministry of Finance's estimates. The responsibility for those areas has been moved to this minister, but the estimates and dollars are still within the Minister of Finance's budget. I will be answering questions on that area when the Minister of Finance's budget comes up.

W. Hurd: I note from the recent press reports, though, that.... Was the Ministry of Government Services not responsible for suspending three societies for a failure to comply with the Society Act? Is that going to be an ongoing, continuing role for the Ministry of Government Services, or will that kind of policy directive eventually be dealt with by the Minister of Finance, because they're under his estimates?

Hon. L. Boone: The responsibility for that registry and for that whole section has come under this minister. I hope we don't have to do more things like that. I mean, it's not something that I enjoy doing, removing a society's ability to be a society. The estimates are within those of the Minister of Finance; the budget is still there. The responsibility for those agencies remains with this minister.

W. Hurd: Regarding additional questions on the Society Act, in light of the recent suspension of three societies, is it the intention of the minister, under her estimates, to identify problems that her ministry has detected and make those problems known to the Minister of Finance, specifically with respect to the three societies that were suspended under the Society Act over the weekend? As I say, some well-documented problems vis-�-vis the Society Act.... Will the Ministry of Government Services be making recommendations to the Minister of Finance with respect to tightening up the requirements for the filing of an annual report, particularly as they pertain to societies that have a charitable status?

Hon. L. Boone: The responsibility for that area remains with this minister. The Deputy Minister of Finance is still responsible for that area, and he reports to me. That is why we will be handling all those things through the estimates of the Minister of Finance. I will be available during his estimates. I will be in the Legislature at that time and willing to answer any questions about the registry of societies.

K. Jones: Could you tell us how many employees are currently with B.C. Systems Corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: I just told you that -- 865.

K. Jones: I'm sorry, my mistake. I was thinking that was from a previous item.

I would like to make a notation that Canadian Business has listed B.C. Systems Corporation and B.C. Buildings Corporation among the 500 top corporations 

[ Page 2296 ]

in their June edition. I think we should be proud to see that and also note that B.C. Systems Corporation is 397th of all the corporations in Canada. B.C. Buildings is much higher up in their ratings, so I guess we're going to have a little competition between the two of them on their ratings.

I would note that the profit margin percentage as a performance ratio for the B.C. Systems Corporation is 6.5 percent, and the debt equity ratio is 1.67. This is based on the tabled annual report for the year ending March '91, I believe. I would suggest that the debt equity ratio, although much smaller than that of the B.C. Buildings Corporation, is still higher than that of most businesses, which run somewhere around 0.5 rather than 1.67. Could the minister explain to us why the debt equity ratio is almost three times as high as that of most private businesses?

Hon. L. Boone: I've been given some pretty unbelievable figures here. In 1985 the ratio was 60 to minus 2.8. The corporation has been working hard to change that. They're now at 1.5 to 1, so I think they've made considerable strides; you're right.

Further to your comments there, we do have some very good corporations. All three of the corporations within this ministry's responsibility are very responsible and contribute highly to the operation of this government, whether it be B.C. Systems and the systems it provides to the various ministries in a very cost-effective way; or BCBC, which provides the walls and the roofs around us; or B.C. Lottery Corporation, which provides a lot of dollars that operate this government and keep a lot of worthwhile charities going. We have some very well-run corporations, and we ought to be duly proud of the work that the people do on our behalf.

K. Jones: Could I ask the minister to clarify once again that there is no public forum for public scrutiny of the B.C. Systems Corporation or other Crown corporations under her ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: As I said, I am more than happy to answer questions with regard to policy, and you're more than welcome to put questions on the order paper. Or you can do as you have done in the past, which is go to see those individuals and get the information. The information is there. We do not hold anything back from you; we are not reluctant to make it available. But the responsibilities for the budgets for these corporations lies with the boards of directors of the corporations and is not something that should be discussed in this committee.

[4:45]

K. Jones: As it is the government's intent to have open and honest government, I'm sure the minister would join with me in stating that we need to find a vehicle for the public scrutiny of our Crown corporations, specifically the ones under her ministry. The whole concept of good government is that the public has the opportunity to....

The Chair: Hon. member, order, please. Again, you're in an area that is not examinable in the supply estimates of this ministry. Would you please -- again -- refer your comments and your remarks and your questions to the minister in areas that are under her jurisdiction.

K. Jones: My question was specifically to the minister with regard to her view on this issue. I was wanting to get her view. Does she believe that Crown corporations should be open to public scrutiny?

Hon. L. Boone: Crown corporations are open to public scrutiny. They provide annual reports that are presented; they're available. As I stated earlier, this member has been made more than welcome at all of the Crowns, and has been given all the information that he's ever asked for. I don't think anything has been denied him. The Crown corporations are open; they give as much information as they can. But there is a correct avenue, and this is not the correct avenue to examine their budgets. The budgets are passed by the boards of directors of the Crowns. I have nothing to do with the establishment of those budgets, and it is not something that I feel we should be discussing at this time.

K. Jones: Not to belabour this question at all, but the minister seems to agree with my thinking in this regard: there should be an opportunity for the public, who are the shareholders of this corporation, to question the board about their procedures. Is there an annual general meeting like in other private corporations, where the membership can go and ask questions, or some other vehicle by which the public, who are the shareholders, have a right to know what's going on and to cross-examine the officers of these organizations, just as we have this opportunity here with your ministry?

The accountability of your ministry, I think, is in the public's interest; the accountability of the Crown corporations is also in the public's interest. I think that we have a responsibility to make sure that the Crown corporations report just as clearly and as honestly, through a public forum like this.

Hon. L. Boone: There is an annual general meeting. It is open to the board members and the shareholders, and the shareholder is the Crown. Those board meetings are not open to the public. The annual report is available to the public. This government has, for the first time, taken steps to have much more involvement and accountability of the Crown corporations through the Crown Corporations Committee and through the Crown corporations secretariat. There is involvement and feedback coming from the Crowns to the government at different times. I can quite honestly say that that has not taken place in the past.

The accountability is there. The board meetings are not open to the public, but the information's there, as I stated, through the annual reports. I'm sure that you will be given quick information from any of the Crown corporations on anything that you request.

[ Page 2297 ]

K. Jones: At this point I'll just step down momentarily for other members who wish to speak on this area.

G. Wilson: I'd like to ask some questions that actually relate to another area, and if that seems to be out of order at this point, perhaps I could move on. My questions are not argumentative. I think they're fairly straightforward. They have to do with the matter that I raised with the minister in question period today, which is the visual identity review project. I wonder if the minister might comment a little bit more specifically with respect to the ad that was placed for the interested agencies for investigation of this new visual component of government. Could the minister tell us who had applied after the February 21 deadline? What was their expertise? What has happened with respect to the selection?

Hon. L. Boone: As I stated earlier in question period, I don't have that information for you, but I would be happy to get it for you. I haven't been able to do that because I have been held up here.

G. Wilson: I can recognize your difficulty. With respect to the proposition that's put in place in terms of the visual identity review, when the ad was placed, what was the intention? It is not clear. If there is no proposal to change the government logo, one questions what is really being asked for in the ad. What was the ministry looking for at that point?

Hon. L. Boone: Throughout government, numerous different visual identities exist. Some ministries have their own visual identity. Some things, such as the area that we have, Enquiry B.C., have their own visual identity. All of them are slightly different; some of them are quite different. The intent is to get a proposal to try to minimize the differences, so we can have one logo that would represent government. I think we would be able to save the government considerable dollars. When you have a whole pile of different logos out there, it costs a lot more money to do different things. We will not, as I said, be going out and painting all the buses, or anything like that. But certainly, if we can get a proposal forward and come forth with one logo that is adequate for all government, then when we get into replacement vehicles, doing replacement paintings or anything like that, we can start to implement the standard logo. That was the intent, as I said, of the inquiry into whether we could do this. I understand now that we've had something like 50 responses to it. I'm not sure where it's at, at this point in time.

G. Wilson: Can the minister confirm that somebody has been hired from one of the 50, without naming who they all are? Has somebody been hired to actually do this?

Hon. L. Boone: No. Nobody has been hired yet.

G. Wilson: With respect to the dollars that are being put forward.... I recognize that there is the government crest, of course, which is on most vehicles and so on. There is the stylized B.C. flag, which has been changed in various ways through various ministries -- i.e., the Ministry of Environment does something different with it, as do the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways with Freedom to Move; that kind of thing is all different. Would the minister agree that in looking at the savings in trying to standardize -- I think it would be cost savings and I certainly would agree to that -- the savings would be there if we just moved to the stylized flag or dispensed with that and moved to the coat of arms, rather than coming up with new marketing slogans or logos within this proposition?

Hon. L. Boone: It's not necessarily a matter of changing it, but simplifying or rationalizing it. You may find that one of those is in fact the same, but as you state, there are numerous flags. One is pointing one way, the other is pointing a different way -- all of those sorts of things. What we want to do is to simplify things for the government. As you clearly know, the simpler it is, the more cost-efficient it is to government.

G. Wilson: Just for my own information, would the logos that are used by Crown corporations be affected by this program or not? I understand that B.C. Ferries is working on a new stylized logo. I wonder if that is part of this process.

Hon. L. Boone: On the first instance, we are not looking at the Crowns; it is strictly government. We're not looking at the Crowns in this scene.

G. Wilson: I appreciate that the minister doesn't have all the information, but I would welcome having a list of the people who have applied and knowing what is happening with respect to the hiring of whomever to do whatever on this. With respect to this review, I wonder if the minister could suggest what kind of budget we are setting aside for this streamlining of government visual identities.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't know that we've got that figure here right now. At this point all that was budgeted for was the dollars for the review. I'd have to get back to you on the exact cost of any changes.

G. Wilson: Could the minister identify what vote those dollars would be under?

Hon. L. Boone: The government communications office. Those are the dollars for the review. I don't think the dollars are there to implement any changes, just for the review.

D. Schreck: Has the minister received a letter from Doreen Braverman? I believe Miss Braverman was past-president of the Liberal Party and occasionally comments on CBC Radio as the Liberal spokesperson. Has the minister received a letter from this Liberal Party past-president, encouraging her to remove the 

[ Page 2298 ]

stylized flag from all government markings and criticizing that logo as being a Socred symbol?

Hon. L. Boone: I think it's fair to say that yes, we've had an expression of interest to suggest that the Socred B.C. marketing flag should be done away with.

D. Schreck: I'm intrigued that the community at large and the person who identifies herself as being proud of her party coming into the role of opposition would be lobbying the minister so early in her term. I would encourage the minister to continue to show some fiscal restraint and not to just rush out at every urging. The next thing you know we could have members asking for free passes on ferries.

G. Wilson: With respect to the proposition of dollars put aside -- and I'll take with a grain of salt comments from the member for North Vancouver-Lonsdale.... What we're looking at here is an ad that was run with a deadline of February 21. Essentially it's to go to the Communications Counsel on Advertising, Parliament Buildings. It is now mid-June, and we would question why, if the government has no intention of removing -- to paraphrase what the minister said -- the Socred marketing flag for British Columbia, and if the proposition of trying to reduce the cost of government is there, we would spend the money, time, effort and energy to engage in a review that the minister is saying is not likely to result in any action.

[5:00]

Hon. L. Boone: I didn't say that it was not likely to result in any action. I said that no action was taking place at this time. Obviously if you're going to have a change take place you want to plan it. You need the necessary information. so that if you are going to effect any changes, you can do so in a planned and consistent manner. We've got a lot of priorities right now, and this is not a top priority at this time. When we do so, we will be prepared and ready to make those changes. I didn't say that nothing was going to take place. I said that nothing was taking place right now.

G. Wilson: Without wanting to delve into areas of future policy, one wonders if this new visual identity plan is going to be put in place just in time for the next provincial election.

F. Garden: It would be nice.

G. Wilson: Precisely. As the member says, it would be nice. I can imagine it would dovetail very nicely with a strategy for re-election. We are concerned with dollars being committed and spent with respect to the proposition of identifying this government. I wonder if the minister can justify, if her comment is that she sees the current logo -- the stylized flag -- which is used widely in the province, as being a Socred marketing symbol.... How can the minister justify maintaining that symbol, given the kind of....? I take that as somewhat of a disparaging comment with respect to the symbol that at least this minister sees every time she sees that little flag. Is it worth the energy, time and commitment to remove it, if that's what the minister feels? If not, why would we even be bothering to do the review?

Hon. L. Boone: As the member knows, it's larger than just the review of the flag. It has to do with the overall identity program for the entire government. I was quoting from a letter. "Socred marketing tool" was a quote from a letter; it was not my quote. There are people who do approach me, saying: "Get rid of that flag; it's a Socred flag." My response to them is: "No, it's our flag." I think we have to take back that flag as ours. It is not the Socred flag. It is the flag of the province of British Columbia. It belongs to each and every one of us, and I, for one, will not turn it over to the Social Credit Party for ownership.

G. Wilson: Notwithstanding the comments of a past-president of the Liberal Party, who is also an excellent businessperson in British Columbia, with credentials and certainly advice to this member, who I respect and admire.... I concur entirely with the minister's position that in fact it is the B.C. flag and that it should be the property of all British Columbians, regardless of what political stripe they are. Quite frankly, I'm delighted to hear that that is the view of this minister.

My last comment, then, is with respect to the question of the visual identity review. Will the minister commit to apprising the opposition of the companies that have bid, what exactly is happening with those bids, and what the selection process will include, with respect to the terms of reference that were prioritized for the review? Basically what we're anxious to know is by what conditions and standards those bids are being reviewed, what kind of dollars will be associated with this review, and how the final selection will be made?

Hon. L. Boone: I would be more than happy to give that information to the Leader of the Opposition, provided there is nothing that breaks confidentiality with the companies, or something along those lines. But I would imagine that at this point, we could probably provide you with a list of all of the companies and certainly the terms of reference. We would be more than happy to get to you all of those things.

The Chair: Hon. opposition House leader, I don't have you on my transfer-in sheet, and subject to sessional orders of the day.... Are you substituting for the hon. member for Chilliwack?

D. Mitchell: I am.

The Chair: I would ask that you move to that position, and we'll stay within the sessional orders. It keeps us all in order.

D. Mitchell: I'd like to ask the minister if she has familiarized herself with a report on government severance policy. This report was submitted to one of her predecessor ministers on May 1, 1989, by the Hon. Nathan Nemetz. It was a report that looked at severance 

[ Page 2299 ]

policy for senior public servants within the bureaucracy of the provincial government. It provided guidelines and recommendations for what severance policy should be followed at the deputy minister level. Has the minister had chance to review these guidelines, and whether or not any of them have been accepted as the severance policy of the new administration, of which she is a member?

Hon. L. Boone: I am well aware of the Nemetz formula, but that must have been.... That section is under GPSD, the government personnel services division, which used to be in this ministry but is under the Ministry of Finance right now. It's not something that I have been involved with whatsoever.

D. Mitchell: Just for clarification, then, is it correct that the issue of government severance policy does not come under the administration of the Minister of Government Services, who is responsible for the Public Service Commission?

Hon. L. Boone: Hiring, severance and all of those things are under GPSD, which is in the Ministry of Finance.

K. Jones: I'd like to go back to the comments of the minister with regard to the Crown corporations secretariat and its role. Could you please define what its role is and how it relates to your ministry, or how your ministry relates to it?

Hon. L. Boone: The secretariat is actually under the Ministry of Finance, but as a member of the Crown Corporations Committee, I can tell you how it relates. I sit as a member of the Crown Corporations Committee; the secretary is the staff person, acts as an adviser and does work that is referred to him with regard to Crown corporations.

K. Jones: Could the minister please give us an indication of the process that involves the Crown corporations secretariat? If your ministry wishes to initiate the services of the Crown corporations secretariat, how does it go about doing that?

Hon. L. Boone: If there was an issue that I wanted to refer to the secretariat, I would take it to the Crown Corporations Committee. It would be reviewed at that time, and my recommendation to refer it to the secretariat to do such and such would then be adopted, rejected or whatever.

K. Jones: So the committee decides how the secretariat operates. Or did you say...? I wasn't quite sure what you said. Did you say that you took it to the committee...?

The Chair: Through the Chair, hon. member, please.

K. Jones: Did the minister say that when she had an area of concern she took it to the Crown Corporations Committee and then it was referred to the secretariat? Or would you make a request directly to the secretariat to take some action with regard to part of your ministry?

Hon. L. Boone: If there was something that I wanted referred, then we would take it to the committee. If it had to do with cross-Crown information particularly, then it would probably go to the committee. But there have been occasions when I made requests for the assistance of the secretariat without going through the Crown Corporations Committee. For example, we have asked for his assistance, and he is working with BCBC on some issues. So there are a number of different ways that the Crown secretariat is involved.

K. Jones: Could the minister indicate to us the types of things that would be referred to the Crown corporations secretariat? What type of response would you expect to have come from it?

Hon. L. Boone: The Crown secretariat, as I stated, is working with BCBC on some land issues. His department has done a financial review of all the Crowns. That's been done and is an ongoing thing. I think he's still reviewing some of those areas. Those are some examples of how the Crown secretariat works.

K. Jones: I'd like to move on to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. In my introduction to this section of the minister's responsibilities, I wish to begin by congratulating the president and chief executive officer of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation on his open and professional approach to his responsibilities. In preparation for this year's estimates, I had the pleasure of meeting with a number of the senior officials, and the chief executive officer for most of the areas, as I've already said. I found them all to be professional.

I'd like to begin my comments on B.C. Buildings Corporation by reminding this government of a statement made in 1976, when this corporation was first established by an act of this Legislature. When the minister introduced the legislation, he stated:

"...probably the main principle in this bill is that the department of government that now requisitions will have to give a better argument for the need of it. The big thing is that they will have to pay rent once the buildings are constructed, for whatever department they're constructed for. It puts, in other words, the responsibility on the user department, which has not been the case in the past, because all of that has fallen on the Department of Public Works."

This was prior to B.C. Buildings Corporation being established.

"It will let the corporation enter into joint undertakings with others, and it will certainly simplify procedures. It is intended that this corporation be self-supporting; that is, it'll pay rent to the amount that will be required to pay back the debt that's incurred, plus the operating expenses."

It is interesting to note that when the new administration took over in late 1975, the former NDP administration had made no provision to continue with the 

[ Page 2300 ]

construction of government office space. In other words, they had not provided any funding in the 1975 and 1976 estimates; nor were they apparently planning to provide for any in the 1976-77 estimates. Therefore the British Columbia Buildings Corporation Act was put before this Legislature to find other means of providing for the construction of needed facilities for the public service and to help provide jobs for the economy of British Columbia.

[5:15]

Interestingly enough, the lead critic for the opposition was the member for Vancouver Centre, now Deputy Speaker of this Legislature. He stated at that time that it was good that the government had recognized the need for providing better services to the community and had found a way to exercise the option of creating a Crown corporation to provide a more equitable and practical approach to the use of facilities, offices and other public works. Although he and his party supported the legislation, it was interesting to find the following quotation on page 2166 of Hansard, May 31, 1976, attributed to that member for Vancouver Centre:

"This corporation will have the same options open to it, being permitted to exercise the use of public servants or political representatives -- members of the cabinet.

"I was hoping that the government would want to demonstrate its good intentions and its confidence in the private sector as much as possible by removing itself entirely from this Crown corporation, having no influences in the policies and really demonstrating its sincerity that it would be able to manage on its own...."

That was the statement of the member for Vancouver Centre in 1976.

On another topic the member for Vancouver Centre went on to say: "I am personally wondering if, when the minister stands, he will assure us that this is just not one more way of going into a deficit-financing situation to avoid having to deal with the real costs of providing the spaces for the various departments at the end of the next fiscal year."

Another very interesting quote from the member for Vancouver Centre some 16 years ago, when this corporation was established by this House, with respect to appointments. He said: "You speak a lot about appointments in the bill and not about competitions. I'm not sure if this means that the level of influence will be friends with the government. So I would want some assurance when you stand that you will point out that this will be a truly independent corporation, one that will not have to suffer from political interference."

Perhaps even more interesting are the comments on the establishment of this corporation by the Liberal member of the Legislature on May 31, 1976, on page 2169 of Hansard

"What happens to legislative control of the expenditures that are now going on in the Department of Public Works?

"The whole intent of the estimates debate in this House has been so that we can discuss expenditures before the fact rather than after the fact. Is the government not, by this bill, in effect removing the estimates of the Department of Public Works -- removing them from the purview of this Legislature and therefore the right of any kind of timely comment?"

The Liberal member also asked that the minister undertake to table in the Legislature the precise spending plans of this corporation for the year to come, rather than having the members of the Legislature rely on simply looking at the annual report, and therefore giving up their function of offering some advice on how the future should unfold.

The other member for Vancouver Centre, Mr. Lauk, had this to say: "Is this a bill -- as many people suspect it is -- that is designed to hoodwink the public? Is it a bill designed merely to get in the back door what this government is too afraid to get in through the front door? Is it a bill that will enable this government, on massive capital expenditures, to create a deficit such as the one they created with the Columbia River Treaty and yet not have it add up as a public debt?"

This corporation has come a long way in 16 years. Today we have been told that it has a portfolio of more than 3,400 buildings, containing over 22 million square feet of accommodation. As a result, it has a significant presence in nearly every community in the province. They run a good corporation, and I wish to congratulate them in particular on their energy management program, which has won international awards. Most recently, in October 1991, they received an award for corporate energy management from the Association of Energy Engineers of North America.

The British Columbia Buildings Corporation is working on a number of environmental priorities, which include reducing the use of the ozone-damaging chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration systems and the halons used in fire extinguishers, concentrating on the management of hazardous waste and the implications of janitorial cleaning products on the environment, continuing to explore safe herbicides and pesticides, managing underground storage tanks, and studying the effectiveness of the corporation's electric car in various locations.

The British Columbia Buildings Corporation should be of some pride to the people of British Columbia, in that it has been listed as one of the best 500 companies to work for in Canada. In general, the official opposition shares that pride in this corporation and thinks that this is a good way to handle the accommodation needs of the public service of British Columbia.

However, we do have a number of questions to put to the minister. We begin with the statement of long-term debt, as noted in the 1991 annual report. It was $414.729 million at that date. Short-term debt was $104.536 million, and other liabilities amounted to $89.177 million. If possible, we would like an updating to March 31, 1992, of long-term debt, short-term debt and other liabilities. While the minister is reviewing that question with her officials, we would also like to have an explanation tabled for the interest rates for the debt and the manner in which it is placed.

Hon. L. Boone: I don't have that information here, but it will be tabled in the Legislature when we table the annual report later this month.

[ Page 2301 ]

K. Jones: Is the minister not prepared to give us any of those figures at this point? Have they no indication of the interest rate that's being paid?

The Chair: Order, hon. member. It would be out of order to table a document in the Committee of Supply. The minister has indicated that those documents will be tabled in the House pursuant to the standing orders. Do you have another question?

K. Jones: Yes, Mr. Chairman. As I raised in my own remarks during the budget speech debate, the opposition would like to have some stated estimate of the real market value of assets held by the B.C. Buildings Corporation up to March 31, 1992.

Hon. L. Boone: It is our policy to have a review and an estimate of the value of property done periodically. But if you want that done for the entire province and all the properties, it would be a major undertaking -- and probably a costly one. We'd have to get back to you at some much later date, not within the next few days.

K. Jones: I take it that is a commitment of the minister to bring that forward in the shortest possible time -- considering the information has to be gathered. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No, that's not a commitment to do that. I indicated to you that it would take considerable time and money. The member would have to demonstrate to me and to the board that there was a justifiable reason for the expense of time and energy required in doing such a thing.

D. Mitchell: With respect to the question that was just raised by the member for Surrey-Cloverdale, surely the minister responsible for the B.C. Buildings Corporation would have, at some point in time, a statement reflecting the real market value of the assets under the control of that corporation. What would be the most recent net asset value statement that would be available, if there is not one for the period asked about by the questioner?

Hon. L. Boone: If you're asking for the most recent one, that is a different story altogether. I'm sure the corporation would be able to supply you with the most recent valuations of the property. But to go with an up-to-date evaluation is just not possible at this point.

D. Mitchell: Given the minister's answer, could she provide today for the benefit of members of the committee the date of the most recent asset valuation of all the assets under the control of the corporation and a ballpark figure of what those assets would be worth according to that most recent valuation?

Hon. L. Boone: The appraisals are apparently done on a five-year basis. Some out there could be as much as five years old, which could make a substantial difference, as you know, to the cost of property around here. The CEO has indicated to me that it would be well over a billion dollars. If you had a specific property that you were requesting information on, we would be more than happy to try and get that information for you.

K. Jones: I appreciate the questioning and support of our fellow members in this regard. It is certainly very valid. I would just like to ask the minister if she could be a little more specific in answering that question with regard to the date of the last valuation. It is ongoing, you say; different things are happening at different times. How current is the last information?

Hon. L. Boone: For some properties it would be very current -- within the last month or so; for others it would be up to five years old, because it is done every five years. As I say, it goes from five years right up to the present.

K. Jones: Finally, with respect to the stated assets of the corporation, I'd like a commitment from the minister that she will table and make available to the opposition the breakdown of all the holdings of the British Columbia Buildings Corporation -- the total square footage on lease, the total square footage maintained and the total square footage owned -- to March 31, 1992. We'd also like a list of the locations for those properties.

Hon. L. Boone: Obviously that's a massive undertaking, but Dennis Truss has indicated that he will be taking that up and will be making that information available to you. However, it's going to take a while.

K. Jones: I know that the corporation is handled very well, and that all of this is on computer records. It will probably be just a matter of asking the computer program to give us that information as a printout. I'm sure that a good business operation knows its assets on a day-to-day basis and is fully aware of what's there and how much it's worth and how much rent it's receiving. We'll look forward to that report.

With respect to present projects and problems, we would ask to have some comment on the Robson Square building in Vancouver, initially planned by the New Democratic Party government of 1972-75 and built by the Bill Bennett administration. Although it is appealing to the eye, we understand that it has only about a 60 percent building efficiency. After many months of poor utilization, the government base is now being considered for conversion to family court facilities. We would like an estimate of the conversion costs and a comparison of what it would cost to construct similar facilities for court use or for the justice system in an alternative location.

Hon. L. Boone: The current tender is for $8.4 million. As a rough estimate, Mr. Truss has indicated to me that it would be around $17 million to do a similar facility someplace else. If you want the exact figure, he would have to get that for you.

[5:30]

[ Page 2302 ]

K. Jones: We have an interest in the Jack Davis Building, under construction at Blanshard and Herald Street here in Victoria. We understand it will have 145,000 square feet. We want to know whether or not the estimates on the cost of construction have been completed, who the occupants of the building will be, whether tenders had been let on the construction of the building and awarded, and whether the fair wage policy will affect the cost of the construction of this building in any way.

Hon. L. Boone: On the Jack Davis Building, I can tell you that tenders were let before the fair wage policy came into being. The exact value of that building is $24 million. It will house the employees of the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources.

K. Jones: The contract was let before the fair wage policy, and on that basis this became a cause cél�bre for the fair wage policy. It was the first project to be built non-union under the fair wage policy. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: This tender was given before the fair wage policy came into being. The fair wage policy has nothing to do with this particular tender.

K. Jones: I believe that the minister had considerable press over the fact that this contract actually was determined after the fair wage policy had been tabled. The policy was of great concern to Mr. Georgetti, head of the building trades. He was concerned that the ministry was going against the policy direction of the NDP in allowing a non-union contractor to get that contract, when they thought it should have gone to a unionized company. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Boone: No, it's not correct at all. The fair wage policy did not come into being until just recently. This contract was let sometime in December, long before the fair wage policy came into being. Mr. Georgetti's concerns had to do with the fact that the NDP Party had a policy with regard to fair wages. This government did not have a policy on fair wages at the time the tender was let.

K. Jones: I'm sure Mr. Georgetti is very much satisfied with the response that there really wasn't anything that could be done about it. He has certainly been very public about his views on how that contract was let.

We'd like the minister to comment on the process taking place on the Oakalla land in Burnaby. We understand that it's roughly 43 developable acres and that the parcels are being put out to bid. Could the minister comment on exactly where the process is with respect to the development of these lands?

Hon. L. Boone: We're currently completing the demolition of the lands and the environmental cleanup that is necessary.

I'd like to take a minute to spout some good stuff about the corporation. This is a story that the member hasn't heard, so I'm going to wait for him; it's a good story about BCBC that he can add to his repertoire of good BCBC stuff.

When they were doing the demolition on the Oakalla land, a particular building was tendered out, based on the company's ability to recycle and reuse as much of the material as possible. The bid was actually the low bid, far lower than any other, because the person who was bidding included the revenue they would get for selling off various parts of the building. They actually recycled 95 percent of the building, down to the windows, the tiles, even the gravel on the driveway. They swept the gravel into a pile and a landscape artist purchased it to use in his work. Some really exciting things are happening with BCBC. That's the only one you're getting; that's my one sales pitch here.

Six people are shortlisted for manager of the whole project, and a decision will be made on that shortly. We'll put in the services, and then we'll be marketing the 12 parcels of land at that time.

K. Jones: It sounds like they did the job like the Berliners did with the Berlin Wall in Germany. It looks like they sold everything, including the souvenir aspects. Is that what I'm led to believe?

Hon. L. Boone: Not souvenirs, I don't think.

K. Jones: Could the minister explain the process of marketing? Are we going to have marketing along the lines of the Expo land, where one developer gets the whole package, and we're not going to get the benefits? Or are we going to sell it off in parcels, so as each parcel is developed it enhances the adjoining parcel? That increases the value of the adjoining parcels, thereby giving the province, rather than the developer, all the benefit -- as was done with the Expo land.

Hon. L. Boone: The development will be in keeping with the district of Burnaby's development plan. We will be selling it in parcels of land, not all in one bunch, as was the case with the Expo land. I can assure you that, under the direction of Dennis and the eagle eye of Bob Williams, we will be getting a fair market value for the properties there.

K. Jones: I would remind the minister that, at the time of the Expo land sale, the Premier and the minister responsible were also saying that they were getting fair market value. We have some questions about whether that was accurate or not. Certainly this will give us a prime example of how it can be done with much more benefit to the province -- I hope.

I'd like to go on to the Royal British Columbia Museum, which in 1988 was looking at a plan for improvements of $10 million, but was having a problem with B.C. Buildings Corporation. I wonder if the House could be brought up to date on the needs of the Royal British Columbia Museum and on the current provision made by BCBC for meeting those needs?

Hon. L. Boone: As you know, we've been removing the asbestos from the tower there. I understand that the museum is currently putting together a business 

[ Page 2303 ]

plan, with all its requirements and needs, and will be presenting that to BCBC. The questions pertaining to the museum should really be asked of the Minister of Tourism, who is in the other chamber at this time.

K. Jones: Perhaps the minister can hear me -- it is a little difficult being in two places at once, with this double meeting. I think the question really is: is B.C. Buildings Corporation involved in any additional work that will be done in order to meet the requirements of the Royal British Columbia Museum?

Hon. L. Boone: BCBC will respond, as they do for all ministries or all government agencies that approach them with their requirements, to their plan and their requirements when they receive them.

K. Jones: I understand that they have a substantial plan already in place, with a fund-raising program underway either now or shortly. Does the B.C. Buildings Corporation play a role in the plan that's being put forward? Or is that being done totally independent of B.C. Buildings Corporation?

Hon. L. Boone: The discussions that are taking place with the museum are very preliminary right now. They've got some ideas, but they haven't come up with a full business plan. When they do, I'm sure BCBC will be responding.

K. Jones: While we're on museums, the Transportation Museum in Cloverdale, a favourite of mine....

Hon. L. Boone: It has nothing to do with me.

K. Jones: I was wondering if the B.C. Buildings Corporation has anything to do with the actual property, or the leasing of that site. Or is it totally independent of the B.C. Buildings Corporation and the government? In other words, is the Pavilion Corporation operating totally independent of the B.C. Buildings Corporation? Could the minister indicate what other operations or buildings that do not come under the B.C. Buildings Corporation are using government funding?

Hon. L. Boone: Well, this is not within BCBC's jurisdiction. Thank goodness it's not -- we'd be here for six days if it was. I really can't tell you what other areas are not using BCBC, because BCBC is the only one that I am responsible for and the only one I have any understanding of. I really don't know how you can expect me to know what is not in BCBC's jurisdiction.

K. Jones: I would hope that the minister would find out for us just what properties the government has as a total involvement, so that as taxpayers we have a better idea of the true inventory. Most people think that B.C. Buildings Corporation is the holder of all of the leases and the owner of all of the buildings. But as we've already noted, obviously other properties operated by the government are totally outside that listing of assets. Perhaps as taxpayers we should know exactly what all of the different entities of government are involved in, in the way of building structures, rentals, leases and ownership. I would ask the minister if she would be prepared to look into that further and to make a report to the government sometime in the near future.

[5:45]

Hon. L. Boone: This ministry does not have the funds or the staff to start an investigation that canvasses all ministries with regard to what housing or accommodation they have. I would suggest that that would be something your research department could do very well.

K. Jones: I must agree with the minister that our research department is very capable and has certainly found out a lot of things about the government and its history that have sometimes been rather embarrassing to it. I'm sure that they could do it, but I thought that a simple letter from the minister or through the Crown Corporations Committee that she sits on.... I thought that the information could be requested and gathered with very little effort.

I'd like to go on another area. On May 7, 1990, the Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition....

Hon. L. Boone: Point of order. It has just been brought to my attention that the time is drawing to a close here. Before the hon. member gets into another issue that may take some time, I would like to move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:46 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

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