[ Page 4121 ]

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

D. Jarvis: It's a pleasure to enter into the investment and development estimates and the energy and mines division, which is probably a sorry little group right at the moment, when you consider that this government is presently considering maybe starting a fishing industry that has a. . . . The GDP of that is about 0.3 percent, whereas the mining GDP is at least over 2 percent. When you take energy into consideration as well, we're probably up to about 7 or 8 percent of the GDP of this province.

Anyway, I would say that the future of mining is somewhat in jeopardy, despite the last three years of having made a minor profit in this province and considering that in the preceding four years they lost money. There is great uncertainty about the future of the mining industry throughout this province. If we don't do something to protect it and encourage mining development and exploration in this province -- significantly, I would think -- we will start to lose, both in our rural areas and in the main cities such as Vancouver, which is probably the largest mining centre in British Columbia. But I think we have to protect the rural areas, because most of their income is based solely on resource extraction.

Also, we have to consider that this government's main statements, which we hear every day, are the protection of education and health. In order to create those revenues for education and health, we're going to have to look at resource extraction and the development of such. So the key to your treasury is resource extraction, and let's hope that this government is slowly trying to change its idea.

It brings back a story that I know of about three gentlemen who were in an establishment and were toasting themselves with martinis and saying: "Twenty-nine, twenty-nine." They kept doing this time after time after time, and finally the owner of the establishment came around to them and asked: "What's this toasting of 29?" They said: "We're three NDP cabinet ministers, and we've been doing a puzzle. We did this in 29 days. We're really proud of that fact, because on the front of the box it says, 'two to four years.' "

We do worry about what's going on in this province, as I think that more than half of the top 50 companies in British Columbia are from resource industries. Therefore the resource industry is still the economic generator for British Columbia. The mining industry, for example, is now doing much of its business, as we know, outside British Columbia. So to encourage mining in British Columbia, and in order to help our education and our health and the jobs that this government is so insistent that they protect, we need more resource extraction, as I said. Most of the mining companies are just looking for security. All they want is a little bit of security. They don't care who their landlord is, but they want that aspect of security.

To encourage investment and to increase their profits, the industry feels that there are a few things that they would like to see done. As the minister is aware, one is a guarantee of security of tenure, as I said. Another is the end of uncertainty in aboriginal claims. In other words, they're looking for some deadlines, some dates they can shoot for. They want the elimination of some taxes, not necessarily based on all their assets and investments but based on profits, and an easing of the regulatory load that has been put upon them -- you know, the delays in approvals for opening mines and the excessive paperwork that I understand they have to go through.

Then there is the compensation aspect -- compensation for uncertainty when this government creates parks. It requires them to remove their assets from the land and takes away their tenures. There are a few outfits in this -- and we'll get into it further during the estimates -- where there is an alarming cause for this government to make settlements with people that have lost tenure. They haven't done so.

Our economic growth is, I feel, primarily due to our population growth in these last few years. As resources account for 75 percent of our exports. . . . This government has sacrificed that, knowingly or otherwise, to pursue their other objectives, which are not necessarily what we feel. . . . They seem to feel at times that they would rather react to the issues that are out there than have an overall provincial plan which involves some economics and science.

[10:15]

These things just don't happen overnight. We need exploration and development in this province if we want to maintain the status quo, even. But if we want to create more moneys to help protect and health, then we must get on with the job and put more money into the exploration end of it.

In actual fact, B.C. needs the mining business more than the mining business needs B.C. And that's proven by the fact that they can go worldwide and still make money. But most of them would rather live in British Columbia. It's in the billions now -- over $4 billion worth of development throughout the world, which is basically Canadian money. A good percentage of that should be in British Columbia, developing our resources, mainly because our debt is rising. If we're going to do anything to reduce that debt, we can't just keep raising taxes and fees for services in this province. We have to create some wealth.

[ Page 4122 ]

Having made those remarks, I don't intend to take too long on these estimates.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, if the minister would like to respond, I would like to hear him respond, and then maybe we could get into the details and specifics of the mining industry.

Hon. D. Miller: I did a bit of an overview at the outset of the estimates, knowing that we were going into sort of discrete divisions of the ministry. I didn't talk at length about mining in that opening statement. But I want the member to know that I share some of the concerns that he has raised and perhaps will provide a bit of an overview in terms of what we're doing in working with that sector, with the Mining Association and people in that sector, to try to improve our relationship and, consequently, improve and increase the level of economic activity in our province.

I must say that I've really enjoyed having this portfolio because it's sort of taken me back to the days when I was in forestry and dealing with people who are in the resource business. Some of the facts, I think, are fairly obvious but are worth stating with respect to the value of the energy, mines and petroleum sector in our province. We talked briefly yesterday about the value of the receipts in terms of the gas sector. But, you know, the mineral sector does provide employment for over 20,000 people. It pays some $500 million annually in local and provincial taxes. It pays the highest average industrial wages -- around $70,000 per year. These are very good, family-supporting jobs, and we are doing a lot of work to try and encourage even more of those to be created here in our province. It is the province's second-largest exporter. About 20 percent of the value of our exports derive from this sector.

We do indeed have the technological expertise. We have mining companies headquartered in Vancouver which are world leaders. We have, arguably, one of the best capital markets in the VSE for raising capital for mining ventures. Yet we've not seen the level of activity in our province that, in our view, could take place and in fact is desirable.

So we have embarked on a strategy. There were some concerns about the mining ministry, about the old Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry being subsumed into this larger Ministry of Employment and Investment. I can understand that, but at the same time, in my discussions -- and I've had many in the year or so that I have been the minister -- with the Mining Association, I think there's a degree of comfort in the approach that we as government are taking to that sector. I would remind members that we had a very successful Mining Day here in the Legislature, culminating in a reception for all members at a hotel across the street.

Really, I was quite pleased that senior people in the mining sector talked in a very open and cooperative way about the relationship with government. In my view, I think that's improved. I think, objectively, not to blow the government's horn too much, looking at some of the statements made by senior people in that sector. . . . I refer to John Willson of Placer Dome, Gary Livingstone of the Mining Association and others saying that they're prepared to work with this government.

So I think that relationship is an important component of future success. I think the sector has to understand that British Columbia is open for business. We do value mining as a business in this province; we think it contributes enormously. We want to see an expansion of that sector, and we're working very hard with the Mining Association to try to realize some increase on the potential.

As well, I want to say that the men and women in the former Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ministry have taken a pretty big hit. I spoke yesterday about the fact that all too often we tend to view reductions in government as though somehow that's good, and we tend to ignore the fact that very real individuals -- people who have worked in government for a number of years, who do a very good and outstanding job -- were let go. I'm not happy about that, but I guess it was necessary in terms of the budget issues we were facing.

I want to pay some tribute to the people who have worked in that ministry, both those who had to leave because of the budget reductions and those who have remained, because they're an outstanding group of individuals. I think that at both our headquarters level and in the field, they have a very good relationship. They're acknowledged by the mining sector to be competent individuals doing a very fine job, and I want to put that on the record.

We do a very good job in many respects. I had the privilege of attending the annual safety awards. I didn't bring a list of the companies that received awards. But just to make an observation, we had a good evening in Vancouver with representatives of both the mining companies and the Mining Association, and workers who work in these mines. It was a good evening because we were able to celebrate the fact that British Columbia has an outstanding safety record -- simply an outstanding safety record -- in one of the most dangerous occupations that you can imagine.

In fact, if you compare the safety record in mining to industries that might be comparable -- logging, roadbuilding, those kinds of things -- the safety record in mining simply stands out. It shines. That's a tribute to the working people who are involved on a day-to-day basis, to the companies, to our inspectors, to our safety branch that does, I think, a very, very good job and is acknowledged in that sense.

I was startled at just one statistic with respect to safety, which I'll cite. We had Mr. Hermann of our ministry down in Peru, giving some technical assistance on safety to the sector down there, and this is something that I think British Columbians should be proud of. In Peru, the number of annual fatalities is 126. In other words, 126 people were killed in mining in Peru in a year. It's so bad there that they don't even record lost-time accidents. All they record is fatalities. In British Columbia we had two -- and two is too many. That is a startling contrast in terms of the safety record. It's a tribute to all of the people that I've mentioned, and it's certainly one in which we want to maintain the highest standards.

It seems to me that there are some opportunities in this sector that are unrealized. The member talked about exploration, and he's right: we need to get more investment into the exploration side. I'll talk in a moment about the mines that are opening and the value of those mines. But unless we are putting a reasonable amount of investment -- and I think about $200 million annually is probably a reasonable amount -- into exploration to discover those new greenfield deposits, because it does take some time from discovery through to development and the opening of a new mine. . . .

In that respect, in addition to working with the sector and trying to create a better business climate, if you like, I did take the opportunity to have a meeting with the head of the VSE and the head of the Mining Association to discuss whether or not it might be possible, given that maybe the bloom is off the 

[ Page 4123 ]

rose internationally to some degree. . . . I know there's always the feeling that there's a greener pasture on the other side of the hill, but those who invested in Bre-X certainly have discovered that it's not very green at all.

In fact, my conversations with some senior people in the mining industry tell me that maybe things are not as rosy in these other jurisdictions. They're dealing with extreme political instability in some cases. They're dealing with governments that don't hesitate to interfere in a way that would never happen in this province -- Indonesia, for one. And given that Bre-X has shaken the marketplace and perhaps made people a little bit wary of mining stock, maybe it's time for a campaign here in British Columbia to look at B.C. Let's look at the opportunities and the returns that can be made on invested capital by looking at developments here in British Columbia.

So one of the things I was really pleased about at that meeting was that Mike Johnson from the VSE and Gary Livingstone from the Mining Association had actually never met. So that was fortuitous. They followed up, and I think they had another discussion. If only one thing was accomplished, it was me being a bit of a broker between two sectors that clearly have a common interest. Hopefully, that will continue.

We have put some placements in some publications. In fact, I presented Mr. Livingstone with a blown-up, framed ad that we put in a Winnipeg-based publication on mining, which was saying just that: let's look at B.C.; let's look at some of the advantages. We've made some changes -- I think we dealt with those last year -- on the tax side that are advantageous to the mining sector. We are also engaged with the mining industry in the development of two new projects.

I'm very pleased that the Mount Polley project did not require government assistance. Mr. Lebel has indicated that that project is ahead of schedule. It's under budget, and we will see sometime later this year the opening of that Mount Polley mining project. Later on this year, the Huckleberry project in northern British Columbia -- again, a very important project. . . . We made an investment of some $15 million of the taxpayers' money in that project. We think it's a good commercial investment. It provided some comfort to the Japanese partners involved in that project. And finally, there is the Kemess project, again in northern B.C.

I look at the value of those projects to the economy of this province and at the kinds of jobs: Mount Polley, $123 million and 170 full-time jobs when in operation; Kemess South, a $390 million project. . . . As we speak now, as we debate in this House, there are 400 workers on site. It will peak at about 550 to 600 at the peak of construction, then 350 full-time jobs when the mine finally opens, and about 1,000 indirect and induced jobs, permanent jobs over the next 20 years for northern British Columbia. As a northerner, I'm proud of that. The $137 million Huckleberry mine, as I said, is scheduled for completion later this fall. There are 300 workers to build the project, 180 to 200 permanent, full-time jobs when in operation, and an additional 360 to 400 spinoff jobs in terms of suppliers of goods and services.

Really, if you look at the mines under development now, there's not been that scale of investment in new mines opening in our province since the early seventies. With a total capital expenditure of $650 million, 700 full-time direct jobs and 1,500 indirect, we think we're on the right track. Surely the opening of those mines does send a bit of a signal outside our borders that this is a friendly place to do business and that we want those investment dollars.

We've got some areas that we need to work on, and in that respect the member mentioned the regulatory areas. You can see by our announcement yesterday that we're prepared to tackle those regulatory issues. Yesterday it was the forest sector, where we were able to announce some changes that maintained our environmental standards but reduced the regulatory burden and the red-tape costs of those forest practices. That was welcomed by the industry.

[10:30]

The mining sector has put forward a proposition; they call it Mining Jobs 2000. They think they can create an additional 20,000 jobs in this province if certain things can be dealt with. We've agreed with them, and I've offered to formalize that with the Mining Association. They're considering that now, and if that does come to pass, we think the potential is there to create additional employment in that sector in our province.

We are actively looking at some of the things we think enhance opportunities in the mining sector -- for example, the development of a copper smelter. Because they have to shift the ore to processing outside our borders, clearly British Columbia mines would be enhanced if there were the capacity to do that here in our province. People have talked about a copper smelter in B.C. for a long time. We're taking a serious look to see whether or not there really is potential. We'd like to develop that, and my own view is that we'd like to develop it in northern British Columbia. That enhances the profitability and the economic viability of mines. We're very good, by the way, at developing the marginal mines. In other words, they're are not hugely rich deposits, but because of our technological expertise we're able to make them pay, and certainly a smelter would enhance that considerably.

We value this sector very highly. We're working very closely in trying to establish a better relationship with them. I think it is paying dividends and will continue to do that. I welcome any positive suggestions the member might have with respect to how we can enhance the relationship that we are working on.

D. Jarvis: I'm really quite excited that we supposedly have an advocate for mining in this province, for a change -- since the early nineties. I guess we could just sort of close it off right now and forget about it, but knowing the track record of this government, I think it's incumbent on me and the rest of the members on the opposition side to still ask some questions as to what the minister intends to do.

He's right that Canada is well known for its safety standards and the environmental position it has taken over the years. It's well known throughout the world, and we have been exporting it; that's part of our industry, too. But I still have that feeling that most people. . . . As I said, this government 

[ Page 4124 ]

does seem to work on reactions rather than on a policy. This policy may be forthcoming, and we'll get into that in a little more detail.

I noticed there was an article in the paper this morning that said that life without minerals might be difficult to imagine. You probably read that yourself, but it's easy to describe it. The easiest way to describe it is the Stone Age. That's what appears to have been happening over these past years. The mining industry has been slowly reducing itself to very little. In fact, they're doing more with fewer people, and fewer mines are opening. There's less output. I can see -- and I think everyone else and you would agree as well -- that we're having problems with structural employment in rural areas. There's a real dichotomy occurring in the rural areas for resources. So it's very good that the minister is now thinking toward a positive advocate's position for mining.

With regard to the VSE and the B.C. Mining Association and introducing them, I appreciate that they have a common interest. But I'm not too sure whether they should have an association together. One wonders. . . . That is very questionable.

The minister mentioned that there has been a level of mining in the past few years that they would like to see that changed. Well, it certainly hasn't been the mining industry's intention to have the situation that there has been for the last four, five or ten years, with mining being on the decrease. It has been government's interference and government's ideology that have created the problems in the mining industry. If the minister is really serious and intends to change the ideology of his party towards a more active mining industry in this province, I think it's going to stand for the betterment of everyone in this province -- and certainly for the protection of education and health, which they keep talking about every day. We are all in favour of that, as well.

I would like to ask the minister if he could tell us what the actual status is. . . . A more recent Price Waterhouse report that came out suggested that the total number of miners that were actually working directly in the mining industry today was around 6,400. I had always assumed that it was. . . . I knew it was crashing down from where it used to be, up in the 20,000 range, but thought it was now down to around 9,700. I was wondering if he had any records there that could clarify the position of where we actually stand at this point.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, really, I'm just looking at the. . . . I don't know if the member has the Price Waterhouse report with him. But yeah, they show a decline. Their number in 1987 was around 14,000-plus, to around 9,700 today. Our numbers. . . . I cited 20,000. I think that includes sand-and-gravel-related businesses. We're reasonably confident that the aggregate employment is about that. I guess the main point is that we'd like to see more.

D. Jarvis: I wonder if the minister could tell us, with regards to the mining division of his ministry, how many full-time employees are in there at this point.

Hon. D. Miller: There are 252.5 FTEs. All but 80 are in the mining sector. As a result of budget reductions, we lost 20.

D. Jarvis: How many would be in the energy division?

Hon. D. Miller: I think my last answer was that all but 80 were in Mines, so that's 80 in Energy.

D. Jarvis: With regards to the coal industry, there are eight mines presently operating. I understand that the Bullmoose and the Quintette have a life span of approximately five years now. Coal represents about 30 percent of our total mineral value in this province. Has the minister. . . ? It's employing about 1,400 people just up in the northeast alone, and I'm not sure how many are down in the southeast. Have they done any studies or exploration as to whether there is more coal up in the northeast area? If we have 1,400 people working up there and it's only got a life span of maybe four to five years, what is the intention of the mining division to offset the potential loss in that area?

Hon. D. Miller: I did put out a release in early May relative to the renewal of the northeast coal contract for the Japanese steel industry, and there's one line I really didn't want to highlight, because there are still some issues that have to be resolved with respect to that renewal. I want to draw people's attention to the fact that while it was good news and welcomed with some relief by the people in Tumbler Ridge, as well as by those with the railway and in the port of Prince Rupert, it also signalled, conceivably, the end of that operation by the year 2003. While I do not have a ready answer for what might take place beyond 2003, I tried to indicate that that's an important question we have to work on.

We do have additional coal mines under development that I presume will come to fruition: the Telkwa coal project in north-central British Columbia, the Willow Creek project in northeast British Columbia, and there is a potential, I think, for some others -- without naming them. They don't, in total tonnage, make up for the. . . . We'll now be taking about 4.6 million tonnes out of the Bullmoose and Quintette mines. So that's a serious question that we will be doing some work on.

I want to say this carefully. I do not automatically accept that there is no life beyond 2003 for those two major mines in northeastern British Columbia. I'm not saying that there is a quick and simple solution beyond that; I'm simply saying, as the minister responsible for that sector, that I do not accept that that's the end of the road. We'll be doing some work on that question. I can't say a heck of a lot more than that now.

Coal is a very important mineral in terms of its kind of value both to our domestic economy and to the export side. In southeast British Columbia we just recently gave approval -- I can't remember the name of it now -- for a further development there: Cougar Pit.

We will be concentrating a lot of our efforts in northern British Columbia to see how we can continue to have that mineral being mined and exported, and conceivably, given some of the discussions I've held with the private sector, being utilized in a manufacturing process in northern British Columbia. Again, confidentiality between us and the private sector doesn't allow me to go much further, but there is what I think is a fairly exciting proposal with government that, if realized, will see the utilization of our coal resources in a manufacturing process in our province for the first time.

That really speaks to the so-called value-added strategy. We are an exporter of unprocessed resources -- I talked about copper -- and to the extent that we can utilize our resources in the manufacture of goods here in our province, we enhance its value many times over. So we will continue to concentrate particularly on northern British Columbia, in view of the issues that will inevitably arise with respect to northeast coal.

[10:45]

[ Page 4125 ]

Myra Falls, Eskay Creek and Snip. You say that there are approximately three to four mines presumably coming on stream within this next year. Of course, they're not going to be developed unless the government wants them to be developed. I trust that we're not going to have further environmental holdups in mining, which is basically what's happening.

Look at what's happening in the northwest with the Tulsequah Chief. It may be privileged information, but from what I understand, the aboriginals in that area, which you see in the paper saying that they're not interested in having any money development up in that area. Mainly they don't want to see a road down. I've got a letter in my office from the chief of the band saying that they welcome a road being put into that area. I'm just wondering: what is holding up the process of the Tulsequah Chief from advancing up into that next stage in the process where they can get permitted?

Hon. D. Miller: I talked earlier about the desire of government to try to eliminate, to the degree that is possible, unnecessary bureaucracy or red tape but maintain the integrity of our process or our standards. As the minister responsible for the sector, I have to be careful. In other words, when a mine project -- or any project, for that matter -- goes through the environmental assessment process, there has to be absolute integrity in terms of how that process works. It always has to withstand public scrutiny, and it may have to withstand even more intense scrutiny if people who are unhappy with the decisions that are ultimately made decide to take matters to the courts.

I have to be very, very careful -- and that's very important to understand -- the government has to be careful, and the EA people have to be careful that they do their due diligence prior to making final decisions about go or no-go.

I was pleased that while there have been challenges on some of the decisions we have made -- those have been challenged in the courts -- our process was found by the courts to be fair, so the decisions we made were upheld. I really think it's important that people understand the need to be scrupulous in your process, because it does have to withstand that kind of scrutiny, ultimately.

As the minister responsible for mining, the last thing I need to be accused of is running roughshod over interests: environmental interests, aboriginal trusts -- you name it. So we do proceed carefully. I sometimes wish that the pace were quicker, but I'm mindful of the kind of obligations I've just talked about.

There are many aboriginal groups in British Columbia that are interested in -- and in fact are involved in -- the responsible development of resources in the areas that they live. I've referred often in this House to the Nisga'a, who are engaged in forestry. They harvest timber. They sell timber. Their people are employed in harvesting and selling and other aspects of resource extraction. They want to make sure that in the areas that they have jurisdiction -- and presumably will have more -- that it's done in a responsible manner, and that's fine. They're like everybody else in British Columbia.

I have an excellent relationship with the Tahltan people, just north of my constituency -- which ends in Stewart -- in the Dease Lake-Telegraph Creek region. I've had a very good relationship with them. They are engaged in resource development. They work very closely with Prime Resources and Homestake, and in fact are employed in the Eskay Creek -- a very good deposit, by the way, a very good operation. I toured that last year with my parliamentary secretary. We're seeing some further expenditure on that project, as well.

It's important that people in the resource field do their utmost to develop a relationship with aboriginal people in areas where they want to develop mines or explore or whatever. I've seen some very good examples. In fact, I congratulated Homestake for the work they've done with the Tahltans, and I've encouraged other mining companies to follow the very good examples that exist in terms of that relationship between the private sector and aboriginal groups. We'll continue to try to assist in that regard.

I think the potential in the northwest corridor is significant. There are excellent mineral deposits in that region. We need to proceed to see those kinds of developments come on stream, and the kinds of jobs and economic benefits that would flow from them. We have to make sure that there are openings for participation by the aboriginal people who live there.

I was pleased. . . . I've also received some of the same letters that the member talks about. In fact, I hope that if time permits. . . . In fact, right now, today, I'd rather be up there than here. It's no disrespect to here, but I like to get out in the field, and that's a spectacular part of our province. I am going to try to arrange a trip up into that part of our province. It's a very important part.

I've also had some discussions with the government of the Yukon, and we think that there are some interesting cross-border synergies between our two governments which I will be exploring further. It's nice to have a senior official in that government who used to be an official in this government. We've got a very good ability to have a working relationship there, and we're going to explore that for the benefit of B.C.

So on the land claims issue, more and more I'm very pleased. More and more I hear -- and I think the Mining Association has said this very clearly: "Settle the claims." The best solution for long-term certainty with respect to aboriginal claims is to settle the claims. And it's a myth that somehow. . . . I don't want to get carried away in this estimates debate, but I was very disturbed by the division that was created in the recent federal election in my constituency by the incumbent MP, who actually singled out aboriginal people. It is foreign to us in this country to try to single people out by race, but this individual singled out aboriginal people. Imagine how they felt. Can you imagine how they felt as British Columbians -- that somehow they're the target? That's not the way to build bridges.

I was pleased to see an editorial yesterday in the Prince Rupert Daily News give a message to our MP: it's time to build some bridges with people instead of looking at how we can divide people. I can really get going on that subject because I feel very strongly about it. But people are people, and they are interested in employment and in jobs and opportunity. They may want a little more control over how those things are done, but that's fine.

So I think there's lots of opportunity in working with aboriginal people in the private sector to develop these projects.

D. Jarvis: I don't really feel as though I got an answer as to what was going to happen up in the Tulsequah Chief. I'd be the last one to ever want to get into a philosophical discussion with the minister, but he says that he would not want to be known as someone who would run roughshod over these various groups. But it's obvious that his government certainly reacts to these groups, and I would worry that. . . . Headlines are in the local paper this morning about the Clayoquot, and that the Clayoquot standards should be all over. I suppose 

[ Page 4126 ]

you've got some spin doctors already sitting down and discussing what you're going to do about it. That type of decision-making really bothers us, because I can see that you don't want to run roughshod over them, but at the same time there's a great feeling out there in the mining industry and with the people that are out investing money that this government is running roughshod over them. So it's not necessarily an overall statement for you to make, because you do run roughshod over a certain sector of this province, and at the moment that is the mining industry. With most of your decisions, really, the feeling out there is that they are not made through a scientific or an economic process. It's strictly by policy and a certain sector of people that you feel are supporting you, unfortunately.

But I too went up to Eskay Creek, and I'd like to go up there. . . . I went through the tour a couple of years back, just prior to its going into operation. It's a rather interesting area. The Tahltans and the other aboriginal groups have been working with the Mining Association for quite a few years now. They seem to get along. As they say, they don't care who their landlord is; they just want to have the rules straightened out so they know how to operate.

I'm really quite interested when you say that you had an association going on with the Governor of Alaska and with the Yukon with regard to cross-border interests. Would that be, by any chance, any suggestion that you might be wanting to go into the Tatshenshini? I doubt it.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I just wanted to throw it out. You know how I feel. I've always worked on the premise that people should be entitled to be an advocate for mining anywhere, as long as they do it in a responsible manner.

So I would just like to go on further to ask the minister if there is any sort of definitive statement that could be made at this time that the Tulsequah Chief will go forward. Or is it still being held up pending outside interference -- if you want to call it that -- by groups that aren't necessarily economically involved in it?

Hon. D. Miller: I think we have to distinguish between statements that may be made by any particular interest group about a particular project -- statements they may make publicly, that might appear in the press. Really, I think one has to be a bit careful or prudent in terms of how you deal with that and not simply characterize an opinion you might read in the newspaper as some outside group interfering in the process. People have opinions. That's the beauty of our society, I think -- the differences.

We have an environmental assessment process, as I said, that has to have integrity and has to examine the issues that are important in any particular proposed development. My understanding is that the project report on this proposal will be available in July. It will be a public document and therefore will be there for all to see. I encourage the members, if their view -- and clearly it's my critic's view -- is that that development should proceed. I certainly appreciate any encouragement or support that they have to offer.

[I. Waddell in the chair.]

I do have the obligation, as a signatory to the environmental assessment process -- not to be neutral, in a sense. . . . I mean, I'm an advocate for mining. As the minister, I don't have any hesitation in saying, as I've said here in this House, that this is an important sector in our province. We think it's good for us economically; we think it's good for our citizens in terms of the kinds of jobs that it produces. But when it comes to judging a proposal, that process has to have integrity, and I can't be seen to be interfering with that process -- and indeed I won't. So I hope the member appreciates the kind of separation in terms of my obligations as the minister.

[11:00]

I want to go on to one of the branches in the mining division of your ministry, and that is the geological survey branch. The concern is that you reduced the funding by about 46 percent for that branch. Job creation has always been defined by this government as their number one priority. So when they start reducing funding to divisions or branches. . . . It's the branch, I understand, that has the collection of all the data.

I've had letter after letter -- and I assume the minister has, too -- about the maps that are used from the geological survey department. I had one where the fellow said it was 1971 when he first went out to do some exploration and development in the province. He got maps from the survey department. He was looking in the northern extension of a geological belt in the Cariboo. It extended into the Cariboo area. The results of what he gained from that in 1971 led to the finding of deposits in the Mount Milligan area, which we hope will come on stream in the near future.

I find it rather difficult to accept the fact that. . . . I don't want to get into a deep argument or a fight on this. The minister says that his department is an advocate for mining, and yet one of the prime branches of his division is the geological survey, and that is the one that. . . . Exploration people go out there. You give them $500,000 a year, or you plan to give them that and even more. You'd like to move it up higher, I assume. As I said, mines aren't just going to come on stream right away. Huckleberry and Mount Polley were found in the fifties and sixties. You just talked about Eskay Creek, which is a great mine -- probably one of the wealthiest ones we've got in the province at the moment. It was discovered in 1911. We've got to have people out there trying to find deposits that eventually will become financially viable and make a producing mine to create money that you can tax.

I was wondering if the minister can tell us if he intends to do any more cutting of that branch. Does he intend to maybe reverse it -- seeing that he is the advocate for mining now -- and put an infusion of dollars and cents into that branch and create more exploration and development in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: When you govern, there are some harsh realities that you have to deal with. You can't talk about fiscal restraint but never have to practise it. My simple observation on that question, going back a good number of years, is that people, sectors, industries, groups, etc., generally are in favour of fiscal restraint, but when the arrow turns around and points at them, they say: "No, not me, because the work we do is too valuable; go cut over there." I just think that's human nature. I'm not trying to be critical, but it is human nature. The mining industry wasn't very happy at all -- neither was I, really -- about taking a pretty big cut in the geological survey branch, because they do very good work.

Anybody who has an interest in this field only has to go to the Cordilleran Roundup and look at the kind of technical work that's produced by the ministry. The mining industry 

[ Page 4127 ]

shows up and takes a look at that work, and you see an immediate relationship between the technical survey work that we produce and the claim-staking that follows. That budget was really enhanced in previous years because of a federal-provincial mineral development agreement, and therefore I think the impact of the reduction was even more magnified.

I've instructed my ministry to work with the industry to see if it's possible for reprioritizing internally, within the ministry, to add some additional resources to the GSB. I've discussed that in some detail with the technical liaison committee of the mining industry, the private sector committee. I've also tried to broaden those discussions.

If we're going to go forward here between the government and the mining sector, then I think, more and more, we have to get into partnerships. For example, I have said: "Look, it's clear that we spend a lot of the taxpayers' money doing this technical work. The mining industry benefits, because they can go and stake claims based on the technical work. Is there any opportunity for a better relationship between us in terms of, for example, increased fees for claim-staking? Should we look at some elements of cost recovery, even partial cost recovery, so that that money is available to do even more work?" I have simply floated these ideas with the technical liaison committee -- the TLC -- and the Mining Association generally. There's nothing formal. They haven't come back to me with an explicit response to that. But I have kind of thrown that out. Without that kind of work, you can't really do the kind of exploration that's possible.

We do have a pretty good work plan through the branch. Twelve field projects are being carried out this summer, in all regions of the province. Clearly, with the reduction in the budget, there has to be more focus. I said yesterday that when your resources are reduced, you have to concentrate; you have to be more focused; you have to look at areas where you think you're going to get the best return, as opposed to maybe a broad-brush approach. That is part of the work plan that will see that kind of work carried out this year, and the results of that will be produced in the spring at the roundup.

So it's a bit of struggle. I've said to people in the ministry that I appreciate that it is a struggle, but we have to do our part. No branch of government, really, with the exception of the health and education sectors, were immune from some cuts. Quite frankly, my ministry took some very large cuts. On a percentage basis, we took some very big hits, but our motto is: don't complain about it; get on with it; utilize the resources you have in the most effective way you can to serve the people you're there to work for. I think there is a good spirit within the ministry, despite the hit we've taken. So we'll continue to do the best job we can with the resources we have available.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate your statement of the fact that people seem to be asking you all the time to cut here and cut there, and then people say: "Don't cut." I had thought that the mining ministry, first of all, had been cut quite drastically by your government two years ago. The FTEs were down 300 or 400 people. I see a head shaking behind you. Maybe it's not that many, then. But I thought that there had been quite a cutback in the government end of mining. I could be wrong.

You know, it's the old story: it's good money being spent, and the return you get is unbelievable. That same story. . . . I was telling you about the fellows that discovered Mount Milligan. They said that they spent $30 million in exploration. All that went into fuels, supplies and all the rest of it, which you all get tax revenue from, so money does come back to you. It's not that you're throwing money out and hoping that the miners out there will use it to their benefit. The government benefits out of all of this. I would hope that you would see that a little more money put into this would create. . . . It's like seeding your lawn: you put more seed on it, and supposedly more grass will grow.

Hon. D. Miller: Not in Prince Rupert.

D. Jarvis: Well, there should be. You're probably doing it wrong, because there's lots of rain there to make it grow.

Global exploration is, I think, up in the billions; it's $4.5 billion. They say that the majority of that money was Canadian money, invested by Canadians. A little over $4 billion of Canadian money was invested in world exploration -- at least from the records that I'm reading. So I'm just wondering if the minister can. . . . There's a statement that's always made to me about overregulation and the regimen of that overregulation in his department. It has threatened exploration in Canada. Is the minister doing anything specifically that might change that? Has the minister made any decision at all as to where they're going to put moneys in the future to create more revenue for this province? Would it be into mining exploration and the geological survey branch? Do you want to say something on that?

Hon. D. Miller: I did speak about the need to be more focused in the face of budget cuts, and we're trying to do that in terms of our work plan through GSC. But more broadly stated, if the Mining Association have proposed -- and they have -- that they think there could be an expansion of activity in B.C., then we want to sit down, with them, as we are, to see how that might be realized. At the end of the day, I can put a target for something that's desirable. Let's say that for investments in the exploration side, I'd like to see $200 million annually. But I don't control private capital. So how do you do that in an explicit way since venture capital goes where it wants? Even the Mining Association can't deliver that. If we get into more of a formal relationship with the industry, then I would expect that we could set some targets for the exploration side.

It's true that the VSE and the TSE do raise significant capital for ventures internationally; I'm not certain that the preponderance of those investments comes from Canadians.

One of the issues with mining companies generally in Canada is that the large ones started to cut staff and lay off some of their technical staff. We find that because of our technical expertise in Canada, those are the people that are engaged in the junior companies and doing a lot of work internationally.

So our focus is to get more activity in B.C., and you can only do that working in concert with the sector, which we're doing. Hopefully, we will see an increase. There has been a trend up on the exploration side. It was down in the high $70 million or $80 million range. I don't know the number for last year yet, but I don't think it met our expectations. We were kind of optimistic -- on the $100 million side. So we see a trend up.

I would hope that just the general atmosphere that's created by the opening of new mines in the province might lend some attractiveness to B.C. I would hope the announcement on the mining code and getting rid of some of that red tape would make B.C. a more attractive place. I'm quite open to any suggestions that the mining sector has in terms of enhancing that business climate.

[ Page 4128 ]

I certainly appreciate the member and the kind of support he's lending to me, as the minister, after taking a pretty big budget cut of 34 percent. He's saying that this ministry could use some more resources. So any time I get that kind of support from the opposition, saying that we should enhance the budget in my ministry, I'm pleased. Hopefully my colleagues are paying attention, and we'll see some enhancements there over time that will allow us to do an even better job.

[11:15]

You mentioned in your opening address yesterday. . . . We were talking about help. You said you had cut back the geological survey by 46 percent. I was wondering if you could tell us specifically what type of help you are giving. Are you doing any. . . ? You know, it's all very well to say, "We're going to work in concert with them, and we hope the trend improves," and all the rest of it, but there have to be some specifics there as to what is going to happen. You probably didn't hear a word I said.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't know if there are specifics. I did indicate in a general way that we have a discrete budget that was part of our budget approved by Treasury Board. Notwithstanding that, I have asked the ministry to see if there is some room to try to lend additional support to the GSB. I'm governed by certain rules, but we'll see. There may be some.

Just to give the member some indication of the level of activity, I referred earlier to the $79 million spent on exploration in British Columbia in 1995. It's estimated at $116 million for 1996. It's not as high as I want, but when you see a jump from about $80 million to $115 million, it's nice.

To give that some comparative context, at $116 million British Columbia is about fourth in Canada, with about 13 percent of all Canadian exploration. That's consistent with the population, but that's not a very good statistic. The Northwest Territories have got a substantial lead, and I think that's a result of the boom in diamond exploration in the Northwest Territories. Quebec is $138 million; they're not a heck of a lot more -- $16 million more than B.C. Ontario is $136 million.

I'm not satisfied with the number. I'd like to see it enhanced. I think that we could potentially spend a couple of hundred million in B.C. -- and the more the better. But we are in the ballpark with respect to the kind of investment going into exploration in other Canadian jurisdictions. Hopefully, the work we're doing will result in that trend line continuing on the upward side, putting more money into the ground, finding more deposits and turning them into new mines.

D. Jarvis: I was looking at this report from Price Waterhouse, and it says that the exploration and development expenditures in '96 were $38 million, the same as they were in '95, and down from '94. Did you mention that it increased to $80 million in '96 and that you expect it to go higher again?

Hon. D. Miller: Price Waterhouse only surveys the top 20; they don't do a lot of the others, the juniors. The figures I cited were $79 million in '95 and $116 million in '96. We're forecasting $126 million for this year. The Price Waterhouse figure of $38 million is for operating mines only, so that's the difference between the number you see in the Price Waterhouse report and the number that I've cited.

D. Jarvis: Is any increase in the prospectors assistance grant program planned for future years?

Hon. D. Miller: That's future consideration in terms of budget-making, but I was pleased that we didn't cut. We maintained the $500,000 expenditure for prospector assistance grants this year, in the face of some pretty tough budget cuts. Again, we've tried to be more focused on that, in terms of the applications that we receive and vet and in giving out grants to prospectors. We'll have to wait to see what the future brings with respect to that line item in the budget.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could tell me, again on the geological survey branch, where. . . . I haven't gone into this too thoroughly, but are there any specific areas that they will be spending their moneys on in the future? Is it all in the northwest or the northeast? Is it in the north or is it pretty well divided all across the province?

Hon. D. Miller: I'll briefly try to highlight some of the elements of the work plan of the GSB. This is pretty technical: "1:50,000 scale bedrock mapping surveys: Devonian-Mississippian massive sulphite deposits" -- to map test areas "to confirm correlation of target stratigraphy with rocks in the Yukon that host the Kudz Ze Kayah and Wolverine VMS deposits; to stimulate economic activity in the northern area of the province." And 1:50,000 scale bedrock mapping surveys, coast, VMS, potential survey. . . .

Rather than get into all of this jargon, we're happy to share the work plan with the member. I'll make sure that he gets a copy of it.

D. Jarvis: Thanks to the minister for supplying that information. One other question I want to ask in the same vein is about the mineral development agreement with the federal government. Is there. . . ? You're not aware of that. I think it was agreed upon back in '92, and I wonder if there has been any sort of development or agreement between the federal government and yourselves, whether it be environmental or with regard to mine assessments. Have you reached some kind of conclusion where rather than the federal government, you may become the dominant one to make decisions to hold up approvals of developments?

I think of what's now called Prosperity Gold, for example. I understand that the federal government is holding that up considerably, due to the Department of Fisheries. So what kind of status are we at with that? Do they still hold precedence over any decisions that we would make as far as developing mines in this province? I went to where Prosperity Gold is now, and from all accounts from different people I talked to that live in the area -- not necessarily the people that are developing the mine -- there was a very limited amount of fishing there. It was a very poor quality of trout; it was sort of an old bulltrout. And as you know, bulltrout are not a diminishing factor in this province. Every lake you go to has at least one bulltrout in it. Then we go further up north, and I understand that there is a great problem with. . . . One lake had six pairs of mating bulltrout, I think it was. Now, that is really something when you have mating bulltrout, because they do produce. So we have a multimillion-dollar development being held up over a couple of pairs of mating bulltrout.

If it's a species that is going to disappear forever, then you have to weigh the economic consequences. But in those cases where you have a fish that is predominant everywhere you go in this province -- in nearly every lake there's one of their species -- it's hard, and it costs money to hold up any developments.

[ Page 4129 ]

So I'm wondering if you've come to any conclusion in your department as to who now takes precedence in this province in regard to mining assessments. Is it the Department of Fisheries federally, or Environment federally or the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources federally? Or does the province of B.C. have the final say?

Hon. D. Miller: There is a concluded agreement between the federal and provincial governments in terms of our process. But regardless of which process is used, you still find issues that arise. In the case of the Prosperity Gold project, that is indeed fish. I'm not going to offer opinions on that question but simply inform the House that there are some issues that are currently between the Ministry of Environment in British Columbia and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans. We'd like to see the project go into the environmental assessment process, and I believe the Minister of Environment has written to the federal DFO with respect to the issue. Hopefully, we'll see some resolution, and we'll see an end to the process and ultimately a decision made.

As I said earlier with respect to that EA process, were I to venture some personal opinions about the value of fish, regardless of which species it is, the public might conclude that the process is not fair -- in other words, the government has prejudged. So I'm not prepared to do that, other than to say -- as I've said over and over again and will continue to say -- that mining is a good business in B.C.. Developing our resources in a careful and prudent way to maximize the benefits for British Columbia is something we want to see and want to continue to see. That one will hopefully end up going through a process, and we'll see what the decision might be.

D. Jarvis: On another subject, Mining Jobs 2000. . . . That was back last April. Everyone went away from Victoria. Some people in Victoria were, in a way, very happy and smiling. It seemed that all was going to be right in British Columbia with regard to the mining industry -- at least it was for that five-minute announcement the minister made.

One of the steps in that proposal for mining jobs 2000 was to ensure access to land. That was one of the great problems involving the mining community and the protected land designation. Can the minister tell me if there has been any consideration given to assure the mining community that the protected land designation will not go beyond, say, 12 percent?

[11:30]

We hear people -- in this case on the environmental side -- saying: "Oh, we don't care that British Columbia has developed a new and fairly good process to resolve these kinds of questions. We're not going to participate. We're going to go up and block logging roads on the midcoast and make a bit of a show about it." I guess the best thing that happened when they did that was to have some of the people that I know well -- good leaders on the midcoast, like Percy Starr from Kitasoo and Archie Pootlass from Bella Coola -- say publicly, in this case: "These people" -- Greenpeace -- "don't represent us." I think Mr. Pootlass called them environmental colonialists and went on to say, as Mr. Starr said: "We're quite capable, as residents of the midcoast, of working with all stakeholders to produce a land use plan that we think makes sense and that recognizes environmental values and all of the other values that have to be recognized in a land use plan." So we're going to stick to our guns on that.

Tenure issues have been raised by the mining sector. I mentioned the Kemess project, where rather than simply hand over a cheque to, in this case, Royal Oak, we've said: "Look, let's sit down and do some business." As a result of that, we have a project with about $390 million being invested so far into producing jobs here in B.C. We have worked and will continue to work with companies on those kinds of questions.

On the seven points that were raised by the Mining Association on the Mining Jobs 2000 initiative, we have three working committees in place now working on the issues of access to the land base, the tenure question, and looking at the competitiveness of our tax structure. We have some working committees in place now. Just to continue on the other four points, I did mention the permitting process. I did mention the mineral exploration code, which is being welcomed. On resolving land claims, our position is clear: we are moving on to resolve those claims.

Providing competitive electrical rates. Well, stay tuned. Members are aware that we do have a significant amount of power coming back to British Columbians. It's 1,400 megawatts of downstream-benefit power that are going to be returned to British Columbia, starting in 1998, under the Columbia River Treaty. We intend to move forward with a policy that, in a general way, sees that energy used to create benefits, jobs and economic activity for British Columbians. We do have some potential there. Similarly, on the regulatory side, there is the mineral exploration code, again.

What's missing on there is the development of a copper smelter. I did mention that we are looking very closely at that potential.

We really are accepting. I told the mining industry that I'm not the Minister of Finance, so if you come to me and say, "Just get rid of the corporation capital tax," it might not be very productive. On the other hand, if you want to sit down and talk about that tax structure and some creative ways of looking at it, then I'm open to any ideas you have. I said that recently at a breakfast meeting in Vancouver that I had with the Mining Association. So I've given them a bit of a challenge, and I hope to see something come back to me from them.

D. Jarvis: With regards to that access to lands, what I was going to come around to was the fact that in the Kootenays they have a real problem, as you're probably aware, with accepting what CORE has laid out.

On the coal end of it, I understand there are some future coal deposits that they can't get access to and that have been put into an area that is going to restrict development in the future. Is the minister aware of that? Is he contemplating any changes or recommendations for it? Or is he going to use his position as being an advocate for mining to talk to the people and say: "Look, we think you should do this"? How much power has this minister got? He's also the vice-Premier, I understand, so he should have lots of power. It's probably centred on about three or four people there. I guess it would 

[ Page 4130 ]

be you and the Premier and Mr. Gunton, so maybe three people are making the decisions. You can get money, too. Maybe you can be an advocate to change some of the reactions of CORE.

The Chair: It's not the vice-Premier; it's the Deputy Premier. So I recognize the Deputy Premier, and we'll exclude "vice" for the moment.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm certainly not the minister in charge of vice.

I don't know; that's a question I can't answer. But I can tell you that at the breakfast meeting I referred to, I watched a presentation by Mr. Foster of Fording Coal. We think the land use plan does accommodate mining interests, particularly coal interests. We offered to do our own analysis for that company and are undertaking that at the present time.

The issue that arose, really, was the status of so-called special management lands. We wanted to make it clear that simply because land is put into the category of special management, that does not preclude or prohibit development. That's a very important issue in terms of land use planning. While a plan may produce a variety of designations. . . . For example, it may produce lands that will be put aside permanently into park status and will not be available for development. That's pretty clear. Everybody can understand that.

What has to be clear is that lands are in the special management category for a variety of reasons. The Bulkley has some issues there. In one section, a category deals with wildlife. Another category deals with another aspect. The reasons are different, but they're both categorized as special management for distinct geographical and physical reasons of their own. That's produced by the table. What we want to be clear about is: no one should try to say that that is a status that precludes development. We're absolutely clear on that.

We'll be doing that kind of analysis of the coal lands in the Kootenays -- which is significant -- to provide guidelines in terms of the interpretation of the plan, so we can assist those who are trying to find their way through. . . . There are a lot of issues they have to deal with in terms of whether we can access this land, etc. We'll be working with the sector to try to assist them in that respect.

We think we have not unduly compromised the mineral potential, the coal potential, in the Kootenay-Boundary area. We'll continue with that work.

D. Jarvis: I want to go further on the various steps of Mining 2000 and get into mineral tendering next. But I want to yield to the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast, who has some specific questions on the Kootenays.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the opportunity from my colleague. With respect to the issue of Kootenay coal specifically and the comments the minister has made, the difficulty that the mining interests in the Kootenays have is that the CORE process appeared to have made some recommendations and decisions with respect to mapping. In the provision of those areas that would be designated, where there was primacy for coal exploration and extraction, the map appeared to be changed from the point of decision or discussion in the Kootenays to when it came back to the ministry. The designations were altered in terms of the language of each of these zones.

The first question is: why were those changes made? Why was the map changed to create integrated zones, when originally there was a much broader base of land contiguous to the area that is designated for coal mining? A lot of people in the industry would like to know why those changes were made. I did have an opportunity to meet with members of the minister's staff in trying to get some of these issues resolved. That one question has come back in my subsequent discussions with members of the mining interests there, even as recently as this morning. If the minister could shed some light on that, then there are two or three other questions that I'd like to pose to him.

Hon. D. Miller: I did refer to the work we're doing there in terms of an analysis of the plan relative to the ability of companies to access additional coal deposits. That work will be done and given to the industry. I talked about the resource management guidelines that we're publishing to assist people in terms of how to find your way through the plan. I'm advised that some of the terminology may have changed, but as far as there being any dramatic difference from the original plan, I don't believe that is the case. We do believe that many of those lands are available for development, and, as I say, we're trying to do some work to assist the industry in that regard.

G. Wilson: Specifically on that, the concern the industry has -- and the minister might want to allay those fears in his response to my question -- is what is known as the Y-to-Y concept, the Yellowstone-to-Yukon concept. That is an environmental concept, essentially, that says there has to be an extended no-mine zone, if you want, from Yellowstone to the Yukon, and that part of the amendment to the mapping was in response to pressures that were brought to bear, to try to restrict or to eliminate mining from areas from the border along this sort of no-mine zone that is being proposed. If the minister could speak to that, I think some of those fears might be allayed. If he can convince those in the industry that in fact that is not the case, that would be a useful step in trying to get people to continue to work together.

Hon. D. Miller: There are dedicated coal lands along the Rocky Mountain Trench. Again, I don't want to try to avoid answering questions. Presumably, LUCO comes under the Ministry of Environment, and more detailed discussion about the land use process would more properly reside there. I've outlined what we are doing in this ministry to try to assist. I repeat that even though lands may be in a special management category, they are open and available for development, provided those reasons why they're in the category are dealt with in any proposal.

We've just approved the Cougar Pit development in the Kootenays. We want to continue to utilize those resources to benefit British Columbians, and we'll work with the sector to assist where we can.

G. Wilson: Just a couple more questions. The ministry has struck a committee and has invited members from the industry to sit on this committee, and I believe that they have put names forward to review the terminology within each of the classifications, to make sure that when the terminology is drafted and tabled, it is not written in a manner that would make the opportunity for mining less available or in some way become restrictive. I think that everybody welcomes the opportunity to review that language, and it's a good, positive step. The difficulty that some have is that they believe that the committee may in fact find that the designations on the maps should be changed.

I wonder if the minister is willing to accept that if that committee should look at that terminology and recognize that 

[ Page 4131 ]

there are zones in which proven reserves exist that are currently mapped out of those dedicated lands and that should be included in them, whether at this stage the ministry would be prepared to amend the map to include those zones, if in fact that committee makes those recommendations.

[11:45]

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

If people are going to put the time in, they have to be convinced that their voice is going to be heard and that their issues will be considered, not that they'll win every argument. That's what gives the process integrity. That's why, as a politician, I don't want to. . . . It's not a political decision; it's a decision based on the kind of work done through the regional land use planning processes. So I'm not going to say that we're prepared to change the map if this. . . . That's a theoretical discussion, and I hope the member appreciates what I am saying.

Let's do the work we're doing. We have some confidence that coal lands, both the dedicated ones, obviously, and those that may happen to be in special management areas, are available for development. So let's do the kind of work that we think will show that that's the case.

I think, generally, that a government is always prepared to look at issues -- sometimes in hindsight -- as everybody is. I mean, you've got to be able to do that. That's why yesterday there was a significant announcement that after careful analysis, some economic analysis and technical analysis, we have said that as a government we think we can maintain the highest standards in forestry in the world. That's important, but we think we can do it in a less regulatory. . . . You know, we can do it by getting rid of some of the bureaucracy, if you like, or the excess paper burden that accompanied that code -- in other words, being more efficient. That's the kind of position we take as a government. We want to maintain it. It's important for British Columbians.

The population of British Columbia feels strongly about environmental questions. As British Columbians, they want to know that we have high standards and that we're going to maintain those, but they also want to know that these issues are workable. You can open new mines, you can engage in forestry and you can engage in those economic activities, because at the end of the day people need employment. Our economy needs that expansion in the GDP to continue to prosper. I'm getting a bit carried way now, and I apologize to the member. Look, there was a process and there was a plan. We've accepted the plan, and now we're doing some of the analysis to hopefully provide some comfort to the one sector that you've questioned on.

G. Wilson: I completely agree with the minister that you don't want to have some kind of an arbitrary political judgment being made on the basis of a community plan. In fact, I think the government has run into trouble in the past where it's perceived that the community, having made their decision, having made their recommendation and having finally reached some level of consensus. . . . The decision was changed.

I mean, in my own community, I think it caused a great shock when the Tetrahedron was turned into a provincial park, which was not the recommendation or the consensus of the community. Nevertheless, that was the decision taken politically, and I think it did cause a great deal of concern. It's a watershed which is a municipal watershed, and watershed construction and works need to be done there. However, that's another issue.

I would agree that we don't want to have these political decisions taken, because frequently there are issues at the community level which are not well known in the circles in Victoria and are better known within the community itself.

I guess my last question on this issue is one that the minister will appreciate and I know his staff appreciates. I'm in direct contact with a number of players in that area, and they are anxious to hear the minister's response. The committee that is now reviewing this wants to have the opportunity to develop a dispute resolution mechanism as a part of the process. The minister is not going to be able to say yes or no to this. I'm asking that this be considered, because within land use planning generally, if there is an opportunity for there to be some agreed process for dispute resolution in the future -- even in zones that are demonstrated integrated zones where there may be conflicting interests because of habitat interests, watershed interests, mining interests or whatever they may be. . . .

If there is an approved process for dispute resolution, it gives a greater comfort to those people who deem that their interests may be affected, knowing that there is an approved process that they can enter into. I would hope that at the very least, if we can't make the modifications that may be required -- and I didn't hear the minister say no; I just heard him say he wasn't going to say yes -- to possible map changes. . . . That may or may not come as a result of the consultation and the fine-tuning that's going on now. If there is an acknowledgement that there has to be an approved process for dispute resolution, I think that gives comfort to the industry. At least they know that whatever the language of these new designations, there is an opportunity for them to have their case fairly heard, and there is an opportunity for people who are potential investors to know that those investments will be secure. If the minister can at least acknowledge that, I think that will give some comfort to those currently involved in this process.

Hon. D. Miller: I want to restate that as the minister responsible for the mining sector, I'm not in a position as an individual minister to change plans. Those plans are through the regional process, through LUCO and, ultimately by cabinet, and I simply don't have the power. Even it were strongly desired to do that, I couldn't do that.

[ Page 4132 ]

But we'll continue to work with the sector. We value it; we think it's important. We do believe that it's possible to have responsible resource development and maintain environmental values. Clearly it's possible. There are endless examples in this province where that has happened. People have to have confidence in the process. We want to maintain that. I appreciate the member's questions, and we'll continue to work in a positive way, with me as the minister responsible for the energy, mines and petroleum resources sector, to try to assist and facilitate where we can.

D. Jarvis: Again to the minister, just to follow up one little thing in here. I appreciate that you do not have the power, but we trust that you will be the advocate for the mining industry to make sure that things get a little better. The access areas that were closed off to most of the mineral companies for exploration are areas that they can't get at. They can't get access to them. You know, minerals don't grow on the valley bottom like they suggest they do. If you look at some of those maps in the Kootenays, there are probably very highly mineralized areas that access has been closed off to, so they might as well close shop.

Anyway, Mr. Minister, I don't know how long you want to go for, but I want to ask a couple of questions about security of mineral tenure. You mentioned that you had a few settlements made. One question would be: how much is now owing to Royal Oak? Are all the compensation claims settled as far as the Tatshenshini goes? I got a little letter in the mail the other day, citing the court case where a judge had ruled that the government was responsible for some compensation on several claims in the Tatshenshini area. I've been madly trying to find it in my file, and I can't find the darn thing. So I was wondering if you had any record on that. What is the government's intention with regards to future compensation claims in that area, if any?

Hon. D. Miller: The significant claim in the Tat, of course, was with Royal Oak, and we have a resolution with that company. There are some related court issues, which I will not talk about. The other minor claims, I believe, went to arbitration, and that is something that is currently under review. So I think we've demonstrated as a government our willingness to resolve the outstanding claims in that area, and we are working on some of those questions in other parts of the province as well.

D. Jarvis: This may be the last question before we adjourn for lunch. Is the ministry planning any more expropriations in the near future? And then we'll shut it down.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we don't have a division that kind of sits and dreams up these things. No, we're not. We're guided by the decisions that are made more broadly in terms of the land use planning process. I think that when we get through that ultimately and we have that broader land use plan for British Columbia, we'll find much more security for all of the competing interests that occur on our land -- and settle down and open even more mines.

With that, I would move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The House in Committee of Supply A; W. Hartley in the chair.

The committee met at 10:11 a.m.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF SMALL BUSINESS,
TOURISM AND CULTURE
(continued)

P. Reitsma: I'd like to pick up where we left off to a certain extent yesterday with what's going on in terms of the signs, which is extremely important to our industry. I've got a stack of correspondence from businesses in the tourism industry, particularly, that have great difficulties with that. I'd like to read into the record some of the background of this particular policy, as I understand it, which was provided in part by Joss Penny, who is the executive director of the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association. Through my motel, we are associated, of course, as well.

The background will set the stage for the questions, which are extremely important to our industry. I understand there are going to be some meetings, and I understand also -- and I will show evidence of that -- that the Minister of Tourism has been copied much of the correspondence that went on, and also the Highways ministry and ourselves, as well.

So then, the background:

"In 1988, when the service and attraction signage policy was first piloted" -- admittedly, under a different government, but be that as it may, it's still the policy of the day -- "the Minister of Transportation and Highways was concerned about the number of permitted and non-permitted signs that were posted along the highway. The proliferation of advertising signs had been allowed to spread unchecked as the Ministry of T&H only enforced their permitting policy when they received a complaint.

"The tourism industry, including [the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association] was approached by both the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways to support the implementation of a service and attraction signage policy."It's important to note that both ministries work together and, of course, deemed it necessary to broach this subject.

"This support was given, contingent on the directional signage program being free to businesses since they would be obliged to remove the existing paid advertising signage and adopt a name-only directional sign. In addition, many businesses, due to their location, did not qualify for a service and attraction directional sign, and the removal of their highway sign would mean a loss of business."

[ Page 4133 ]

[10:15]

"To recognize this, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways allowed businesses with signs greater than three square metres, and with a significant dollar investment, to maintain these signs. They were given a permit which expires no later than November 13, 1998. What do those businesses do after this date?

"Given that the signs were directional and provided free to campgrounds, motels and resorts that met certain criteria, the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association supported the move to a uniform, clear and consistent signage program to help motorists find accommodation and attraction facilities."

"In the announcement of May 1, 1997, the Minister of Highways stated that the signs are basically just private advertising. This is a complete reversal of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways' and the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture's nine-year stated and written policy that the service and attraction signs are directional and not intended to promote any particular service or business. Why are they now being considered advertising?"

"While we appreciate there is a cost attached to producing, erecting and maintaining the signs, the implementation of such a high fee will cost most small businesses $500 per annum, if not more" -- they generally have two signs in opposing directions, of course. "That flies in the face of the original policy set down by the Ministry of Tourism and the Ministry of Transportation and Highways."

"If the government doesn't start paying attention to the high cost associated with running a small business, the B.C. economy will suffer. Tourism businesses are often seasonal, with revenues being earned May to September" -- and don't I know that myself. "Rates are set a year in advance, and unlike government, a business owner cannot raise prices at the drop of a hat to cover costs. Market conditions and consumers dictate the price.

"Since the NDP government was elected in B.C., tourism businesses have experienced huge fee increases. The introduction of health permits for restaurants, swimming pools and hot tubs; dock fees; increases in Crown leases, licences and angling fees. . . ."

"We also anticipate a substantial increase in the listing fee for Tourism B.C.'s Accommodations Guide" -- which I'll get back to later. "When are these user fees going to stop?"

Hon. J. Pullinger: My role and this ministry's role is to provide a voice for tourism to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways on this issue and any other that affects the tourism industry. To repeat my answer from yesterday, there has been a meeting with the tourism industry, and we're working with the tourism industry to resolve the outstanding concerns.

P. Reitsma: I'd like to pick up on the minister's statement that the minister and her ministry is to be a voice to be heard -- loud and clear, as far as I'm concerned -- for the tourism industry. I ask to let the minister now speak, raise her voice and advise us and the tourism industry how she's going to stand up for the hospitality industry when it comes to the very unusual attempt to charge not only for the signs but particularly. . . . The organizations are not necessarily opposed to paying the hard costs of those. As a matter of fact, in the past we had signs; we paid for those. And in order to have uniformity, consistency and a clear policy, the organizations and the hospitality industry went along.

What I would like to now hear is the minister's voice, loud and clear, standing up for the hospitality industry. I'd like her to tell us what she's going to say, how she's going to stand up, how she's going to fight for the hospitality industry.

I hear no answer, which makes me angry. The minister said in the past that she's here to speak up for the hospitality industry, to make it loud and clear that she's on their side, and I'm deafened by no response from the minister. It will be noted. I'm certain that the Council of Tourism Associations and the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association and the B.C. Chamber of Commerce will be reading Hansard to find out how this minister, in a loud voice, stood up for the hospitality industry. It is absolutely deafening.

Might I ask for the advice the minister may have for those businesses that were given a permit in the hospitality industry? It's related to a tourism permit for the signs, which will expire on November 13, 1998. What does the minister have in mind, and how would she speak up for those businesses in terms of what they should be doing after that particular date?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have detailed for the member a number of times the process of consultation that is underway with the tourism industry. I understand that he would prefer to make the decision himself, or from the top down. We would prefer to work with the tourism industry to resolve their concerns, and that's what's happening.

P. Reitsma: I would like to point out to the minister that only because of the incredible uproar and incredible number of phone calls that a number of us have received. . . . There was absolutely no consultation or any communication that took place from either the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Tourism to any of those businesses involved. It's only because of that pressure that finally they're going back to: "Well, let's communicate; let us talk."

Once again, could the minister tell me if the ministry is directly or indirectly involved with setting policies or just with gathering opinions and information from those stakeholders that are involved? Does the minister think it is appropriate to have the appropriate amount of consultation and communication with the stakeholders?

I notice that the minister declined to answer, and that is on the record again, as well.

I'd like to read into the record. . . . First of all, on this particular subject, may I ask if the minister has received and read the letter of May 26 from the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia? It was addressed, though, to the Minister of Transportation and Highways but was certainly 

[ Page 4134 ]

copied to the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture, and also to Mr. Rod Harris, who is the president of Tourism B.C. Has she received and had an opportunity to read that particular letter?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Hon. Chair, I am more that willing to answer any questions regarding the spending estimates of my ministry, but I must confess that I'm having trouble with this particular line of questioning, which has to do with opinions about another ministry's responsibility. Quite frankly, I don't believe this is a good use of our time.

P. Reitsma: I find the answer astonishing, as I've read out, in the preamble, in the background information. . . . I wonder if the minister is not aware of that. That's why I gave her the background information. The minister's ministry has been involved since 1988 in putting a policy together. That costs money. The results are extremely important to one segment of the ministry, which is the hospitality industry, to tourism and to the recreation component, as well. I find it astonishing that the minister wishes to deflate and to fall for the old saying: "Well, it is not in my ministry." I expect the ministry to simply stand up and fight for what the minister has been appointed for in terms of the hospitality industry and the business community. That's why I expect the minister to stand up and not fall for the old lines.

Since the minister refuses to answer or deems it not necessary to comment on that particular letter, I will read it into the record, because it is copied to the Minister of Tourism. It expresses a great deal of anxiety, apprehension and, of course, also the lack of consultation and communication. I understand that the ministry is somehow involved -- I don't know whether by choice or by force -- in terms of setting the policy or helping the other ministry, because it is extremely important to our hospitality industry. So I'll read it to the minister, and I'll be happy to provide her with a copy if she has not received it. The letter is from the Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, dated May 26, 1997; it's copied to the Minister of Tourism:

"Reference on the news release, file No. 049/97 on the cost-recovery program for road signs.

"The Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia, also known as COTA, takes exception to the implementation of this program at the start of the summer season as no consultation with industry occurred and no advance information was distributed to the affected parties."

What galls me too is that this was delivered at the beginning of the high season, almost -- and I can't use the words "sneaked in," of course; I won't use them. It reminds me of one of those rodents, actually, that slither around in order to get forward -- but very low to the ground. Of all times, at the beginning of the high season, when on many occasions and in many circumstances -- I know, because I happen to operate a very small motel -- from about the middle of June until the beginning of September, about a ten- or 12-week span, generally 40 percent of the income is derived. And many of those businesses are seasonal, as well. I don't see any seasonality in the price structure.

"Many of those businesses with signs are small businesses engaging in seasonal operations, with strict budgetary activity. To apply another government tax on them without notice, at a seemingly arbitrary amount, illustrates once again the government's shelter from operating business reality. While I expect no business will be bankrupt because of this tax, some businesses will no doubt be forced to remove an advertising message from public and potential customer view to the detriment of their businesses."

"And then on top of that, to then levy a yearly fee or tax to the business establishment of $250 each sign. . . ."

"The establishment of $250 each sign is an unjustifiable tax grab by government. Is the minister saying that each sign will cost $250 per year to maintain? This is ludicrous and seems like yet another government windfall.

"Madam Minister, it is not too late to make corrections to this action by government, and I would request a meeting with your officials to discuss this program, its implementation and the changes, in order to table industry's relevant concerns and to develop a reasonable compromise response.

"I look forward to hearing from you.
"Yours very truly,
Jim Mann
Managing Director, Council of Tourism Associations of British Columbia"

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll repeat yet again that there is a group which is meeting, which includes my ministry, the Ministry of Transportation and the tourism industry. They are meeting to deal with the outstanding, unresolved issues on the Ministry of Transportation and Highways' signage program.

I want to respond, however, to some of the comments that the member has been making which are incorrect. For the record, I would point out that since 1991, under this government, tourism has seen record growth -- the kind of growth that has not been seen before in British Columbia. While the member is very keen to be very negative, in fairness, I think we have to recognize that that growth has taken place. Certainly the industry recognizes that there has been a great deal of activity on the part of this government and this ministry to facilitate that growth.

I would point, for instance, to the fact that for much of the late 1980s when I was involved in fairly regular discussions with the tourism industry, COTA had two outstanding concerns. Two issues came up every year that they were lobbying the government to do -- the right-wing coalition of the day, which is very much the same as the right-wing coalition that sits across the House today, only under a different name. Those two issues were that they wanted some land use planning, particularly a voice in it, and they wanted to have an independent Crown agency to market tourism. Our government has provided both of those, and the tourism agency. . . . Pat Corbett, very publicly and spontaneously, recently congratulated the government for taking those two very significant steps that have assisted the tourism industry. We have, in fact, come a very, very long way since 1991.

[10:30]

[ Page 4135 ]

Other provinces are cutting education. We have engaged with the tourism industry specifically for training programs, which the industry has defended from unfair attacks by the Liberals. After a decade of neglect, we have been building the infrastructure of this province -- which the members opposite have objected to, instead suggesting that we should not incur any more debt, which means we won't build any more roads or hospitals or schools.

P. Reitsma: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday it was made abundantly clear by the minister that she objected to deviation from her spending estimates. We agreed to that, and we abide by that. If we want to go back to that one-way route, I'll be happy to comply.

The Chair: That's not a point of order, member.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to point out that we have been building the infrastructure of this province, which definitely benefits the tourism industry. We've also taken on a massive issue that was of great concern to the tourism industry, and that is land and resource use management -- something that was resisted by the right-wing coalition of the 1980s.

There is a great deal to be done, and I certainly accept some of the criticisms that I hear. But to suggest that this government has not worked actively with and for the tourism industry is just simply incorrect. We have gone from being a $4 billion industry to a $7 billion industry, with 23,000 new jobs and thousands of new businesses. I continue to work with the industry in a positive relationship. I admire the dedication of the people I work with in the industry -- their dedication to their industry and to this province generally. I certainly intend to move forward with them on the path we've been on since 1991.

P. Reitsma: I must say that I don't need the minister's explicit approval -- or blessing, for that matter -- to raise questions. The minister sees that as criticism. To me, while there might be some stumbling blocks, ultimately those could be and will be converted into stepping stones. We're here to ask questions. If the minister sees that as criticism only, then so be it. I don't see that. I see that as working together, with the industry as well, to try and have a better tourism, recreation and hospitality industry -- in spite of the fact that we've had four Tourism ministers in the last year and a half and three deputy ministers.

Our natural beauty: that's why people are coming. The government, of course, is there to facilitate in the role of trying to make that easier. I know the industry has been very concerned about this revolving-door mentality and the philosophy of a minister in, a minister out -- a deputy ministry in, a deputy ministry out. As I mentioned the other day, there's nothing more that I would like to see than this business, the tourism industry, being the number one industry in B.C. and having a long-term minister at the helm of the good ship Tourism, assisted ably by all kinds of captains and first mates and crew. We're all there for smooth sailing and to reach our destination, so I do not accept the criticism that we criticize.

I also should mention that while the minister talks about roads and health and education and hospitals, the fact of the matter is that her federal counterpart, as we established yesterday, has increased the Tourism budget from $50 million to $65 million. In the mathematical portion of my brain that means a 30 percent increase. Why shouldn't I hasten to point out that in this ministry, after we had a guarantee, after hands were shaken and pictures were taken -- "This is guaranteed: three-year funding" -- the funding went down 25 percent? So that should be kept in mind, as well.

In terms of the second one. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I just wondered if the minister wanted to say something about control. We don't have gag laws here; let me assure you. People stand up and don't fall for the old: "Let's settle and let's be peaceful and let's do what they tell us." Stand up; be counted. That's very important.

I would like to read out. . . . I'll give the minister a copy, as well, because I wonder if, like COTA, she has received a copy or has had the time to read it. I would like to read it into the record. Again, it has to do with the tourism industry, the hospitality industry. It pertains to signage, of course, and is the official position of the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association. There was a letter of May 16 faxed to me by Joss Penny, who is the executive director, regarding the service and attraction highway signage program fees. It is addressed to me:

"The B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association supports a uniform service and attraction highway sign policy and in fact has done so since 1988. However, this support for the Ministry of Transportation and Highways was given based on the directional signage program being free to businesses, since they were obliged to remove their existing paid, unique advertising signs."

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the record, a couple of times the member has mentioned changes in ministers. I would like to remind the member that the changes in ministers. . . . I've been here for some time now, but the changes before that were due primarily to the fact that one of my colleagues was seriously ill. I think we should respect that fact in this House and not complain about that.

The member has raised a number of issues over the last little while, and I'd simply like to say again that I'm aware of those issues. They are primarily issues that are the responsibility of other ministries, but we are working on them. We do have processes in place, and we're certainly working in consultation with the industry to resolve them.

P. Reitsma: That wasn't the question. If the minister was paying attention, my question was whether she received a copy of the letter that I'm reading out. If she has, I wonder if I should continue reading it out.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I get huge volumes of mail every day, and I find it very unproductive. . . . If the member would like to send over a copy of any letter that he has, I would be more than happy to have it. Unless I go back and get a correspondence log, I simply can't discuss which copies of letters to other ministers I have received, or others. I would assume that if it is directed to me, I have it. I'm certainly aware of the broad concerns, but I think it's not productive to deal with the details of the large volume of correspondence that I get. I certainly recognize the contents. I think it would be better if the member would simply come with copies or provide, in advance, a list of the letters and dates that they were sent, so that we can get that information prior to coming in here. It's simply impossible to deal with the details of all the correspondence to the ministry in this forum.

[ Page 4136 ]

The Chair: Members, the Chair would like to caution all members in regard to repetition. For the last hour now, we have been dealing with the matter of signage, and the Chair is starting to find it quite repetitious.

[10:45]

But with your indulgence, hon. Chair, I do wish to complete reading this particular letter into the record, because it is extremely important to our hospitality industry. It's costly; there are costs involved. There's a lack of communication and consultation, and we're attempting to try to remedy this.

"The introduction of the annual $250 business name panel advertising fee is really just a tax on small business. For a tourism business with two signs, one in each direction, the annual fee will be $500. This will cause serious hardship to the small campgrounds and lodges in rural British Columbia who have already set their rates for 1997. In the business world prior to 1988, businesses paid sign companies to build and install their signs. To build and erect a sign was a one-time cost, and sign maintenance was only done on an as-needed basis. Highway signs have a life of about five to ten years, depending on the material, weather conditions, etc., after which the signs are replaced. As an association, we are not against paying a one-time charge to have a business name panel fabricated and installed, but we do protest the payment of a $250 annual advertising fee per sign."

"True advertising signs sell the unique features of the business, whereas the business name panels the government is classifying as advertising only allow the business name to advise motorists of the location of the business from the highway. The proposed fabrication fee of $100 and the installation fee of $100 for all new business name panel applications seems a fair levy for businesses to pay to have their name on a highway sign. However, existing business name panels on highway signs should remain in place at no charge, and the $250 business name panel advertising fee must be repealed. We appreciate you taking up the cause."

The third letter which I have, hon. Chair -- and again, it shows you the incredible concern and apprehension of our industry -- is from the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association. It was faxed on May 21.

The Chair: Excuse me, member, would you please take your seat.

The Chair needs to caution the member in regard to the reading of letters into the record in estimates. It's quite usual to highlight parts of letters and to use them as questions for the minister, but it's not acceptable to read letter after letter into the records of these meetings.

P. Reitsma: I take your guidance and direction. Permit me to read and highlight some of the points in the letter from the B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association. They too refer, of course, to cost recovery of the signs, and they too oppose the fee per year. They have no difficulties in terms of the actual cost. They say, in fact, that in view of the rationale that was used in the first place to justify the removal of business signs for fishing resort operators, they are calling it blackmail. That's pretty strong language, of course, but they feel very strongly about it.

I will give the letter to the minister -- although it has been copied to the minister and, hopefully, her officials will make her aware of that -- and those letters will, hopefully, form part of the reasons for deliberations. . .and stand up for the hospitality industry. I will sit down now for a few minutes and let someone else take it up.

I. Chong: I appreciate the Chair's and the minister's indulgence and patience in this issue that my hon. colleague from Parksville-Qualicum has raised, because the issue regarding highway signage is important. Perhaps I should note the reasons why we have brought this up. It's particularly because of a committee and a study that was done some years ago -- March 1, 1994. From a joint meeting or a committee that was formed, recommendations were presented to the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and to the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture by the ministers' advisory committee on service and attractions signing. Because of that, because of the two joint ministries, I think it's fair to say that we will perhaps also canvass this in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways as well as in this particular ministry, because of the recommendations being made to various ministries.

What I want to note. . . . There were 29 recommendations, as I understand it. We've only recently received a copy of this, and so we haven't had a chance to peruse all recommendations. But the one recommendation I want to point out. . . . If the ministry staff is able to locate this document, they'll see recommendation 27 -- 27(a) in particular. It deals with a letter of June 29, 1993, to this advisory committee from the president of the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. They do deal with the issue of rural signage policy, and because the letter came specifically from a tourism association, that's where the relevance of it comes in.

It goes to point out the rural signage policy focus, the necessity to create a fair policy that reflects the peculiarity of the rural communities. The recommendations stated. . . . And I will read that. It says: "Recommended: that the current S and A policy" -- which is the signage and attraction policy -- "be continued as, in the view of the advisory committee, the S and A sign program is not an advertising program; it is a directional information program." Clearly, at that time, three years ago, it was not considered an advertising program; it was considered informational information for tourists and a necessary part of tourism marketing. So we were somewhat surprised when the press release was issued on May 1 by the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Although it perhaps could have been a joint press release, it was issued by the Transportation and Highways ministry, and the minister said: "The signs are basically just private advertising." So that's a direct contradiction of what the recommendations said. I'm wondering, then, if the minister is able to provide us with any explanation or her views on whether the recommendation should stand as presented or whether that has now been altered, and if so, if she could enlighten us as to why.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I very much appreciate the member's concern about this issue, and I share it, which is why I'm working with the minister responsible for the signage. I am struggling, because for an hour now we have talked about the responsibility of another ministry that I am simply not in a position to provide detail on that the members want, other than to say that we are working with the tourism industry and participating on a committee to resolve the outstanding issues.

The responsibility for signage rests with the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, and we're certainly providing. . . . Tourism is one of the interests, obviously, that is very much involved in highway signage. There are other issues, 

[ Page 4137 ]

as well. I know that municipal governments have a keen interest in what does or doesn't happen. There are safety issues; there are a variety of issues. I am certainly providing input from the tourism perspective and will continue to do that.

The detail around the signage policy, other than the fact that we are working and providing a voice from this ministry on the committee and in the process of resolving the tourism issues on the signage policy. . . . I think the other questions would be better directed to the minister responsible for the policy.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response on that and, I suppose, give fair warning that we will in fact be looking to ask those questions of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

I want to also advise the minister that in looking at the last parliament, the thirty-fifth parliament, in almost each and every session that was held -- and I have a book of Hansards here that I was able to have my staff put together in a fairly short time frame -- the signage issue came up, as well. Clearly there is confusion, and people are coming to the wrong ministry to try to resolve that. Perhaps the idea of the committee conducted and formed some years ago was that it was to provide recommendations and to at that time establish that it was a joint responsibility of the two ministries. I still feel it is a joint responsibility, and if some of the answers we require are needed from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, so be it. But again, the responsibilities still lie with this ministry, perhaps, in setting policy.

With that, I would like to ask the minister about an issue that I canvassed when we went through committee stage reading of Bill 9, the Tourism British Columbia Act. At that time I raised the issue, and I'll raise it again at this time; I did advise the minister I would bring it up during estimates. I was informed last November, through an article I read in, I believe, the Salmon Arm Observer, which said the 1995-96 budget year in the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. . . . At that time, having just been elected. . . . The time restrictions last year didn't allow us to canvass this issue, nor were we made aware that there was approximately $700,000 spent rather quickly at the end of the fiscal year on highway signs.

I would like the minister to advise us on what kind of highway signs that was spent. I don't think they were the wooden highway signs; I think they refer to the informational signs. If the minister is able to advise us where that money was spent, perhaps we can then make a comparative as to where they are going to be identified in the 1997-98 budget year, and I'll have an area to start to discuss.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to provide more detail, but you're talking about the 1995-96 estimates. I'm afraid I don't have those here. I can clarify for the member, however, the kinds of signs that this ministry is responsible for. Tourism British Columbia provides the approved accommodation signs with the Tourism B.C. logo on them. As well, the heritage branch has signage for its heritage properties. Those are the very limited kinds of signage that we're involved with in the ministry, which I hope is helpful in answering the member's questions.

Also, I would simply like to say that while the whole issue. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The infocentre signs -- right, thank you. I may have missed some, but those are the kinds of signage that we do in fact deal with. There may have been something related to those that caused the expenditure, but I simply don't have that old detail with me.

I'd also like to say that I'd be more than willing to accept feedback from the member opposite on the highway signage issue as the issue moves forward on the committee. Your views are more than welcome.

I. Chong: I do appreciate the minister giving me an idea, because the article wasn't clear enough, nor was I able to get more clarification. It's just that it was rather alarming -- $700,000 being spent on signs. I'll try to locate that information and provide it to the minister on the undertaking that she will be able to perhaps provide me with a breakdown of where that $700,000 went, because I think it is an important issue.

On the issue she raised regarding the dollars being paid for the tourist information centre signs, I would like to ask the minister whether those signs will still be paid for through the balance of the ministry's budget or whether those costs will now move over to the new Crown corporation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry -- I was just consulting here with. . . .

I. Chong: Tourist information centres -- signs were previously paid for through the ministry. Will those now be the responsibility of the new Crown corporation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, the member is absolutely right. All of those things will move over to the new Crown corporation. We just keep policy and land use planning, essentially, and some responsibility for development.

I. Chong: The other question I would like to raise with the minister. . . . Earlier this morning she mentioned that a group was meeting and discussing the issue of the highway signs. I'm wondering whether the minister can advise us of the composition of that group: whether there are five, ten, 15, 20; who they are -- members of staff, members of other ministries, stakeholders or private individuals; and who in the public has access to this group.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As it's essentially a Ministry of Transportation and Highways committee, I can't provide as much current detail as I otherwise would. But my understanding is that there are a number of staff from the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. There's a staff person from my ministry, plus five or six people -- at the initial meeting, anyway -- from the tourism industry. That's the best I can do in terms of providing detail.

[11:00]

[ Page 4138 ]

The other question I had posed, which I didn't receive an answer for, is whether the public has any access to this committee -- to attend one of their meetings. Or is the public access only by virtue of written submission?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The committee is a committee of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. So, with respect, I would like to direct the member to that minister and ministry.

B. Barisoff: I'll probably carry on a little bit more about the signage. Coming from the Okanagan. . . . When she goes through the Okanagan the minister is probably well aware of the number of signs that are erected. If we look back in Hansard, I think we'd find that Tourism ministers in the past. . . . And particulary the Hon. Mr. Barlee, who happened to come from the riding that I'm from now, has mentioned a number of times, through Hansard, that he was concerned about the proliferation of highway signs and the effect it has on tourism.

What has taken place in the last little while -- in the letters that I've got, hon. minister -- is the fact that people aren't prepared to pay. It's not only the $500 for a lot of them in South Okanagan. The minister is probably well aware of a lot of the new cottage wineries that have popped up all over the place. They not only need two on the highway, but there are also tributary roads that lead up to where their winery might be, and there are another two there. It represents anywhere from $750 to $1,000 a year. I think the hon. minister would be very concerned with the effect it would have on tourism. My talks with a number of these people. . . . They can't pay; they wouldn't pay; they'd tear them down. My question to the minister is: what would she advise these people to do if they're not about to pay -- and the tourism industry is so important to the Okanagan -- to help them out in this direction?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member certainly raises some of the kinds of concerns that I also have heard, which is why we're participating in the process to resolve precisely those concerns.

B. Barisoff: What I would like, then, from the minister is if she could give myself and my colleagues the assurance that when meetings are taking place, with what's taking place with the signage, with what's taking place with the Ministry of Transportation. . . . As critic for that area, I will be going in depth with the hon. Minister of Transportation and Highways to canvass a lot of these areas. But our concern is that we would like the assurance of another branch, so that the tourism industry would be well represented in the fact of the effect that some of these things have. In a lot of areas, and particularly mine in the Okanagan, it has the greatest effect. From what I understand, my riding has probably the most signs that there are. I would like the minister to give me her assurance that she would be sitting at the table as much as she could to make sure that the tourism part of that is well represented.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Certainly either I or my staff will be at the table. I'm sure that the member would agree that it's just as important, if not more important, that the industry itself is at the table. That's a direct voice that's very, very important. Absolutely, we will remain involved with that committee until resolution is found.

B. Barisoff: I thank the minister for that comment. I think it is really important that the minister is there -- or representatives from her ministry. I will be following up to make sure that when I get letters or when people call me, I can help them out.

Earlier on, when the minister was answering some questions from my colleagues, she mentioned training programs that the Ministry of Tourism has been part of. Could the minister be more specific in what these training programs were and what has taken place in the ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are a variety of ways that this ministry is involved in training directly, or mostly indirectly, through policy development and support. We fund the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, which sets standards and works to develop training steps, if you like, for people who want to get in the industry so that they can take successive courses. There are degree programs, and so on, that have been developed over the past few years. The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, or PRIT, is very much involved that way.

Last year we launched four new training programs under the banner SuperHost Face-to-Face. They are workshops designed to. . . . Actually, they are well respected internationally. In fact, other countries have bought the SuperHost programs. We introduced, for instance, a program for people to learn how to deal effectively with the needs of travellers who have a disability. Happily, that group of people is beginning to travel more and more. The world is becoming more accessible, and I'm delighted to say that they're becoming an increasing force in the tourism industry. So one of the programs was designed to train people how to deal appropriately and sensitively with people with disabilities. Another was an intercultural approach to deal with one's own ethnocentricity perhaps and, from there, how to deal with people from other cultures so they can meet their needs in an appropriate and culturally sensitive manner.

The PRIT, by the way, works with colleges and universities, and most of the programs that have been developed over the last several years have been developed in close cooperation with PRIT. So there's PRIT; SuperHost; programs like the Destinations program, which is part of our B.C. Benefits training initiative; and A Guarantee for Youth, which is a direct workforce training program in which the tourism industry has taken the initiative. COTA is very much involved in creating new jobs and, at the same time, in providing on-the-job training to existing employees, where that is relevant. So those are the kinds of training that our government has done to very directly assist the tourism industry and its employees.

B. Barisoff: I beg the minister's indulgence. Now that I get the floor away from some of these other people, I can get on to some of my local issues and just jump on a few. One of the ones that concerned me last year, which I brought up in estimates and which I think should be of concern to the minister, is that Osoyoos happens to be the gateway, the border town, not only to the interior and the Okanagan but, from what I understand, for American traffic. It's probably the gateway all the way through to Alaska.

I brought to the minister's attention last year the possibility that a tourist information booth -- one that would be representative of the entire province -- could be located in that area so that it would actually canvass all the people who come through from the U.S. side. It's also on the southern Trans-Canada and would be an ideal spot for a tourist information booth for the entire part of British Columbia that would service not only the interior but all over British Columbia. I wonder whether the minister has given any thought to that.

[ Page 4139 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The infocentres are a very valuable part of the tourism infrastructure, and the member certainly raises a good point. However, the role of Tourism British Columbia has been to provide funding for summer employment. This year, 75 percent of funding is targeted specifically to youth. We provide training, operations manuals and a variety of other supports to those infocentres; however, the creation of the infocentre itself is a community responsibility. That would be the municipal government with the chamber of commerce or local tourism people, etc. That's who provides the infocentre itself, so I would recommend that the member may want to work with those groups to see that that happens. Then Tourism B.C. can provide the support and training.

B. Barisoff: So, then, I would be led to believe that the minister is saying that if the community was to set up a tourist information booth, 75 percent of the staffing would be provided by your ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Absolutely. They can apply for the funding, and there are other kinds of supports such as standardized training, operations manual, product guide, etc., that can be supplied. But the program is targeted to youth, and they certainly could apply for all of those supports if they wish to have a centre -- absolutely.

B. Barisoff: The minister is indicating that they could apply. Is it more than what it has been in the past? Is it less, or is it all gone? Is it the number of people who have been taken up? What's the actual dollar figure that would indicate the number of FTEs that's been given throughout the province?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are 97 infocentres around the province that receive support in one way or another. There's roughly the same number of jobs being funded, albeit they have gone from 100 percent to 75 percent support this year for those jobs, which is still significant. The final decision would be made by Tourism British Columbia but given the member's argument, I would expect that an application would be received favourably. The decision would not be mine; it would be Tourism British Columbia's -- whether or not they actually provided funding. The program is still there. The 97 infocentres are still providing the support, and more or less the same number of jobs as last year are being funded.

B. Barisoff: I'll definitely send that information on to the town of Osoyoos to make sure they understand that the door is still open. Like I said before, it is an ideal area.

The other thing I'd like to mention to the minister is that at one point in time there's probably going to be a provincial weigh scale there. I'll be bringing that to the Ministry of Transportation's attention, but the whole area where it's being set up would be an ideal area for the minister to look at as some kind of joint property. They've all been bought by the government, and it would be a good spot for it to be jointly put together.

Just carrying on with some of the things from my local area, I would like to ask the minister what the status is of the Mascot mine project in Hedley. It's one of those areas that has been. . . . I think the previous Minister of Tourism, Mr. Barlee, had carried that quite a ways, and the people of Hedley -- even though it's a small community -- are very concerned to know what the status is. I've written the minister to see what kind of information we get, but I'd like a detailed briefing of exactly what the status is, if I could.

[11:15]

For the benefit of the member, I would also like to simply suggest that if your community wants to proceed with an infocentre, I would certainly welcome an approach from the member. We will ensure that staff work with you on that to give you even greater detail about what you can get and how you can have an infocentre in your area.

B. Barisoff: I thank the minister for the fact that she would help the community get the infocentre.

The other one is. . . . I'll probably have to come in when the person from heritage comes.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll provide it in one briefing.

B. Barisoff: If you could provide me a briefing document of exactly where it is. . . . I know that the previous Minister of Tourism made a big push towards it, and for whatever reason it has kind of come to a grinding halt. The people, of course, are concerned about what's taking place there.

When we talk about funding for other areas, there's some concern about who does the funding, whether it's the Ministry of Tourism or whoever else. Maybe the minister could explain to us exactly -- for things like information booths, rest areas or whatever it might be -- how the funding actually takes place for these areas.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The information centres in the communities -- are those tourism information centres? Is that what you're alluding to?

B. Barisoff: Yes.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We provide the staffing and the supports that I have alluded to. It's training support and brochures, etc. Tourism British Columbia provides that support. The building itself is the responsibility of the community. The ministry provides, if you like, the content support and the staff person, and the communities supply the building and the costs attached to the building.

Highway pull-offs and rest stops would come under the Ministry of Transportation and Highways and would be funded through their programs.

B. Barisoff: So the minister is indicating that there's no other areas that. . . . What I'm asking is: what other areas in the Ministry of Tourism does the ministry fund to promote tourism in particular areas outside of different things that take place in the province? I'm just trying to think of more specific ideas. What other areas does the ministry provide funding for that people could look at applying for, for tourist-oriented ideas?

[ Page 4140 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry. I'm not really clear on what the member is getting at. Can you provide me with a little bit more detail? I'm not quite understanding where he wants to go with this, and therefore I'm not able to respond.

B. Barisoff: Where I'm going with it is trying to find out whether there are any other areas that communities could apply for funding for, which would enhance tourism in particular areas. As the minister is well aware, coming from the Okanagan. . . . There are probably all kinds of areas that come under her ministry. I'm looking for other promotional areas that people could look at -- but that I can't think of at the moment -- that I could pass on to people within the communities in the Okanagan, which might be able to enhance the tourism industry in the Okanagan.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've just been advised that the best way for your community to operate is to work with the local community-based tourism associations. They would have all of the various connections, many of which would not be to the ministry, and other ways that they work and support each other.

The primary function of this ministry. . . . The bulk of the budget in Tourism goes to marketing, both regional marketing and marketing the province as a whole. So the largest function of this ministry is the marketing, although we do some other things, as we have discussed. But the bulk of the funding is to marketing.

B. Barisoff: I'd be remiss not to ask for the people of the. . . . The minister has seen the letter and she's responded to it, but I have to bring it forward anyhow. The people of Grand Forks host probably one of the biggest -- the biggest, I think -- softball tournaments in Canada. They've got teams coming from all over North America and teams coming from Cuba. They've always had support from the Ministry of Tourism in the past, and this is the first year that they got a negative response to their letter. I'm just wondering if the minister could indicate whether there is any possibility of helping them fund this major event that they've had in their community for a number of years.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I believe the ministry has, in the past, purchased an ad in support. This year, primarily because of the changes taking place in my ministry to create the new Crown corporation and put it fully in charge, the decision was made. . . . It was simply that they were not able to do that in this year of transition. Also, you know that funding is very tight, but my understanding is that the reason the ad wasn't placed this year was the process of changeover that's happening. Once the new board is up and running. . . . They are reviewing all of the programs of Tourism British Columbia and will be very clear, I'm sure, next year on whether they will continue to fund that.

B. Barisoff: I'm certainly not asking the minister to spend any money she doesn't have. As you well know, the opposition side of the government is very frugal and thinks that the government should live within its means and not spend any money it doesn't have. I think my concern lies with. . . . I have to ask the minister whether any ads have been placed throughout the province. Just considering the fact that this is an international event that draws an awful lot of people, it's one area. . . . If other ads are being placed, then I would have some concern with what's happening.

If the minister is indicating to me that there is no money being spent in this area at all, then I think the people from the Grand Forks baseball society would agree with the fact that they shouldn't be treated any differently. If there is money being spent somewhere, then I would expect them -- or, I guess, would lobby on their behalf -- to get their portion of whatever might be there.

Hon. J. Pullinger: To the best of my knowledge, there are no other ads. You know, your community is being treated fairly. That's to the best of my knowledge. The decisions are being made by the advisory. . . . It's an industry advisory board, and that group is making the decisions around these things -- and will continue to as the new Crown corporation board. So it's industry, in fact, that's making the decisions. To the best of my knowledge, there is a consistent policy, and no one is being treated differently than the others. I'll certainly ask that question to the SOA board, and if there's any different answer from what I am giving you right now, I'll provide that to you.

B. Barisoff: I think that would be very helpful if I could find out or if the group could find out. Maybe writing directly to the board would be a possibility. With that, I appreciate the minister's indulgence of me veering off into my local issues, but getting up here at times is hard; it's easier for me to get these questions. . . . I'll pass them on to my colleagues. Thanks again.

Interjection.

B. Barisoff: Oh, you have got the information.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is a bit of a backup here -- back to the Hedley Mascot mine. My staff have just provided me with the following information, which I'm pleased to provide to the member. There has been $700,000 invested to date in the Hedley Mascot mine, and we're in the position now of considering options for where to go next. At this time we're concentrating on securing the site and on safety, stairways and access issues. So that's what's happening right now. I hope that it will be operational next year -- that money is available and all of those considerations. I am also informed that this is a very interesting and spectacular site. Certainly I have no hesitation in saying that I would like to see it open as soon as possible. But at this time the projected opening would be next year. I hope that provides the member with the information he's seeking.

B. Barisoff: Thank you, hon. minister. I would ask, then, if there's a possibility for me to get an actual detailed briefing note of exactly the sequence of events and where it's going, and whatever else, so that I can pass that on to the community so that they will know. Something written down would be great.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be delighted to provide whatever information we have to the member.

J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions to the minister on a subject that kind of connects with some of the previous discussion. I have written to the minister about this issue. It involves the decision by the Ministry of Highways to shut down two sani-dump stations -- two rest areas in the lower mainland. The rest areas are at Cole Road on the eastern Highway 1 and at Bradner Road on the westbound lanes of Highway 1.

Some of the previous discussion on tourist information centres interested me, and I wonder if the minister could just 

[ Page 4141 ]

clarify for me. A tourist information centre. . . . If such a facility is put in place, is the facility itself the responsibility of the Ministry of Highways? Is that correct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I thank the member for his questions. The tourist information centres -- the building and the site -- are the responsibility of the community and of interests in the community that wish to put that in place. What Tourism British Columbia will provide is information, training and funding to assist with hiring students to staff the information centres.

The other issue the member raises. . . . I do appreciate the fact that he wrote me about that. I passed the letter on to staff, who I expect are dealing with the Ministry of Transportation on that issue. I'm sorry, but I don't have a response here. I certainly will provide what we can as soon as possible.

J. van Dongen: Certainly I didn't expect the minister to have a response here. I just wanted to discuss a few ideas that I have with respect to that.

We've had discussions with the Minister of Highways, and there are some legitimate concerns as to why they thought about shutting them down. They've had a lot of vandalism; they've had an inability to manage who is using those facilities and what they are actually dumping there. So I think there are some concerns there.

One of the issues that I raised in the letter -- and I did send the letter to both ministers -- is the possibility of tying in that rest area and sani-dump station -- which appear to be well used, and people are very concerned about them being shut down -- with either an information centre or possibly even a restaurant or other private service, whereby the government could develop an arrangement where the private entrepreneur could take over responsibility for the whole site and look after the management of the site, including the sani-dump station and everything else.

I wonder if there's been any thought or if the minister has any ideas on that -- whether that's a possibility at all. Or is there a reason why it couldn't be done?

[11:30]

I. Chong: The questions I have to the minister just touch quickly on what her response and comments were to my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Boundary. He was asking in particular whether there were any further programs or grants people can access -- if there were any such things.

I think his question was more to the point of the remainder of the Tourism budget that is in the ministry as a whole -- whether there will still be granting programs or funding programs for any other purposes, or whether the balance of the Tourism budget in this ministry is strictly, as stated earlier, for policy and for land and resource use management. Is that solely what's left in the budgeted amount? Or will the ministry still be able to provide grants and funds for any other kinds of programs in place?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We do have the land use and policy branch. We have eight FTEs there and 11.5 in corporate services, which are in part dedicated to Tourism activities -- not any specific individuals, but they do that kind of work. The functions remaining in the ministry are primarily the policy development area, the land use involvement, certainly the advocacy role, which takes time and attention, and some development work.

I. Chong: I appreciate that, because it will perhaps provide us with additional focus as we continue to canvass the Tourism ministry -- what is left in the current ministry. With regard to the advocacy role, can the minister advise as to how many FTEs are allocated to that? Or are they part of the 11 FTEs in corporate services?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, the eight positions, in a sense, do -- but all of Tourism British Columbia, as well, do advocacy work. Was that the member's question? Sorry, maybe I'm not clear on the question.

I. Chong: The minister responded earlier that there were eight FTEs, for example, in land use involvement. Then she also mentioned that there would be 11 FTEs in corporate services. There would also be the advocacy role, but she didn't provide a number as to FTEs there. I was wondering whether there was also someone in the ministry still doing an advocacy role outside of Tourism B.C. and whether there was an FTE assigned -- or whether that was an FTE in the corporate services and part of the operation as a whole.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you for that clarification. I do have eight FTEs in the land use section, and there are 11.5 in corporate services. Advocacy takes place on an issue base -- for instance, our involvement with the highway sign committee of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways -- and the appropriate person or persons are involved. There's not a separate function for that or for any of the other issues, quite frankly. We have a group of people from both Tourism British Columbia and my ministry, who have wide areas of responsibility and corresponding skills and who provide that work.

I. Chong: So my conclusion is that there are 19.5 FTEs dealing with the Ministry of Tourism. Or is that the ministry as a whole?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's not exclusive to Tourism. The land use tends to be. . . but the 11.5 deal with a variety of other issues, as well.

I. Chong: I appreciate the confirmation. The original question that I posed was to determine what the remainder of the Tourism budget was, just to get an idea of. . . . When we return to our constituencies and we see programs or activities that take place there and we see a brochure that says, "sponsored in part by the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture," or "working in partnership with Small Business, Tourism and Culture. . . ." I just want to be certain as to what involvement or role the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture would have with that kind of activity, if it were not funding.

[ Page 4142 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: If I understand the member's question correctly, I can clarify that the grants, SuperHost, and all of the funding that you would find on those brochures with respect to tourism will come from Tourism British Columbia, by and large. There won't be any granting programs for tourism left in the ministry. Those will come through Tourism British Columbia for the most part.

P. Reitsma: I just want to go back to what we started talking about earlier. I wish to bring to a closure this particular concern, of course, and I'm certain that the minister would want to hear, if she's interested and concerned, about some of the problems that tourism businesses and the hospitality industry are facing because of the signage.

In terms of small business as it relates to the tourism industry, I know what it means to meet a payroll. I know what it means to have a cash flow or sometimes the lack of a cash flow. I know what it means to have to go to the bank and have assistance to bridge a budget that may be temporarily short because of seasonality. I know what it is to have staff-related problems.

With the excellent guidance of the Chair, I will not read verbatim from all the letters received but just highlight some of the concerns by some of the hotels, motels and businesses throughout the province so that is on record. They were good enough to write to me and often copy them to the minister, as well. It's important, as we wish to hear from people throughout B.C. in order to ultimately come up with better policies and programs to the benefit of the hospitality industry.

This particular letter is from Barry Dewar, who's the manager of the Cherry Grove Motel in Oliver. I will mention that he's writing in response to the announcement made in May regarding the blue highway signs. This particular motel is a family business; they've been in business for some 35 years. They state that the costs of operating the small business keep increasing, yet it's very hard to correspondingly have a parallel increase in the hotel and motel rates because people simply wouldn't pay for that. They find it's a very important industry, and the policy that is being contemplated. . . . I'm ever so thankful that the minister and the other minister, with their staff, are getting together and trying to hammer out and listen to the concerns of the stakeholders.

They state that although the revenue that government will receive might be minimal, certainly the cost to the budget of those hotels and motels is major. The writer states that they feel it's important for the government to reconsider this action and look at this as the larger picture for the province and not as a short-term money grab. That's from the Cherry Grove Motel in Oliver.

Brandon and Helen O'Keefe are the owners and operators of one in my riding, the Riverside Resort. This one is copied to the minister, as well. Again, they object to the demand, as they call it, of $250 for the blue-and-white directional sign. Some of the business implications are: they say it's an outrage, considering that the business crosses the new highway which has been sometimes a bit. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Because of the highway, some of the businesses have been affected. In this particular one, they say they're down $60,000 already. They have concerns because of the raising of the minimum wage, the raising of ferry fares and the extra hidden charges. They express concerns, with the hope that you will reconsider this matter and do all in your power to change this ruling.

Another resort is the FirCrest Resort. They too have problems with the highway signs, the imposition of the PST on boat rentals, the increased fees -- the tax -- for fishing licences, which is now on hold. But there's not necessarily an end to that. They have concerns regarding increases. If I could make a comment, the fastest increases in my business costs are government-related. They ask the ministers concerned to reconsider this particular policy that they are considering.

Another one is from the Silver Beach Resort regarding the highway signs. It's a bit more pointed, actually: "How incredible it is to ask every business to pay for highway signs. Now you want to charge the businesses, who are the core in the province, to use the system." Tourism is one of the main industries, of course, and they said: "We cannot afford any more fees."

[11:45]

With the indulgence of the minister, I would like to move that the committee rise, report substantial progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

Copyright © 1997: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada