[ Page 4143 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Hon. G. Clark: I have a school group that comes virtually every year, I think -- for the 11 years I've been a member of the Legislature. It's an honour for me to introduce kids from St. Joseph's School in my constituency; the principal Mr. Mike Boreham; the teachers, Ms. Irma Perreault and Mr. Fran�ois Pomerleau; and a parent, Mrs. Elaine Silva. So we have a group here of 30 grade 7 students from St. Joseph's, and I'd like all members to make them welcome.

W. Hartley: It's my pleasure to introduce four people who are very near and dear to me: my spouse Alice and our daughter Wallis; Alice's mother Mary Muir, from Paisley, Scotland; and my mother Betty Hartley, from Penticton. Please welcome them.

T. Stevenson: I'd like to introduce a constituent from Vancouver-Burrard who is over to visit for the day. Would the House please make Colin Simmons welcome.

B. Penner: It's my pleasure today to introduce Sandra Dyck, who is visiting British Columbia. She lives in Ottawa at the present time. In fact, we became friends about 26 years ago when I discovered that her family had the best sandbox on the street. Would the House please make her welcome.

G. Campbell: Today I would like not just to introduce Amanjit Pandher but to wish her a very happy birthday. She is a legislative intern who works with us. We're glad that she's been around this long, and we hope she'll be here for many years to come.

Oral Questions

B.C. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM

According to the minister yesterday, things have got worse. Today, absenteeism is costing Transit users $15 million. That represents a doubling of the costs for absenteeism. My question to the minister responsible for Transit is: will the minister confirm today that it was the previous minister, the Premier, who was responsible for the doubling of absentee costs in the Transit system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: It's interesting that the following fact has been overlooked in the whole debate around the cost of absenteeism. The employees of the Transit system actually pay a great portion of the absenteeism costs themselves. The long-term disability portion of absenteeism is 100 percent funded out of the employees' own pockets, costing the several thousand employees over $3 million per year.

There is no question that the absenteeism rate has increased. There is no question that management has been attempting to deal with this over the last years. There is no question that not only this government but the previous administration and the administration before that identified a culture that contributes to high absenteeism. Frankly, now that we actually have a solution in place -- an absenteeism management plan that is very, very severe -- I think it's not only important for the management of the corporation to pay attention and enforce that, it's also important for the workers themselves, who will actually benefit by more take-home pay once the absenteeism is reduced.

G. Campbell: I read the minister's estimates briefing note prior to coming to the House, and she comments on a number of important issues. However, the point is that Mr. Corrigan and other appointments of this government have said they were going to deal with Transit absenteeism in the past. We've watched as the cost of absenteeism has doubled.

When the Premier hired Frank Dixon, he told Mr. Dixon it was time to get tough -- very similar to what we're hearing from this minister today with regard to absenteeism. Mr. Dixon made the understandable mistake of actually believing the Premier when the Premier told him to get tough. However, as soon as he started to deal with the problem, the Premier wrongfully dismissed Mr. Dixon and removed him from his job. Under the management of B.C. Transit's amateurs, absenteeism has skyrocketed; it has doubled in the last couple of years. That, again, is in the minister's briefing note. My question to the minister today is: will the minister agree that firing Mr. Dixon was a big mistake, and that Transit has been on the wrong track ever since?

The Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

G. Campbell: Perhaps the minister will answer this question. Absenteeism has been a problem in Transit for some time. The minister has referred to Mr. Corrigan. Mr. Corrigan came to this House two years ago and told Members of the Legislative Assembly that -- surprise of surprises -- there's a plan to attack absenteeism and to deal with what he called the dysfunctional management-labour relationship. Since he made that announcement, absenteeism costs have doubled in the Transit system. My question to the minister is: why should any Transit user think that this government is truly going to deal with absenteeism instead of watching its costs go up and services go down in the B.C. Transit system?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Since we're having a history lesson here today, let's be very clear about the history of this. The collective agreement that negotiated for two absenteeisms of up to five days a year was negotiated when that member opposite was on the B.C. Transit board. So let's make sure we have the history clear.

It's all very well and good to stand up in this Legislature and throw around information about whether things have doubled or not. We are dealing with the problem. We have an absenteeism management system in place. It is a serious problem. There is no question that I have admitted that this is a serious problem. We are tackling it and we're getting on with it.

B.C. TRANSIT BUS DRIVER CONTRACT

[ Page 4144 ]

The collective agreement between the bus drivers and B.C. Transit is silent when it comes to providing a doctor's certificate for calling in sick. In fact, it appears that drivers can call in sick virtually indefinitely without any verification of illness.

Will the minister tell us if she approves of this contract provision in light of the fact that most contracts in the private sector require some proof of illness after the first few days of absence?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Well, again, maybe he could find out from his own leader why that occurred and why that collective agreement was negotiated. Certainly he has better information on that historical perspective than I do.

But frankly, you know. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, please. Order!

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .if we need to use question period to do collective bargaining, we're going to have to change the rules of question period.

[2:15]

The Speaker: Member, could we have a question.

D. Symons: . . .so the board often doesn't have control over these.

We understand that B.C. Transit has something called a "spare board," which is a roster of spare drivers who are paid to show up at morning and afternoon roll call and fill in for any drivers that call in sick. With this setup, spare-board drivers -- most of whom are high on the seniority list -- are guaranteed an annual salary of as much as $60,000 to $70,000 a year. Can the minister responsible for B.C. Transit tell us whether she agrees with Transit paying top wages to drivers, some of whom seldom get behind the wheel?

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, hon. Speaker, we on the government side rise day after day to listen to the opposition attack working people. Really, they attack health care workers; they attack Transit workers; they attack forestry workers; they attack nurses. This is just another example of them attacking Transit workers and doing it in such a way that they actually want to change the terms of their collective agreement. Well, I can understand why Transit workers said no to the Liberal opposition in the last election.

There is an issue in transit systems across North America. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please proceed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: . . .that there is a split-shift system required because of the delivery of service in peak hours. Probably because no one on the other side takes a bus, they're not aware that there are peak hours of service. That requires a sustained length of service, during which there has to be a spare board to compensate for that.

It's a very complex matter. I have already admitted that the spare-board system examined by the auditor general needs to be brought into the twenty-first century. The corporation has already started to do that and will continue to do that.

FORT ST. JOHN AMBULANCE SERVICE

Last week the minister bragged about how well her new Fort St. John ambulance service was working. I wonder if she has read the recent report by RCMP constables Brown and Rusk, which explains how it took her new ambulance service almost three hours to respond to a reported heart attack that took the life of a local resident.

The ambulance service and the RCMP received the call at 2300 hours. Here's what the officers wrote in their report:

"What is of concern here is that the deceased had been lying on the floor since 2230 hours. We arrived at 0021, conducted our investigation and sat around and waited another hour and 20 minutes before the coroner arrived, before we took matters into our own hands. There was no indication how much longer we would have had to wait for the ambulance. After we had loaded the deceased, we finally got a call from the ambulance saying they were three miles away. We departed the scene and travelled over five miles before we met them, and ignored them, transporting the deceased ourselves."

Hon. J. MacPhail: Yes, we have investigated this incident. Certainly human error took place on that day. There was a transfer of information that needed to be done in terms of up-to-date maps. There was also a geographic orientation for new crew members that had not been properly carried out. Yes, we have investigated that.

I would also like to say that my fullest sympathies are extended to the family. The family has made it clear that they don't wish this matter to be made public, as well, so I hope the member will take that under advisement.

Since that time, all crews have up-to-date maps, and the geographic orientations for crew members have been doubled.

R. Neufeld: Well, the minister is on another issue. I'll be asking a further question about poor ambulance service. You got it out of the Alaska Highway News, but that relates to a totally different issue.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, it doesn't.

R. Neufeld: Yes, it does -- a totally different issue.

But the minister also claimed that there have been no complaints. She said that three times before on questions about the Fort St. John ambulance service. Cpl. Brown answers that self-serving claim from the minister:

"I recently read. . .and have heard. . .how the current ambulance staff has improved service and there have been no complaints. . . . Everything is not as good as some people 

[ Page 4145 ]

would like others to think. . . . If this type of service is what we can expect, we will either be back to the transporting of injured like in the good old days, or we are going to be named in a few civil suits."

Hon. J. MacPhail: The community of Fort St. John has known since 1974 that the B.C. Ambulance Service is legislated, under the act that was brought in in 1974, as a provincial service. The Fort St. John community has also known since 1990 -- under the previous, Social Credit government -- that there was an industrial inquiry commission that ordered all ambulance services to be transferred from fire departments to the B.C. Ambulance Service. We've been working with the community since then.

This hon. member also knows that the fire department has room for one ambulance. There are three ambulance bays required for the ambulance service there. There is also no room for the crew there. The fire department couldn't offer that to the crew. So we are working as best we can. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Clearly the hon. member doesn't like it when the facts are presented to him.

We are working to put in place a proper ambulance depot there. It will be leased or whatever is most cost-efficient for taxpayers. But the fire department does not have the room for the ambulance service. In terms of if the hon. member is. . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I think we have indeed canvassed the question.

B.C. TRANSIT BUS DRIVER CONTRACT

The collective agreement between B.C. Transit. . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. I do want to hear this.

R. Coleman: . . .and the bus drivers' union must be the envy of NDP-friendly unions everywhere. It allows drivers to show up for work late, sign on as a spare and get paid a full day's work even if they don't get behind the wheel. The contract also says that if a driver is called in on a scheduled day off, they receive time and a half for the first seven hours, over double time for the next three hours and triple time for everything after that.

Will the minister agree that these provisions are outrageous and must be changed?

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'll tell you that in my former life I had trouble with every collective agreement that the previous, Social Credit administration negotiated -- which is exactly what that collective agreement was. The whole industry is an industry that has to cope with the scheduling problems of a transit system that has peak hours. The collective agreement deals with those situations. Does the collective agreement need to be modernized? That's exactly what the auditor general recommended. When this collective agreement expires, I expect that those issues will be addressed by both the union and management.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Reports from Committees

Motion approved.

F. Gingell: I ask leave of the House to suspend the rules to permit the moving of a motion to adopt the report.

Leave granted.

F. Gingell: I move that the report be adopted, and if I may, I'd like to add one other word.

In my opening remarks, I asked that the report be taken as read and received. I would like all members of the House to ignore that. I'd like all of you to take it home with you tonight and read it this evening, because you'll be tested on it tomorrow. [Laughter.]

Motion approved.

G. Campbell: I rise on a sad note. I'm sure that we are all aware of the fact that yesterday a Canadian vessel was floundering in the Pacific, and it was the American Coast Guard that went out to retrieve and save a number of Canadians. Unfortunately, in doing that, four people apparently have lost their lives. I think it would be appropriate, as these were Canadians -- British Columbia citizens -- that we send our condolences to the families of the Coast Guard members who did unfortunately perish.

The Speaker: I think that that's an excellent suggestion, and I will be happy to do that on behalf of the House.

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: Prior to the lunch hour we were talking about Mining Jobs 2000, although I must admit that prior to that, 

[ Page 4146 ]

I had been talking about the fish that were in the lakes. I'm always surprised at who watches us on TV, and when I got to my office, I had a fax. So I have to make an apology, I guess. It says: "We, the members of the Mating Bulltrout Protection Coalition, wish to protest the member's remarks during the estimates with respect to the value of this exceptional specy and, more importantly, of its offspring." So I apologize to anyone who felt that I insulted bulltrout.

[2:30]

D. Jarvis: It may have been written by lake water; I'm not too sure.

Nevertheless, I want to go back. . . . We had been talking about mineral tenure, but I want to go into what they call step 3, the creation of a competitive tax structure, and ask if the minister has done any studies. He did mention the corporation capital tax and everyone saying: "Cut the corporation capital tax; cut it, cut it, cut it." I tend to agree with them. In fact, I think it is impairing the investment and development of this province. Has the minister done any studies on the impact of the corporation capital tax on investment and, more specifically, on mining itself?

Hon. D. Miller: No. Nor do I think that you could, in a. . . . You can't do an isolated study on the impact of a single part of your tax regime. You have to look at the broad base of not only a tax regime but other issues that have some impact on investment. As I outlined in some of our previous discussion, we are addressing a number of issues that were brought forward from the mining sector. We have three tables. One of those is looking at taxation-type questions. As I indicated in my previous response, I have also asked the industry, in a creative way, to look at tax.

Quite frankly, the easiest solution that some people come to when looking at impediments is to say: "Well, if we didn't have this tax issue, life would be the way it ought to be." I don't subscribe to that notion absolutely. I think you have to be competitive overall, over the broad base of issues and conditions that have an impact on investment. We are doing some studies -- looking at the oil and gas sector -- in terms of competitiveness. We've got a table with the mining sector, and we've thrown out a bit of a challenge to them.

If all I ever hear is, "Well, cut my taxes," then I don't think we're going to get very far. If we look at the tax system in a creative way and try to determine where there may be some ways to utilize the tax system that produces defined benefits into the future, which expands our GDP and creates new jobs, then that's something I'm interested in discussing with them.

D. Jarvis: I agree that you can't go around and say that we're going to cut taxes, but I think the complaints are really pertaining more to the non-profit-related taxes. That is discouraging, and I think the minister is fully aware that it is a cause for concern for foreign investors coming into this country, or for Canadians or British Columbians to invest, knowing that as soon as they bring any assets here, this government immediately taxes them, whether they're making a profit or not. So that has to be a discouraging word. Does the minister therefore see a need for reform in non-profit-related taxation?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I don't really want to get into a debate with respect to a tax that is described as sort of a non-profit-based tax versus other types of tax. Relative to the tax structure, as the member might well know, part of our broad issue in Canada is that ordinary working people somehow feel -- with some justification, in my view -- that while their taxes. . . . There's no ability for the kinds of deductions that flow to some sectors on the business side. High-paid workers -- and we like high-paid jobs in British Columbia -- pay. . . . In a relative sense, working people pay taxes. If you make a lot of money and if you're an hourly paid worker, you pay a pretty hefty tax bill. If the tax base is somehow -- after all of these deductions; pages and pages. . . . If you have to take the pay at the end of that to pay taxes on the "profits. . . ." Sometimes there aren't any profits to tax, because they've been written down. The mining industry pays $7 million annually in taxes under the corporation capital tax on gross receipts of. . . . Direct tax payments are $235 million; $7 million of that is corporation capital taxes -- in the scheme of things, hardly the deal-breaker with respect to mining investment.

There are many other issues that I consider far more important: the investment climate, the regulatory regime -- those kinds of things -- and we are engaged with the sector in trying to examine those questions.

D. Jarvis: While there is, as you say. . . . In the more important scheme of things, the industry doesn't feel that way. You know yourself that they feel they are paying an excessive amount of tax for what there is. The only reason you're going to get more taxes down the line. . . . It's going to be higher and higher, the more mines that you develop -- hopefully, anyway.

In the development of an efficient permitting system, what are you doing about reducing the amount of time it takes, for example, in the environmental assessment programs? Is the ministry looking at reducing that time factor to any degree? In what ways are they trying to improve it that would speed it up?

Hon. D. Miller: Responsibility for that does rest with my colleague the Minister of Environment, the land use coordination office and the environmental assessment process. I participate to the degree that as a minister responsible for some development -- particularly in energy and mines -- I'm a cosignatore. That's the way the system works. It could be another minister on a different type of project, but the system itself is under the purview of my colleague.

In response to earlier questions, I did say that we are always examining our processes to ensure that they are the least possible bureaucratic -- hence the announcement on the changes to the Forest Practices Code. That is also the prevailing view with respect to environmental assessment. We don't want it to be overbureaucratic; we don't want it to be overcostly; we don't want it to be something that's not timely. I think we have permitted some developments in this province in a pretty timely way. I recall that the Huckleberry mine project, which will open this year, received permitting approval from British Columbia and had to sit and wait to get permitting approval from Canada. In fact, things got so bad that the Canadian ambassador in Japan, Mr. Campbell, wrote a letter to the current federal Minister of Natural Resources, Anne McLellan, urging her to intervene to grant a permit so that they could proceed with the development of the Huckleberry project. So I think in that instance we compared more than favourably with the Canadian process, and we will continue to strive to be as efficient and timely as possible.

[ Page 4147 ]

D. Jarvis: I want to look at one of the aspects of that: the native land claims. Has the ministry developed any interim agreements for the mining development with the pending land claims that may be coming up?

Hon. D. Miller: No, the Nisga'a agreement is, I would hope, close to completion. There is an agreement-in-principle in that instance. Where we entered formal negotiations there were some interim agreements, but I'm not aware of others. We do try to encourage their development which I did speak at length on this earlier this morning. We do try to encourage both capacity-building and the ability of first nations to participate. We do encourage the development of relationships between the private sector and aboriginal groups, because we can clearly see the benefits when we look at some of those that have been successful -- for example, Eskay Creek in the Tahltans.

D. Jarvis: The ministry is not developing any specific type of an interim agreement that would occur if an aboriginal claim did impact on a mining tenure or something like that. Are you leaving that up to the individual mines to sort out themselves? Or is the ministry trying to help to create some type of an agreement?

Hon. D. Miller: Through the negotiating process. In other words, if the province and the federal government are in formal treaty negotiations with a first nation, it is possible that interim measures will be produced by that negotiation. There weren't any, to my recollection, in the Nisga'a process that primarily impacted on forestry. I'm not aware of any that currently have any impact at all on mining.

D. Jarvis: I was wondering if the minister could discuss -- I know perhaps it may all deal with B.C. Hydro -- what he has been doing to use low-cost energy resources as an advantage to stimulate development. He did mention that there was power coming from the Columbia River in the treaty coming up in 1998. But I guess the industrial community is the biggest customer of B.C. Hydro, and it costs them, I don't know. . . . I think it is up around $86,000 -- or is it $86 million? -- that Highland Valley is paying in hydro costs. You wonder. With all the initiatives and everything that came forth a year or so ago, if this continues on, it's cutting into a lot of wealth and a lot of future taxation for people going to come in. This is not something that makes people who want to come in and do business in this province happy. Can you. . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: We certainly enjoy, and have enjoyed historically, a distinct advantage in terms of the availability of relatively low-cost power within British Columbia. And that advantage, by the way, will continue over time. Right now and in the recent past there has been a glut of energy on the market. That has resulted in the available market price being lower than Hydro's pricing. I think Hydro has responded in a positive way by offering real-time pricing, RTP, for industrials, and some have taken advantage of that. Low-cost power -- because primarily our power in B.C. is developed through hydroelectric generation -- has been a distinct advantage for many, many years. Industries that have located in this province have enjoyed, relative to other jurisdictions, very low-cost power indeed. People shouldn't lose sight of that because there happens to be a glut of power and market pricing is much lower than it ordinarily is or used to be.

But I did say, again in response to earlier questions, that we are developing policy. We will see the return of 1,400 megawatts of power back into British Columbia. The public should be aware that some British Columbians in the Kootenays paid a heavy price back in the fifties for the development of that power. They saw their lands flooded, and people saw their homes taken away. That had a dramatic impact in that region of the province.

Now that we have that power coming back or being returned to us under the Columbia River Treaty. . . . And I might add that it's a very good deal. We've got the return of the 1,400 megawatts starting in 1998, with no cost to B.C. The obligation under the agreement we've negotiated. . . . I think it is a good agreement. It's been examined by those outside of government in the energy field. They've described it as a good agreement. We'll see that 1,400 megawatts returned to the border, with no transmission costs from the point of origin. That means that we have the opportunity to utilize that power for jobs, if you like. That's an entitlement of the people of this province.

We previously reached an agreement with the Columbia Basin Trust to transfer cash to the Columbia basin, the region that had the real personal impact of the construction of those dams and facilities in the fifties. They are currently engaged in trying to look at economic stimulation of their region, and that's proceeding well, I think. So when we're ready, we will be able to announce a significant package that will be available both for some of the existing industries and the new entrants to the B.C. marketplace. We think it's important to utilize that power to create jobs and economic benefits in our province.

[2:45]

Hon. D. Miller: We currently are developing that policy, and I don't want to give too much away with respect to that. But clearly the opportunity to use that power to advance the. . . . Not to fundamentally alter the economics. In other words, if a project comes forward, it has to have good, basic economics. You would be foolish, in my view, to use power to subsidize the development of something that in the long term is not economic. That's the real trick in terms of how you apply any available power. There are many questions that have to be worked out in terms of pricing. The member is right: we do export surplus power. We do have a hydro system. That means that at certain periods of the year there could be excess water flows into our storage reservoirs. That means that our generation facilities, our turbines, are capable of generating more power than we need inside British Columbia. What we do in that case is take what we call surplus power and we export it. I believe we generated about -- what? -- $150 million in cash back into our province by exporting that peak power.

[ Page 4148 ]

Now, it's not firm power in terms of delivery, in terms of load, but certainly Powerex, which is the export agency or arm of Hydro, has been very successful in terms of some of the marketing of surplus power -- the Intalco deal in Washington State. We recently concluded an agreement in Mexico. So we are exporting.

But it's important that the public understand that the surplus power we export comes about because we have hydro systems. If you get heavy rainfall -- a big snow melt, all those kinds of things -- you've got more water in your reservoir than you need or should have. Then, rather than just spilling it. . . . We do manage our systems for fish values, for flooding -- all of those kinds of things -- but if we can generate excess power and export that and bring that money back into B.C., then we do that.

D. Jarvis: Of course, we could create more if we got into a larger cogeneration policy and plan -- or opened it up a bit. Nevertheless, as I said, that's another subject.

I want to ask the minister. . . . We talked earlier about streamlining regulations. What has the ministry been doing with regards to streamlining the regulations for the mining industry in general?

Hon. D. Miller: I did earlier speak of the mining code, which I hope will be finalized reasonably soon. I did speak of the three tables we've got with the Mining Association dealing with a number of issues -- taxation and others. Our ongoing desire is to reduce the regulatory burden but maintain standards.

In fact, I was handed a copy of the May 1997 "Lynch Report on B.C. Politics" earlier today. I hadn't seen it prior to today, and I must say I was delighted in terms of the kind of work that our ministry is doing. The headline on page 1 is: "The Mining Industry" -- if I could say my own name; well, maybe I won't -- "[and me] Work on Jobs Projects." Throughout the article. . . . "Let's Go -- and Go First-Class -- Ahead with Gambling." No, that's a different topic.

"Trucking Industry to be Freed from Regulations by '98." You can see the Ministry of Transportation and Highways is busily engaged.

Here's an article: "It's Time to Stop Risking Mining's Future in B.C.: Investment Minister. . .seems open to removing the barriers stalling this industry. Clarity around rules. A recognition that mining companies have a choice about where they invest. . . ." There are others: "Alberta and B.C. to Tackle Northern Transport Woes"; "Quintette, Bullmoose Deal in Northeast Coal"; "Elk Falls Power Plant Clears Hurdle: a $225 million power plant project for Elk Falls has moved a step closer to construction" -- announced the Minister of Employment and Investment.

So there's some reasonably good news out there. I'm never satisfied; it's never good enough. We've got to continue to make progress, but some of the outside reporters seem to think that there's some movement that's noteworthy.

D. Jarvis: Surely the minister knows by now that you can't believe everything you read. You even mentioned Elk Falls, and I happen to know that things aren't all rosy at Elk Falls, either, right at the moment.

When we're talking about streamlining regulations. . . . You did have some talks, I understand, with federal Natural Resources Minister McLellan. I was asking: did you ever get together to talk about harmonization? And if so, what was said? The minister is shaking his head, saying they never got together, so I assume that nothing has occurred.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we do have an agreement. I did say that earlier. The record will show that I did say we do have an agreement with the federal government on a single process. I talked about some of the difficulties still inherent there. Although I did try to arrange a meeting with the federal minister, Ms. McLellan, it never did happen. I guess she was busy, and it's a big country. Now I read in the speculation pieces that she would like a different portfolio. But I guess tomorrow will tell: I think the federal cabinet is being named tomorrow.

Just going back to the regulatory reform. I did mention the mineral exploration code; the reform of placer mining regulations to ensure that responsible placer mining can continue while ensuring that fish habitat is not jeopardized; revised road regulations pursuant to the Forest Act and the Forest Practices Code to allow off-mineral claim activities, in a fashion similar to oil and gas, to be permitted by the ministry responsible for mining. I did talk at length in a general way about providing input to the Environmental Assessment Act audit process, and reviewing the Mines Act for possible changes. So we are looking across the piece at regulation and how we can improve.

D. Jarvis: I want to ask a few questions about the mineral tenure audit. There doesn't seem to have been much done on that. I've got an FOI here, but it came back with a lot of blanks in the recommendation end of it. I was wondering if the minister could answer a few questions and talk about some major issues discussed in this audit -- namely, the system for reconciliation.

Hon. D. Miller: We may have some material, but I'm not certain we do have material with respect to that audit. My recollection -- the auditor general's audit, I presume, is what the member is talking about -- is that the branch was audited and came off fairly favourably.

D. Jarvis: No, this was the comptroller general's audit on the mineral titles branch. I want to know some of the specifics about it, because it mentions different things. I want to know about the loss of interest income.

Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, I understand that the audit was done; the branch came off quite favourably. There were some follow-up issues. We'd be happy to provide all the reports in terms of the ministry's response back to the auditor general. But no real problem areas were identified. I think maybe there were some routine issues. Beyond that, the results of the audit were favourable to the branch.

D. Jarvis: It was just that when we FOI'd the report and got it back, there were certainly a large number of blank holes in it under the recommendations. So it would tend to make you think there was something that wasn't normal about the report. Those aspects are what I was trying to get around to and ask questions about. There was an item on loss of income, and it was blanked out. There was a question about the government agents as gold commissioners and staff concerns about government agents not being adequately trained in this area. That was all blanked out. It tends to make you wonder what was blanked out. So that was the question I was asking. In fact, there were about eight or nine questions in there that I asked.

[ Page 4149 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I've got officials watching, so if there is specific detailed information, maybe they can bring it in while we're discussing this. I apologize for not having it. I understand that the loss of interest income is really an issue of when deposits are made with the ministry. A very slight time delay sometimes occurred in the transfer to the CRF, and that's being resolved. But I must repeat that it was very minor.

Secondly, I'm also the minister responsible for freedom of information. I sometimes think that maybe just asking my officials if certain documents are available, as the first course, might be preferable. If you think you're hitting a wall, well, fair enough; that's what FOI is there for. The problem with FOI is that under certain rules, you might indeed get documents that are blanked out. My assistant deputy minister would be happy to meet with you, and if we can give you unblanked copies, he'd be happy to do that, really.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know. I do know that FOI is costing the citizens of this province a heck of a lot of money -- in the millions and millions and millions of dollars. I think it's important to have FOI as a protection for citizens against government. I do have some views about its utilization as a research tool for the opposition and the media, but that's not for discussion right now.

[3:00]

R. Neufeld: I don't have a lot of questions, but they deal mainly with the energy industry in my constituency. We also have some questions on Hydro, but I guess we'll be getting to those later on.

Mining has been covered well by the Liberal critic. I just wonder what's happening with the Cassiar mine. I understand that there's still something happening in the Cassiar, where there could be some further mining of the tailings and those kinds of things. I had a question brought up to me just the other day about it. Maybe the minister could bring me up to date on what's happening.

Hon. D. Miller: There is a company that has expressed some interest. There aren't any deals consummated. B.C. Chrysotile, I gather, has some interest in seeing if it's possible to use some of that fibre. It is long-fibre asbestos for tile-making. There's nothing consummated in terms of any agreement, though.

R. Neufeld: Further, and mostly on energy, I think I should start off by saying -- and your assistant deputy minister will have known this person very well -- that the person who was actually the first person on the ground in Energy and Mines in the Fort St. John area, Mr. Dave Johnson, unfortunately passed away a while ago, just prior to retirement. Mr Johnson had been in the energy industry right from the ground floor, I think, with the Ministry of Energy in British Columbia, and he used to go right out north of Fort Nelson and sit on wells and deal with things in that kind of a fashion, and slowly we've changed over time. I understood that we were possibly going to do a commemoration for Mr. Johnson in Fort St. John. I wonder just where that's at.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I do appreciate the member raising this. I did pay tribute to Mr. Johnson yesterday. The member will be pleased to note that the new Charlie Lake office will be named after Mr. Johnson. He will also be pleased to see that the industry will be developing a $100,000 bursary fund specifically dedicated to training, particularly for residents of northeast British Columbia. I guess, in some ways, as a minister who has only been here for a year or so, I didn't have the opportunity -- and still have not had an opportunity -- to meet a lot of the field staff. But certainly the tributes to Mr. Johnson have come in from all over. He certainly was well respected by his peers, in both the ministry and the industry, and I think it's a real tribute to that man as an individual.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate that, because he was a stalwart in Fort St. John. I worked with Mr. Johnson for many years in the oil and gas industry. He was a legend in his own time and actually was one of those people who worked for government that you talked about yesterday, who really put their heart and soul and energy into their job. He did a good job and was well respected in the industry and by his peers in government. So I'm glad to hear that. I think that that's really great.

Just a bit further about the Forest Practices Code and its changes in road construction, I guess it is, for the mining industry. I've talked to your parliamentary secretary briefly about the issue of looking at the Forest Practices Code as it applies to the oil and gas industry in much the same fashion as for some other things. It's not exactly the same as the mining industry, but the oil and gas industry is a bit peculiar on its own, especially when you're talking about some of the seismic work and maybe some of the early trails to get to some of the areas to explore for oil and gas. Is there some way that we could start a working group from your ministry with the industry to try and work out some of the issues with the Forest Practices Code that they find some difficulty with?

I've had numerous individuals talk to me about some of the problems they have with the Forest Practices Code, and rather than deal with it on an ad hoc basis, I think we and British Columbia would be much better served, and so would the industry and the ministry, if we were to start a liaison with the industry in trying to collectively work out those things that will work better for industry and for government. I wonder if there is something that we can start there. Maybe the minister has already started it -- I'm not sure.

Hon. D. Miller: In our view, the problem was more acute in the mining sector, particularly on the exploration side, and we are covering that with respect to the mineral exploration code. We've not ignored the petroleum and natural gas areas, either. There have been some complaints about the development of road regulations, and under the designation the operator can recover road maintenance capital costs from other industrial users. The member is probably aware of this. So we are working with that sector and working cooperatively to develop a new petroleum road regulation to meet the unique requirements of the oil and gas industry.

As I say, it wasn't felt that the problem was as acute in the oil and gas sector as it was with different issues -- as it was with the mining sector. But the principle -- and I think the member would support this 

[ Page 4150 ]

-- is that as an operating ministry responsible for energy, mines and petroleum resources, with field staff who are well versed over the years in working with the industry, who know the standards that must be met and who know how they can lay a firm hand on when it has to be laid on to achieve the kind of results that you want to achieve. . . . We think it's desirable to have that housed within our ministry -- to have the equivalency standards housed within the ministry. It's much the same, I suppose, as under the Forest Practices Code announcement. I believe I heard the minister talk about results-based as opposed to process-based, so we set the standards.

We say, using the forestry analogy to complete the argument: here are the standards, in terms of how you must do your planning, how you must do your harvesting or your roadbuilding; these are all the things that you are required to do. But instead of saying that we want to see all of this produced on paper in multi-plans, plans after plans after plans, we want to reduce the number of plans and free up some of our managers to have time to go out on the ground and say: well look, have you lived up to the standards?

That's kind of a results-based approach, by which you maintain the integrity of your standards and you get the results but at a lower cost. We like that approach, and, as I said, we're working both with the oil and gas sector and the mining sector to try to bring improvements.

R. Neufeld: I hesitate to say it, but when we debated the Forest Practices Code, if the minister were to go back to the time when we debated that, I think I talked about a results-based Forest Practices Code rather than such a punitive system that is put into place with piles of paper and reams of regulation. So I'm glad to see, a number of years after the introduction of the Forest Practices Code, that we're finally getting around to some of those commonsense things, and that the industry has been able to convince you that just because it's written on 14 different forms in 20 different offices, that doesn't always make it right. I think that's a good move.

Could the minister share with me: who in the ministry is working with whom in the industry on trying to streamline some of the things in the Forest Practices Code, so that if I have some issues that come forward to me I know who to contact on either side, in government or industry?

Hon. D. Miller: I can't give names on the industry side, but the industry association should be able to do that. The individuals in the ministry are Dave Shaw, on the resource management side; Greg MacKillop in the ministry; and Peter Davis, on oil and gas. And there's Linda Stewart from placer regulation. That will be sufficient to give you leads into more of the names, the players, on the industry side.

R. Neufeld: The other issue, I guess -- and it hasn't been an issue that I'm aware of yet in Fort St. John or in the northeast, particularly north of the Peace River -- is the issue surrounding the people that were lost in the Lands ministry. Much of the oil and gas industry, especially for pipelines, acquisitions of land and those kinds of procedures, has to go through the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. To my knowledge, that's all been amalgamated into the Ministry of the Environment now, with quite a few people being laid off.

There continues to be an underlying current that at some point in time it's going to hit us that the people left there are not going to be able to keep up to the paperwork that's required and the approvals required for those kinds of projects, specifically pipelines. I wonder if the ministry is working -- and I assume they probably are -- with the Ministry of Lands. Like I say, it's not an issue to me; at least I've never been told it is. But I think that the longer we leave it and the longer the issues pile up, the tougher it's going to get. What will happen is what usually happens: on November 1, people won't be able to get their permits to start going out to build their pipelines, and that will already be the start of the winter season.

So I'm just trying to work a little bit with the minister here to bring him the concerns that some of the people are telling me about, so that maybe we can head it off a little bit before that time. I would think that maybe the minister is working closely with the Minister of Environment to come to some kind of a resolution about how we deal with those issues.

Hon. D. Miller: In fact, there has been some positive work. I don't have specific information on one aspect of it, but at least for authorizations, the turnaround time. . . . I'll just quote from a letter from the manager of regulation, Mr. Ken Kadonaga, to my assistant deputy minister.

"The new streamlined referral process for oil and gas activities was started on October 1, 1996 and appears to have reduced the referral times. For well authorizations, the average turnaround period in October was approximately seven days, down from 15 in September, despite a substantial increase in the number of applications -- 56 in October, up from 21 in September. A similar decrease also occurred in the turnaround times for geophysical program applications."

R. Neufeld: I think we're getting two issues mixed up here. Maybe I didn't explain it well enough to the minister; I will try again. I am aware of and appreciate what the minister just read out about the referral times as they are concerned with well authorities and geophysical permits and those kinds of things. Yes, there has been a tremendous improvement in that from the Ministry of Environment. It was terrible; it was hindering the industry quite badly. But the Ministry of Environment did get their house in order, and those go through, on most cases, very quickly now, other than in the very sensitive areas -- which is understandable and everybody knows that.

[3:15]

I thank the minister, and I thank the Minister of Environment of the day; they did a good job getting the well authorities through. This is a different issue. Maybe the minister would like to comment on that.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have specifics on that issue. I really want to thank the member. I think the ministry is aware of that and brings the same attitude to that question as they've 

[ Page 4151 ]

brought to other issues. So maybe if there's something of substance, then I could report directly to the member subsequent to these estimates, and I thank him for raising the issue.

R. Neufeld: Thank you. I appreciate that. I'll stay in touch with your assistant deputy minister, who's with you right now, on those issues. But it's good to make you aware of some of the things that could take place and result in something that none of us want: a slowdown of the industry and, of course, for government, a little bit less loot in taxes and those kinds of things. That's part of it.

Talking about taxes, the minister earlier spoke about the TLC -- I guess it's tender loving care committee. It's actually quite well-named; I would think that probably you had some hand in that. In any event, it was about mining and some form of taxes or something, or fees or whatever, and gathering money that could be reinvested back into the industry, if I understood the minister correctly. That might be a pretty rough thumbnail sketch of it, and the minister can certainly enlighten me on what it means. I wonder if those same kinds of talks would be going on with the energy industry. I relate it to some of the issues they have to deal with, specifically in Fort Nelson. We're still travelling over the same old road, the same Desan road that was there, in no better shape, in fact worse shape, than it was six years ago, and we haven't made any headway on that. I'm wondering if there's some way that some of those things can be broached with the industry to find out if there isn't a way that we can start expending some money on some infrastructure, specifically as it relates to the oil and gas industry.

Hon. D. Miller: I did refer earlier, in some part of these estimates, to the kind of work we're doing -- a competitiveness study on the oil and gas side, looking at reforming the regulatory regime, the pricing system -- and that work continues. We are engaged in some work with respect to the Sierra-Yoyo-Desan Road; that's ongoing. I would have liked that to have proceeded at a quicker pace. It hasn't, so we may be in a position to make some broader public statements in the near future. I'll leave it at that.

R. Neufeld: It's interesting. I have some gentlemen in my office from both Calgary and Fort St. John who want to talk to me about some oil and gas issues, so I'm going to have to leave for awhile. But I certainly want to come back and ask some more questions of the minister.

Just before I go, one question I'd like to ask is: does the ministry have the official numbers for the amount of investment that the oil and gas industry makes in British Columbia? That would be northeast B.C. only. Do you have those hard figures?

Hon. D. Miller: Off the top, I was going to say about $1.5 billion, but the numbers in 1996 look about $1.7 billion. There are additional proposals with respect to pipeline construction that are in the region of $2 billion.

This is a big sector in B.C., a very important sector of our economy and one that we value. There are 14,500 direct jobs and 23,000 associated jobs on the indirect side -- a very good industry. There's been renewed activity on the sales side. If you accept the conventional wisdom with respect to the alliance proposal and others, that has the potential to provide even better opportunities on the price side, thereby attracting even more investment, so we see nothing but growth in this sector.

R. Neufeld: I'm happy for that clarification. The June 5 release from the ministry quoted $1.2 billion. On April 3, during a speech you made, you quoted $1.7 billion, and I've been told $2.4 billion. The numbers are all over the place, and that's why I wanted confirmation of how much it was. I know it's very important to the industry, and it's very important in my constituency and to people who work there. With that, I'll turn it over to the Liberal critic for Mines.

Hon. D. Miller: Probably the reason for the discrepancy in numbers is that I happen to be very conservative in my forecasting.

D. Jarvis: Is the minister beginning to think he's being tossed around a bit, going back and forth here?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

D. Jarvis: Sorry for the interruption. I had two appointments today that I had set up some time ago, and therefore the situation.

I just want to go back to the implementation of the mineral exploration code. Could the minister discuss with us what the current status of that is? We understand that it's been held up for some reason. Has a draft been put forward to cabinet yet? What is the status of the mineral development office, as well?

Hon. D. Miller: I think the development of the code is going well. Some months ago, there was or appeared to be a bit of a bottleneck somewhere, but after some discussion with the industry, I proposed to them a practical way of moving forward. Rather than huge bureaucracies on either side, I suggested that some people with field experience, both on the ministry side and the industry side, get out there and take that document -- which had been through 14 or 15 drafts -- out on the ground and say: "Okay, how does it work? Let's follow it through." As a result of that, we sped up the process, and I believe we have agreement. There are some technical issues, administrative issues, but to all intents and purposes, in my view, we are there.

I do look forward, once the issues are finalized, to making an announcement. I think it's good news for the industry, and I'll try to get as much public attention and notice on that announcement as we can.

D. Jarvis: So it is in cabinet now; it's been presented to cabinet; it's getting ready to be approved, and we can look forward to seeing it on the streets any day now.

Hon. D. Miller: There's regulatory issues that need to be completed, but I just want to say that for all intents and purposes, we've announced our intentions. We are moving forward. I think it's moving reasonably well, and when we're in a position to make an announcement, we'll do that. Because of the way our system works, I can't advise the member explicitly whether something is sitting in front of cabinet, but I'm reasonably pleased with the way it's moving forward.

D. Jarvis: Yes. I wanted to ask the minister about something to do with placer explorations up in the Cariboo area. I understand that the ministry usually gives the Cariboo Mining Association -- I believe it's the association; maybe it's just the exploration or the people that are doing the exploring up there -- a certain amount of money out of the total amount 

[ Page 4152 ]

given to all the mining industry in B.C. I've heard that the moneys given out for exploration have been given strictly to the hard-rock end of it, and nothing at all went to the placer end of it.

Hon. D. Miller: I did speak earlier about the prospectors assistance program. We did maintain the budget in this fiscal year, even though we were subject to some pretty deep cuts -- about $500,000. I said earlier that we also tried to be more focused in terms of the application of those prospector grants.

Just to advise the member of some of the specifics, the total budget was $496,000; 47 grants totalling more than $380,000 have been awarded to prospectors; the largest portion, $116,000, was in the northwest region of the province, with the Kootenays and south central areas getting a smaller share of $78,000 and $58,000 respectively. Seventy-seven placer activities were excluded from eligibility for grants because most placer prospecting programs, regardless of how they are described in the application, turn out to be primarily mining operations or testing programs rather than prospecting.

Placer mining, or even successful testing programs, generate some immediate cash flow. In other words, the people doing the work have some opportunity for a revenue stream -- unlike pure prospecting. Really, the impact of new bedrock mines creates more jobs and economic spinoffs than new or expanded placer operations. Given the limits on the budget side, it's incumbent on government to be as efficient as possible, to put that money where it will produce the best results, and that's what we've tried to do.

D. Jarvis: Another concern in the Cariboo area, or where the placer mining is, is the aspect of riparian zones. Evidently the riparian zones are essentially like those in logging: you have to be so many metres away from the sides of the rivers, etc. But in the placer areas up there, they're required to be ten metres -- ten to 30 metres, and more sometimes -- from the edge of the body of water. So I'm not too sure how the gold ever got down there, but it has something to do with the melting of the ice floes years ago -- it flowed down. But most gold in the river is in the centre of the damn stream. So if you're restricted from going into that area because of that riparian zone, what justification do you have, basically. . . ? You'll be closing down the mining in that area if you can't go into the middle of a stream.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure the member realizes that in most activities on a land base, there can be competing interests, and when it comes to riparian zones, clearly the issue of the potential impact on fish is one that ought to be considered. There's not a person in British Columbia, I would think, who would want to take any different position.

The member talked about the ten-metre rule. That's correct, substantially, but the approach we're taking is to try to develop tailored regulations by stream. It may not make sense to have ten metres in some areas. In some areas it might be a greater distance. It's preferable, rather than having a single rule that fits every situation, to develop regulations that fit unique circumstances that may exist in each situation.

[3:30]

So it's an area that you have to do this kind of work in, particularly when it comes to riparian zones, as they can conceivably have direct impact on fish, and there has to be a reasonable regulatory regime to accommodate that.

D. Jarvis: So this riparian zone, pertaining to placer mining, is only where the placer gold is concentrated in the middle of the stream, creek, river or whatever it may be. Does it only apply to bodies of water that are spawning waters?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm not an expert in the field, but I would think that there would also be consideration for some potential downstream impacts.

D. Jarvis: The way I look at it, then, it effectively stops placer mining, right? If your riparian zone does come into effect -- and that doesn't allow you to go into the middle of the stream, where the predominance of the placer gold is usually concentrated rather than on the edges -- and those rules apply, then placer gold mining essentially dies, does it not?

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't think that is true. Again, I'm not an expert in placer mining. I wish my former colleague Mr. Barlee were here; he could probably talk at length about it. A few people, through their body language, are registering opinions to the contrary.

But no, not at all. I've really just tried to make the point that placer mining. . . . What we are talking about is $40 million annually in benefits, and that is fine. But surely the member doesn't disagree that there ought to be rules so that if there is an impact on fish, we can consider that. Placer deposits can be found. . . . They aren't necessarily in the middle of the stream. They could be more than ten metres from a stream. The member knows that in the geology we have in British Columbia, there are lots of places that used to be streams and aren't anymore. That's the nature of our geography. So I think the notion of getting the industry and others together -- environmental, community, first nations -- to develop a reasonable regime, in terms of how we ought to be able to continue to have placer mining and still protect primary fish values, is a good one. That process is underway now.

D. Jarvis: If you're going to do a study on placer mining and how the riparian zone affects fish and all the rest of it, I assume that it's only natural that you could make adjustments if it's a fish-bearing stream. But what if it's not a fish-bearing stream? Are you going to change the rules? Do the same rules apply?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I did try to respond. If there are no potential impacts on fish, then presumably one ought to be able to look at that. I don't want to be quoted as writing the regulations and the rules standing here in this House, but presumably there may be no impact in having any kind of buffer zone at all. If you look at the water issues in relation to forestry, it's clear that there's a classification of streams according to fish-bearing or non-fish-bearing and the impact on streams downstream. All of those are considered in developing the rules of practice.

One reason is the potential negative impact on fish. I would hope the member might want to say that they're an 

[ Page 4153 ]

important resource value to maintain. I listened to your comments about bulltrout earlier -- and fair enough; I'm not going to get into that, necessarily. . . . But let me try to make this point of view. I've always tried to make this, because where I come from -- the north coast, the community of Prince Rupert and surrounding communities -- fishing is a mainstay of the economy. The harvesting and the processing of fish, and all of the ancillary benefits that flow, are a mainstay of the economy. It keeps people employed. It contributes millions and millions to our economy.

Protecting that basic resource -- what we call conservation -- both in terms of protecting habitat and its harvesting regime, is fundamental. One only has to look at the east coast of this country and see what happened to the cod fishery to realize that if you don't manage a natural resource in a good way, you'll run out of it. The result of running out is that you've got massive unemployment, no resource and general despair. So there always is a balance, hon. member, between these kinds of issues. Surely the protection of fish and fish habitat is fundamental.

If the member rejects the biological or environmental rationale for that, surely he ought to embrace the economic rationale for protecting a very valuable resource -- a resource that is arguably worth. . . . If one wanted to get into a contest between fisheries values and placer mining values in this province, placer mining has $40-odd million in some discrete regions of the province versus the combined value of the fishing sector -- commercial, sport, etc. -- which is in excess of $1 billion. Leaving aside any environmental questions, strictly from an economic analysis, one would presumably want to protect the greater value.

We're trying to promulgate and develop a regulatory regime with the stakeholders that makes sense, that allows placer mining to continue in this province as it has historically but also ensures that we're going to protect those primary values for an equally important, or arguably even more important, economic resource.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate the minister's balance-of-conservation lesson. I'm quite aware of the values that are out there, and most everyone in this room is. There's no question. My family has had four generations born on this coast. I know what fishing is all about. We sincerely believe in it, and I believe in it.

But when you're talking about economic values and weighing one against the other, you're trying to insinuate that because I was referring to one little lake that had nine bull-trout in it. . . . I mean, if you want to compare economic values, then I would weigh that lake with nine bulltrout in it versus a copper mine and a gold mine that pay millions of dollars of taxes and keep hundreds of people employed for years and years.

What I'm trying to tell you is that I appreciate that placer mining isn't the greatest money producer in this country, but it does provide people with jobs. It provides work. They all pay taxes, probably.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: I know, and you're agreeing with me thoroughly. But what I'm trying to say -- and I'm trying to get some kind of commitment out of you -- is that if this riparian zone applies to all streams and rivers in an area where placer mining is done, then that itself is not fair. And it's not equitable, either, because it should only have applied to areas that have fish.

We ostensibly want to save our fish resource. The minister says that he's aware of that and he feels that way, too. But is his ministry going to be doing anything about it? That's the key to the whole thing. It's all very well for you to say that you believe in it, but will your ministry be prepared to do something to protect those placer miners who are mining in non-fishbearing streams.

Hon. D. Miller: I did respond in a previous answer by saying that if fisheries values are presumably not of concern in a particular stream, then we have. . . . We have a ten-metre buffer now. I said that we're developing regulations that are more tailored to specific streams. It may be that there's no buffer required. I did acknowledge that. I just suggested that when you start any particular process, I guess there has to be a commitment to certain things that govern the process. Really, we do have my ministry working in cooperation with the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, and DFO, all consulting with the placer mining industry, first nations and environmental groups on a regulatory regime that presumably would make sense.

Now, I'm not a technician; I'm not a placer miner; I'm not technically familiar with all of the issues that might exist. One would hope, given the extensive consultation with people involved there, that we'll come up with the right regime, which will be, we hope, implemented prior to the '98 field season.

We also want to look at appropriate training issues. That could be important. In other words, how you do a certain activity, regardless of ten metres or five metres or whatever, and how you conduct it can in some ways ameliorate or mitigate it.

You know, these tend to be fairly complex. I apologize if I was castigating the member in the least with respect to the views he expressed earlier about a certain species of trout.

D. Jarvis: I guess I have to apologize to the minister myself, seeing that we're all apologizing. I probably wasn't listening carefully enough when he got into his conservation-and-balance speech that he was making to me. I tended to forget, I guess, or I didn't listen to what he was saying on the other aspect.

I want to ask the minister if he could tell me about records. There's a general feeling out there that mining is not good for British Columbia. This is the spin that's been put on it for some time now. It especially seems to be that mining impairs the environment and causes all this great damage throughout British Columbia.

Now, I know records started to be kept back in the 1960s as far as reclamation and all the rest of it goes. I wonder if his office has any records as to, for example, how many hectares were disturbed by mining in this province and how many have been reclaimed through the reclamation process. What hasn't therefore been reclaimed, and where are we in terms of that situation?

Hon. D. Miller: I will read a few statistics here. I don't know if the member had the opportunity to witness, on the television news last year, the reclamation of the former Utah Mine on northern Vancouver Island, near Port Hardy, where a large open-pit mine fairly close to the ocean was reclaimed. In fact, they blew a hole in it and allowed the sea water to fill it in. I believe it stands as a pretty good testament to our ability to reclaim former mines.

The industry must place reclamation securities as conditions of all permits. They were first required back in 1969. 

[ Page 4154 ]

We do hold some money in security for mining activity. In other words, there's money there to assist in that reclamation process.

There have been some recommendations made in a security policy committee discussion paper on reclamation risk management for discussion by the industry, government and the public. Under the direction of an advisory council, those have been reviewed. A final report is expected -- we don't have that yet? -- sometime soon. And we'll consider the recommendations of that security policy committee and develop an issue paper.

[3:45]

D. Jarvis: Yes, in a sense I was looking for some type of history of mining reclamation to prove that it hasn't caused that much of a detriment to our environment.

But when you talk about Island Copper, I kind of think that we're in directly opposite fields on that one. I felt that it wasn't necessary for Island Copper to be flooded again, because all you're seeing now is a great big hole full of water, where it could have been used for added value. There were plans for it to hold waste from, let's say, Vancouver and the lower mainland and Victoria. It would have been put in there -- and it was supposedly environmentally sound to do it -- and it would have looked after that waste for 150 years. But the previous Attorney General and the previous Environment minister -- probably this gentleman across from me; I don't know -- turned that down. It was probably the largest mine below sea level in the world, I think. So as a result of that, instead of using it to the best use or for added value, they just punched a hole in the side of the bank and filled it full of sea water again. So there wasn't much value in that. It has been reclaimed, but in a different way.

What I'm referring to is the reclamation they're doing to mines that they have been doing for probably the last 20 years. The fact is that you have places, like up in the Highland Valley, where they're actually fishing in their ponds up there. Fish are growing and they've got. . . . Most of the mines in the province have animals feeding off the waste dumps that they've reclaimed and all the rest of it. I was trying to find out some actual figures to sort of support my theory that mining isn't that bad. Even you could help by telling everyone that mining isn't that bad, seeing that you are the minister looking after mining.

But you were talking about the advisory council. It met in April of 1996. It's well over a year since then. I understand the advisory council has not met since April of '96 -- over a year now. So the report's conclusions remain uncertain at this time. The minister obviously does not know anything about it, or his department doesn't know anything about the advisory council. It's still out there in limbo. You haven't heard back from. . . ?

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's a case of a rose by any other name. I have met with the industry, the same players, on actually quite a number of occasions since I took the portfolio. I did advise the member that I've made a bit of a proposal to the industry in terms of formalizing a structure. But sometimes you know -- and I can understand this -- people say: "Well, is this more process?" So they're kind of considering that. They haven't got back to me.

The important thing is that we're actually doing something. We're making progress. There's a better, more positive atmosphere about mining, I think, in British Columbia. We'll continue to work on that. I actually don't like sitting in meetings too much myself. What's that old saying: process is for cheese? Really, I think you've got to identify the issue; you get some people working on it. Let's try to move ahead and make some progress.

S. Hawkins: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

S. Hawkins: In the gallery today I have a surprise visitor, a very, very dear friend of mine from law school. Visiting Victoria are Rob and Cheryl Beck. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'm sort of jumping around on different things. So I just want to ask another thing about mining in regards to. . . . I got a letter in regards to Workers Compensation. I'm wondering if the ministry has looked into it at all or made any appeal, seeing that they've now become an advocate of mining. This one letter showed, then. . . . I want to read it into the record. It says: "The record shows there was an increase of less than 1 percent in the number of [WCB] claims filed from 1988 to 1995." That's a 1 percent increase of claims. "During the same period, however, WCB staff increased 58 percent, from 1,611 employees to 2,550. To pay for this staff increase, the employers' bill to fund the system rose 123 percent" -- from 1988. . .to $985 million in 1996.

Now, the coalmining industry has seen an even more dramatic increase. I appreciate we're not in WCB, but I'm leading up to the question. The coalmining industry has had a more dramatic increase, they said, from $2.80 per $100 of employee wages in '93 to $5.05 in '97 -- an increase of 80 percent in four years. For the same period in metal mining, rates increased from $2.75 per $100 in employee wages in 1988 to $6.45 in '97 -- an increase of another 135 percent. On an average annual wage of $54,000, the annual WCB payment for a coalmine worker has risen from $1,512 in '88 to $2,700 in '97. What I'm trying to say is that it's tough for these companies to make a living out there when things keep going up and everything keeps going up and up and up. Has the ministry given any consideration, or has it made any appeal on their behalf, to try and lower or do something about those rates going up when their claims are not going up? The cost of operating is going up 135 percent in some cases -- 80 percent to 135 percent -- and the number of claims is going up by only 1 percent. So the balance is out of whack here. Can the minister respond to that, please? Or would he?

Hon. D. Miller: Actually, maybe the question should be: "should he?" And the answer is no. I did deal extensively with WCB issues when I was the Minister of Labour and responsible for WCB. I might add that I was very pleased. . . . In fact, I'm a very big fan of Mr. Parker, the present CEO of the Workers Compensation Board. It appears there has been a 

[ Page 4155 ]

very positive performance on the economic side in terms of unfunded liability and those kinds of questions. But any questions about that system, really, Madam Chair, should be properly addressed to the minister responsible.

D. Jarvis: I appreciate that most of that should be dealt with by the Minister of Labour, and the Workers Compensation. . . . But the minister has said that he has now become an advocate for mining in this province, so I was wondering if his ministry would consider making some kind of application to the Minister of Labour and asking him if he would give consideration to perhaps lessening the taxation that is being put upon the mining industry.

Hon. D. Miller: No. I'm responsible as well for other sectors of our economy. It would be foolish of me in the extreme to put myself in a position where I as the Minister of Employment and Investment was making submissions to another minister about issues that are determined partly through formula. The member knows full well how assessment rates are derived at WCB. He knows that it's related to frequency and cost. He also should be aware, if he has followed this, that there are sectors of our economy -- if you look at their accident experience and the premiums they pay -- that are not paying their fair share of the costs.

There is and has been a policy at WCB to have a cap on increases -- in other words, to avoid the completely dramatic increases; I think it was about 20 percent. They exceeded that two years ago to try to get things more in balance. The reason for that, and it's quite important, is that it would be wrong to have one sector of our economy. . . .

Let's say, as we separated the retail sector -- the member recalls that a couple of years ago the retail sector essentially encompassed, on the food side. . . . The very tiny retail corner stores were included in with the very large megastores. If you looked at the accident experience in the small ones, it was negligible, and if you looked at the accident experience of the big ones, it was quite high, and yet both were paying the same kind of premium levels. So that was separated. The principle there is one that's quite important to WCB, in that each discrete sector should pay the premiums that reflect their kind of accident experience, etc.

I've gone much further than I should have, Madam Chair. You should rightfully be chastising me for going this far in talking about the Workers Compensation Board. I'm sure that my colleague the Minister of Labour would be pleased to deal. . . . Perhaps those questions were asked. I believe those estimates are concluded, if I'm not mistaken. Any other questions that the member may have should be directed to the appropriate minister.

D. Jarvis: I want to deal a little bit on compensation, although we have discussed it a little bit before. With regard to the legitimization of mineral claims and security of title, probably one of the most famous ones is the Cream Silver case. The minister is probably aware of it. If this were overturned -- because I understand it's up again -- is this government prepared to compensate all the outstanding tenures that have been expropriated?

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: No. I was just wondering if this government is prepared to compensate for all those outstanding mineral tenures.

Hon. D. Miller: As a general policy statement, yes, we talked earlier about some claims, where there has been a finalization of compensation issues. There are some that remain outstanding. I had a discussion with the Mining Association about that last week. There are some complicated issues around that. There's some difference of opinion, actually, flowing out of the Cream Silver award, which went through a process. An award was made, which some in the mining sector didn't like. That wasn't a decision made by government; it was a decision made by a constituted board, I believe. So as a policy statement, yes, we understand the issue of compensation and are working to try to resolve those over a reasonable period of time.

[4:00]

Hon. D. Miller: That is future policy. But no, not at this point.

D. Jarvis: When talking about compensation, I guess we've got hundreds of millions of dollars out there. We have Alcan to consider. I assume there are some outstanding claims -- in the Tatshenshini, Cream Silver. . . . Are we making any preparation for the event that we have all of these claims to pay? Where are all of these moneys going to come from?

Hon. D. Miller: There has been some progress. We did refer earlier to the arrangement we've concluded with Royal Oak, in which, as I said, rather than simply writing a cheque and giving it to them and saying, "Here, we're pleased to give you this money," we've negotiated -- rather than give taxpayers' money away. What we've negotiated is a much larger package, a $400 million project that's underway right now, employing a lot of people, which resulted in the development and opening of a brand-new mine that will provide jobs for 20 years hence.

Similarly with Alcan, we have said that we would like to see more jobs created in this province. That's a reasonable request, I think. Years ago, awards were made with respect to water licences and those kinds of things. I think it's reasonable to assume that if the resources of the province are utilized, they ought to provide jobs and benefits to British Columbians. The Premier has been very upfront and straightforward on this question. We'd like to see another smelter in this province. We think it's appropriate. We think the energy resources are available.

Really, we want to solve the problems, but our attitude is not simply to sit down with a chequebook and have people line up and say: "How much do you want?" That's not an appropriate policy. Nor will I admit, in any sense, to the magnitude of any compensation issues we've got to deal with. It's not at all clear to me that there's an absolute in every single incidence. It varies by of the nature of the claim: tenure-holders versus Crown grants, those kinds of questions. There are lots of very complex issues here. We're going to try to deal with them with the sectors and for the benefit of the people here in the province.

D. Jarvis: Would the minister be prepared to tell us how many dollars we have spent now on compensation claims for the Tatshenshini, excluding the Royal Oak claim?

[ Page 4156 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have it at hand right now, but we will try to find it and see if we have a number and if we can get it to you today, hopefully.

D. Jarvis: Has the minister given any consideration to mining in parks? I notice that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have now changed their policy on that and are allowing mining in parks.

Hon. D. Miller: I have a bit of a reputation, and I don't want to make it any worse than it already is. So I'll pass on that one, thank you.

D. Jarvis: I can understand that the minister doesn't want to get caught out somehow, making a statement that would be economical for the industry. But we mine in parks. If it was done in a responsible manner, like in other jurisdictions around the world, it could be done. Seeing as he's not going to make a statement to that effect, I won't pursue the matter.

I want to ask the minister a couple of short questions here. One is not really short, and it quite bothers me. It is with regards to the Forest Practices Code and how it affects the mining industry: ostensibly, the deactivation of roads. I took it up once before with the minister's staff. And actually, it's a specific statement.

I'm not averse to mentioning the name of the gentleman. It's a mineral claim up in the northern part of Vancouver Island, in the Port Alberni area. There are claims owned by a Mr. Herb McMaster. I understand he was in full compliance with all the rules and regulations in mining. He was doing exploration. Unknown to him, forestry came in. It was on Crown land. MacMillan Bloedel had the allowance there to make a cut. When they were finished, they were advised by the ministry to deactivate the roads. I think it was the contractor for MacMillan Bloedel, but they were under instructions by the government to do so. They came in, and they destroyed quite a bit of his property, his drill holes and various construction things which involve the trenching around there -- to the tune of approximately -- he says; it's hard to say, exactly -- $1.5 million. So now they've come along and said: "No, we weren't allowed to do that. We shouldn't have done that. We're wrong." But he's out $1.5 million, plus or minus.

It's my opinion that the government -- and it was under their instructions -- told the people to go out and deactivate that road, causing damage to, as I said, the trenching and the drill sites. Who would you think would be responsible for that? Do you not think that the government should be responsible in some way for compensation because it was under their instructions that this was done?

Hon. D. Miller: Not at all. In fact, my ministry became involved in, if you like, a bit of a brokering role to try to resolve a difference between two private parties: in this case, MacMillan Bloedel and Mr. McMaster and his company. I believe that we actually did play a productive role in resolving that difference. We cannot be responsible for misunderstandings that occur between private parties and the private sector. Were we to adopt that stance as a general policy, I very much fear that the claims against government would mount in a staggering fashion. Therefore we have to take a responsible position on this case. A disagreement had occurred between a forest company and a mining company over the merits or demerits of deactivating a road that was also required for access to exploration work. We did play a productive role in resolving that, and it is my understanding that it is resolved at this point. When I say resolved, that doesn't mean that everybody went away absolutely thrilled and happy but rather that the issue has been resolved -- I think in a satisfactory manner.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to tell the minister that I'm aware that his department was involved in it. I think one of his deputies will tell him that I did phone him. They got together, and they went out to discuss the matter.

The point is that it's not between two private individuals or two private companies. Deactivation was required to be done on the part of one of the parties. The government's forestry department told them: "You have to deactivate that road." He said: "No, you can't do that. I have a working permit; I'm allowed to do it." The forestry department said: "No, they're going to deactivate that road." They proceeded and did it before they could be stopped -- under the instructions of the government to deactivate that road.

It's not a private company that's at fault; it's the government that's at fault. The government's instructions. . . . The government told the miner to get off his land -- his own claim, I should say. They wouldn't allow him to stay there; they told him to remove himself; they went in and deactivated it. So the onus is on the government.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: Again, in answer to the direct question on the issue of compensation: no, clearly I won't agree to that. I'm pleased that my ministry was able to play a constructive role between these parties, regardless of the origins of the dispute, in terms of deactivating the road or of the involvement of another Crown agency. It ended up being a dispute. With lack of communication on those kinds of things, that does happen. That does happen in our society, and when it comes to our attention and we think we can play a positive role, we try to do that and have done so in this case.

Hopefully, in the future there will be more consultation, joint use or using excess roads -- in this case, a road that was probably there for forestry purposes but then was available for exploration activity. We know we have to deactivate roads in this province for long-term environmental considerations. Hopefully, we can coordinate those activities between people desirous of using those roads for different activities. I don't accept that the Crown is liable when these kinds of misunderstandings occur, and I'm very pleased my ministry could assist in trying to come to some resolution.

Madam Chair, I have to leave the chamber momentarily. If the member has further questions, I'm sure my officials will take notes so that I can respond on my hopefully very quick return.

In the meantime, I do believe that Madam Chair would like to make an introduction, so see you in a minute.

The Chair: Hon. members, I wonder if you would join me in welcoming to the House 26 grade 6 honour students, with and adults and parents, who are here from Keller Elementary School in Kirkland, Washington. They are led by their teacher Mr. Condon. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

We'll take a two minute recess.

The committee recessed from 4:12 p.m. to 4:15 p.m.

[ Page 4157 ]

D. Jarvis: I really thank the minister for making the statements he made about the fault: that accidents will happen and all the rest of it. But if I'm driving down the road and by accident I run into you in your car, that doesn't relieve me of the liability; I'm responsible. We're all responsible for our actions.

In this case, the action was that the government -- you -- required the road to be deactivated. Now, the gentleman with the working permit -- to whom your division said: "Yes, you're allowed to go onto that land, do exploration there and put drill sites down" -- went out there and he did that. He was trenching, and did all these things over a period of time -- spent $1.5 million, plus or minus.

The government, the forestry department, said to MacMillan Bloedel, who are also logging on the Crown land in that cut area: "You're now finished logging, so you now must deactivate that road." Now, there is an onus on the government and MacMillan Bloedel to tell that individual that they were going to do that. First of all, that wasn't done; they didn't tell him.

First of all, he went up there and saw that some of his equipment had been damaged. They actually even shot a hole through one of the cabs of one of his pieces of equipment. He told them to cease and desist, stop, that he had the right to be on that mine. Your government's Ministry of Forests employee said: "No, you get off this land; you're not allowed here. My instruction from the government is to deactivate the road."

The onus is still on the government; you can't say it belongs to two private individuals. They came back in again with their equipment -- the forestry department or whoever they had contracted to deactivate the road -- and they caused $1.5 million damage to the drill sites and the trenching, etc., etc. So I say it was not a dispute between two individuals and an accident happened; it was under the instructions of the government. These were the government's rules to deactivate the road, and it was also their instructions to go ahead and do it. And they kicked the miner off that area when he had all the rights to be up there. Your own division -- the department -- said: "Yes, he has the right to be there." So do you still think there's no onus on the part of the government?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I do. I'll respond a little further.

I just want briefly to welcome as well the students from Kirkland, Washington, who are watching this debate. It's kind of timely, since really one of the major developments in our province is the development of the Kemess South mine in northern B.C. It is being done by a company called Royal Oak, which is headquartered in Kirkland, Washington. Peggy Witte, the head of that company, is a very aggressive person in the mining industry. By working in concert with her, we hope that we're going to produce some significant jobs here -- and, obviously, benefits to that company. So you may want to take that message back: we certainly value the working relationship we have with the Royal Oak company.

But, hon. member, really. You've taken some time to outline some of the specific details. I must insist that there is a dispute between the parties and that the government is not culpable in that regard. We've worked in a positive way to assist in a resolution, and that's as it must be.

D. Jarvis: I certainly would hope that the ministry, being an advocate for mining, would give some consideration to it, because it probably will end up in a court case, anyway.

In regards to the class from Kirkland, Washington, I also want to give my congratulations to them. They're having their school taxes paid by businesses that have been taxed so heavily in British Columbia that they have had to leave British Columbia and go south to have a decent regulatory system, a decent taxation system. This government is just driving them all out of this country into other jurisdictions. And we know if it's not Alberta, it's going to be the state of Washington. So I hope that they appreciate the fact that good Canadian firms are paying good taxes to keep them in school and allowing them to come up and look at their poor cousins in Canada.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Yes, sir, there's no beg-your-pardon there. That's an actual fact: what your government is doing is driving businesses out of this province and into other jurisdictions.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, somehow we're able to twist things around, and that's what politics is all about.

Interjections.

D. Jarvis: But it's not me that's doing the twisting. It's yourselves who are doing the twisting. I mean, you've twisted this industry around so badly that $1.8 billion left British Columbia last year to go into other jurisdictions -- in mining alone. As I said earlier, there's $4 billion worth of exploration money in the world, which is ostensibly all Canadian money out there that should have. . . . A portion of that could have come back to British Columbia, but it couldn't come back because there's too much uncertainty here. Seeing that you've now said that you're going to be an advocate for the mining industry, I hope that you're going to do something about it. The whole province is resting on your shoulders.

Now, let's go back to. . . . I've got a few minutes here before I have to go on the. . .program. I want to ask about Kennedy Lake. I had another gentleman call me who has a mineral claim in the Kennedy River area. He says that the government is planning to carry out watershed restoration projects in that area and that the only roads into the area are going to be deactivated. Now, does the minister really believe that this deactivation of roads is going to help the economics of this province? Or is it just for the sake of some group of people, who have said: "Look, that's one way of repairing all the slides that may occur and all the rest of it"? We know the slides and the problems we have with streams and the cuts in the sides of the banks and all the rest of it happen out there, but there is only a certain way. . . .

It's the typical NDP government, the socialist government. It's unbelievable. You know, that pendulum always has to swing to the far left, doesn't it? It takes years before another government can get back in power and put things back to normal so that we can operate properly. Why would you want to deactivate every road in this province that was put in there? It's a waste of taxpayers' money. The taxpayers paid for those roads, and you're deactivating them. It's opened up this country. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, I don't think you can deal with it. I just want to know whether the minister was aware of that situation, and I'll probably be back after dinner.

Hon. D. Miller: Can I respond?

[ Page 4158 ]

D. Jarvis: Oh, sure, by all means, respond.

Hon. D. Miller: Indeed, I must confess to being perplexed, to put it mildly. I really just tried to send a message to the students and teachers here that we value the investment made by an American-based company into British Columbia -- some $400 million that is going to create jobs for the benefit of our citizens. We value that kind of investment from outside into British Columbia. The member wandered off on some tortuous path, and I'd suggest the road he was on ought to be deactivated.

Let me deal with the issue of deactivation briefly and draw on my experience as the Minister of Forests some years ago. I'd be happy to have someone either in my ministry or in Forests provide some briefing relative to the issue of deactivation, because it is quite a serious issue in our province, particularly on the coast. One only has to fly the coast and look at some of the roads that were constructed many years ago to see that a lot of them are suffering the tension failures that accompany roads that were built according to standards years ago that, quite frankly, weren't adequate, either because the basic construction was substandard or the culverting that ought to be in place was not in place. We see those roads failing. When those roads fail, there are slides that wash down mountainsides and hillsides. What that does is take valuable forest land out of production. It means that those lands, some of which have been replanted in the past, some of which may contain seedlings of second-growth timber -- two, three, four metres and higher -- are lost; they're destroyed.

It's prudent, therefore, to consider those roads in our province that are primary access roads, which must be maintained to ensure that they are constructed to good standards. And it's prudent as well to look at roads that are no longer required and to say, "Let's take them out, let's deactivate them and replant them," and get a new crop of trees growing on land that was really unproductive.

That's the primary issue at stake with respect to deactivation. I think all of the other issues that develop are really issues of coordination, so that multiple users of those roads have the opportunity to utilize them in a manner that's appropriate. Occasionally, there are mixups between two competing users. The member tried to get me to say that really it's our fault when those mixups occur, and I'm simply saying that that's not the case. In this particular case, we've moved in to try to offer some assistance, and I think in fact we have. I'm sure the member will read Hansard to get my response to his question.

R. Neufeld: Well, it was an interesting conversation about deactivation of roads and those issues, and I certainly agree with the minister. I have no problem agreeing that on the coast there are some areas where roads need to be deactivated and where we should be planting trees and those kinds of things. But as I think the member brings forward, there are some really critical issues that happen. None of us likes to see it happen, but in fact, I guess it does. It's a fact of life that more difficulties arise because of the deactivation of roads.

It happens in my constituency, too. I've often said that my whole constituency would love more roads -- or even just the roads we have to be fixed up so we can travel on them. So we don't need roads deactivated; we need roads activated. We need some roads in our constituency, so I guess we're exactly opposite to the way they are here on Vancouver Island or along the coast in places. So far we haven't been too successful in getting a lot of roads built or fixed.

[4:30]

So those are the issues around the Forest Practices Code, which I was talking to the minister about earlier, that are quite simple and quite easy to understand and that we should be working on. Maybe the minister would like to comment on that a little bit. It just brings to mind a few things that people have talked to me about. How are we going to deal with that?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm absolutely convinced that the lack of progress in terms of roads has nothing at all to do with representation. [Laughter.]

I did deal with the issue earlier, in terms of the work that we're doing jointly with the mining and petroleum gas sector on the regulations relative to some of these questions. I tend to agree with the member, and the member knows. We've had lots of conversations privately about these kinds of questions. That's the trick: having a regulatory regime that makes sense, that doesn't have one arm of government saying one thing that doesn't really make practical sense and that impacts on another. Those are the issues that you constantly have to work on.

I won't comment on the absolute specifics. But to the degree that we are playing a positive role in working with those other agencies and the industry to try to resolve those, hopefully we can see some progress. So I appreciate the member's position. We've talked briefly about this before, and I would like to think that we can resolve those and avoid this kind of mixup.

R. Neufeld: I'm sure we can. In fact, I had no intention of going back to the issue, but when the minister talked about culverts, it triggered something in my mind that said I should ask him about what takes place in the northeast with culverts.

You gave a speech in Prince George in early April to the Northern Forest Products Association, and you dealt briefly with the oil and gas industry in the northeast. There are two issues that I see here, and I'll just read them: "We are exploring the reduction of regulatory requirements such as the energy removal certificate requirements." That's one issue. Secondly: "We are reducing federal-provincial regulatory duplication."

I know the minister has something that is happening now. A press release was released on June 5 about "Government to Streamline Natural Gas Royalty Price Calculation." I know -- at least, I think -- those are two totally separate issues. Could the minister explain to me, on the first two quotes, what he actually meant and maybe give me a little bit of an update on some of the things that we're doing in regard to the energy removal certificate requirements and the federal-provincial regulatory duplication?

[ Page 4159 ]

Hon. D. Miller: Really, there are some issues around the energy removal certificate. It's not as though we're taking a position that there's no longer any requirement for those certificates. There are under certain circumstances, but there may not be under some circumstances. So we're examining that whole field.

I did deal earlier with the other question on the federal-provincial regulatory duplication. We have an agreement with the federal government. That doesn't in itself. . . . I mean, it can in fact mask the fact that simply because we have an agreement, it does not take away the fact that there might be issues, for example, raised by the DFO. Even though you may have a single process, you still have to deal with some of the issues that might come not from a provincial agency but from a federal agency -- not to get into any technical explanation, because I'm not certain I could give that, but we are working with the industry to simplify our natural gas royalty system. We're doing that together with the industry.

I really tried in the speech I gave, which really had a northern focus, to illustrate the importance of the sector, particularly to northern British Columbia; to illustrate some of the issues that we're working on to try to increase opportunities for employment; and, as well, to indicate that we are prepared to sit down with the industry to look at the regulatory framework -- to simplify it, to eliminate restrictions that may not be required. I think that's the kind of thing that you have to do on a continuous basis, working with a variety of sectors in our province.

R. Neufeld: From this member's point of view. . . . I realize that there are necessary regulations for all industries. I certainly am not so naïve as to think we don't need any. I am appreciative of the fact that the ministry is working with the federal government in trying to reduce the duplication of regulations. I guess "red tape" is the normal term to use. So I'm glad to hear that that's on an ongoing basis and that it's not just at a point in time and then forgotten about.

Another issue in the northeast is the transportation of crude and H2S in high volumes, and whether there is a requirement for scrubbers to be put on the trucks so that we reduce emissions into the air. Because it is associated with your industry, with crude oil, I don't know whether to deal with that issue with the minister for energy and mines or with the Minister of Environment.

I bring it up with you to start with. I'd hate to go to into Environment and have the minister tell me I should have dealt with it with you. Maybe the minister could just help me a little bit there, or let me know if there are some movements towards requiring tankers that transport this product, such as there are in Alberta. . . . They are much more heavily regulated in Alberta, to tell you the truth. They need better scrubbers than we do in British Columbia. It's all to do with air quality and the H2S that's allowed to go into the atmosphere. I think the minister is well aware how dangerous this gas is, and that it's lethal. Just with a small whiff of it straight out of a tanker, you're dead. I wonder if that's within the minister's purview or with the Minister of Environment.

Hon. D. Miller: It is under the Ministry of Environment, but we are involved with working with that ministry and with the industry.

In September 1996 there were new regulations dealing with the issue of discharges. As well, regulation includes emission control strategy for truck transportation of odorous production liquids. There are some regulatory issues around the exemption regulation -- fees and those kinds of questions -- which, I gather, have not been finally concluded. But we are continuing to consult with the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks and industry on the regulation, to formalize administration of it and to determine if amendments may be required.

So for these estimates purposes, that's the extent of the note I have. Obviously, there's a lot more to that in terms of some of the technical questions. I'm not sure if the member wants to pursue that here, or if we could provide some technical advice for the member outside of the estimates process. But it is being worked on.

R. Neufeld: I don't want to get into the technical part of it. I want to know whether we are moving in that direction. I get a lot of complaints about it from people in my constituency, and also from the people who work in the industry and would like to see something done so that we can alleviate this problem as best we can.

On the other side of it, as government makes those decisions, I would hope that they give some time to the industry to be able to adapt to the changes that are required. That's basically my interest in the whole issue. As far as getting technical about it, I'll leave that up to the folks that get technical in that kind of industry.

I understand, from the minister nodding, that there will be some discussions with the industry and that we'll work collectively to try to alleviate the problem, and not do it in a heavy-handed way that may be a hardship for some people to do right away. I think most of the industry wants to clean up, and I think it's just a matter of getting there.

Actually, some of the issues that surround. . . . I'm sure the minister is tired of hearing about some of the things that they do in Alberta to deal with the oil and gas industry. But I think we have to recognize that they have an oil and gas industry that completely dwarfs ours; ours is so small compared to what they have. They dealt with these issues years ago, and I'm told that some of our issues that surround emissions -- H2S and those kinds of things -- are actually quite far behind what takes place in Alberta. I'm not usually standing up here and telling you to put more regulations in place, but I think there are areas that we have to look at collectively. In the interests of all people, especially those who live on farms in the rural areas of the province and have animals and all those kinds of things. . . . So it is an important issue. I understand it's going on, and I'm happy about that.

In dealing with that, I bring to the attention of the minister the issue of Kaiser Energy and their sour gas proposal, just out of Fort St. John, and all the concerns that we've had from people that live out there. The minister is also aware that there are some issues on the Blueberry reserve in regard to sour gas. We've had some discussions about how we go about trying to rectify what has transpired and how we can look at it in the future. I'll just leave it there, and maybe the minister can update me on what's taking place within the ministry, and how we deal with land sales that are close to a populated area, and those kinds of things. Maybe he has already started something that I can go on from.

Hon. D. Miller: The primary concern, in terms of our process -- and ultimately in decision-making -- is the safety of the residents in the region of the community in proximity to the proposed well. 

[ Page 4160 ]

As I have indicated in public statements in the past, while we did sell that property, the sale of the property in no way suggests that it was an automatic approval of authority to drill, and there is an ongoing process. As I have said -- and I'll say it publicly to the member -- any advice that he wishes to give on this question will be listened to very carefully. So I'm open, hon. member, for anything that you may wish to advise us on with respect to the approval process.

[4:45]

It is kind of interesting to note that the ministry's policies and guidelines regarding sour gas wells near residential developments are based on a considerable amount of work and study carried out in Alberta since the late 1970s involving experts from the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board, the industry, the health sector, academia, government and the public. Of course, that work in Alberta has resulted in the establishment of standards and practices for locating, drilling and operating sour wells near urban centres, and objectively appears to represent the best knowledge and thinking on those issues.

Those are the standards we adopted, so here's a case where we. . . . The member is right. The size of our industry relative to Alberta is like the elephant and the mouse. We took the best thinking on that question from Alberta and applied it to British Columbia. Even with that, you still develop these individual situations that you have to deal with, and the Kaiser proposal is one of those situations. So if the member has any advice on that question, we are very interested in hearing it, and our decision will be made with the primary consideration being the safety of the residents involved.

R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's response. I'm not going to get into the political end of it, but the minister says that what we adopted in British Columbia is what they do in Alberta, but not according to Kaiser Energy, which is the proponent of the well. There are some distinct differences -- some things that the oil industry has to go through in Alberta that they don't have to in British Columbia. I'll just bring one of them to the minister's attention, and that is that anyone who lives within the vicinity of a proposed or existing sour gas well, or anything that has to do with the production of sour gas, can lay a concern. That has to then be heard before the Energy and Utilities Board, and they make the decision on whether it happens or not. In British Columbia, it's only if you're a landowner; it's not the citizenry. So to be honest, Kaiser is going further than they really have to in British Columbia by including the citizens that live around there. So they've been responsible. I'm certainly not indicating that they haven't been responsible. In fact, they've gone the extra mile with that particular part of the regulation.

What I'm talking about is that this one issue. . . . I think the last letter I got was one from the school district. I think the minister got the same one -- from about 1,500 school children downwind from this site. I think that what we should do -- and I'm certainly not trying to say there's a magic answer to any of this. . . . I think it's a matter of some education for everyone, us included; but the people in the north should understand what the regulations are, what really happens. I think as the north gets populated more and more all the time, that's just something that we're going to have to look to.

When you look at what you went through to drill a couple of wells in the Fraser Valley compared to what you go through to drill wells in the northeast, there's just absolutely no comparison. It's because there's a heavy population of people that feel they don't want to be infringed on for whatever reason, whether it's well water, whether it's noise, whether it's a blow-out -- whatever. Those are actual concerns. The ministry did go through a prolonged process of dealing with the two wells that were drilled in the Fraser Valley, and I'm certainly not indicating that we should do that with every well in the northeast. But I think that what we have to do -- because it is getting more populated; not just in the urban centres, but in the rural areas -- is start looking at some process where we start gathering some information from people. I'm talking specifically about the farmers that live out there, or those that live in rural residential neighbourhoods. We have to start coordinating the land sales where those people are settling. The ministry will know, or the industry knows, almost exactly what they're going to hit down below. They don't always, but they have a pretty good idea -- such as this, of course, with the sour gas. We have to start doing that, so we can set up. . .I don't know if it's some regulations, but some educational information stuff, so that people understand.

I have people in the agricultural industry coming to me and talking to me about how it's affecting their animals, because there are all kinds of sour gas wells on their land. They have no authority to say: "No, we can't do it." The ministry sells the right, and if you don't agree to it, arbitration comes in and the well is drilled. That's exactly how it happens -- some of them right close to their homes.

All I'm saying is no, we don't want to stop the drilling, but I think an educational process and a gathering of information from those people, before we start selling land right close to where a lot of people live -- specifically like this piece of land. . . . I certainly wouldn't want to say that it was wrong for the ministry to sell the land; I would think that they did it with the best intention. No one expected what would happen, either. All I'm saying is that we can try and get more prepared to deal with issues such as this, instead of the way we're trying to deal with it now. I don't think there's any magical way, but I think there is probably a better way than how we're trying to deal with it now. Maybe the minister could respond to that.

Hon. D. Miller: Really, I'm not certain. We certainly need to continue to do what we can to inform the public, to make people aware. I think the member has made a very interesting little statement -- the issue of urbanization and the collision that often occurs between competing interests on the land.

Surely, if one takes that to a broader context and looks at our total land base and the tensions that are often created by competing uses of the land, he's really dealing with that in a microcosm -- dealing with an issue of drilling versus the perceived impact on local residents. He's captured, in that summation, the broader issues of land use. We see them every day in this province -- well, maybe not every day, but fairly frequently. Whether it's the increasing urbanization in the Fraser Valley, the impact -- interface seems to be a common word -- between agriculture and residential. . . . There's a mushroom case, I think, that's been swirling around for some 

[ Page 4161 ]

time in terms of some of the odorous by-products of agricultural production. Those are the land use challenges -- whether they be here or in other jurisdictions -- which we are trying to deal with in the best way we can.

We are open to ideas in terms of how we might offer broader public explanations of the process. We do have, I think, a very good one; we've adopted it primarily from a jurisdiction that has lots of experience. Primary to any consideration is the issue of public safety.

I'll just close by saying that if the member has specific recommendations relative to the Kaiser situation, I'd be happy to receive them.

R. Neufeld: Further to that, I'm not going to go any further. I just want to make one comment -- and, I think, probably fairly so -- from the people that live in the northeast.

The oil and gas industry is huge in northeast British Columbia. Like I say, it's small compared to Alberta, but it contributes a huge amount of revenue -- the minister confirmed that -- to the province of British Columbia. It employs a huge amount of people. They're the types of jobs that the minister talked about in the mining industry -- the $70,000-a-year-plus jobs.

Those are the kinds of jobs we're talking about in the oil and gas industry, yet I relate it to people trying to get to school, and getting school buses stuck on the roads. The deplorable state of the infrastructure in the northeast -- it's absolutely deplorable what people have to drive on. . . . It's not just the oil and gas industry that uses those roads; it's the forest industry, it's the agricultural industry -- all of them. Yet we can't seem to get anywhere. When the industry's on a curve up, we can't seem to get any return to speak of -- I shouldn't say any, but a substantial amount of money into the infrastructure so that folks can enjoy even a few of the things that they do down here.

I think that's probably some of the underlying movement from the agricultural industry. I mean, they beat their vehicles to death driving back and forth on those roads, and they are getting beaten to death because of the forestry and the oil and gas industry. And they say: "Why do we do this? Why do we have all this smelly stuff beside my house here? I can't get to drive on a decent road." And I guess that's part of it. What they're saying, finally, is that all of that money keeps going south. And I know it comes back in the form of education and health, but I guess it's almost like the "have provinces." There's more coming down than ever goes back. That's probably the underlying current there with some of the people who are asking: "Why should we continue to do that?"

But while we're talking about the issue of land use, there's a review of the Mediation and Arbitration Board. I just wonder if it's completed. I haven't heard anything. Has it been changed? Where are we with that review?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the review was completed. I'll ensure that the member, if he doesn't have a copy, is forwarded a copy. There are 33 recommendations for change, and that report and our response to the recommendations have been provided to stakeholders. We're looking at implementation of some of the review recommendations. Some of those may be constrained by budget resources, and we will, I think, be working for some time on an ongoing basis. But we are moving on one of the most significant recommendations, and that's the hiring of an administrator to manage the day-to-day board operations. The board, in essence, didn't have any staff, and recruitment ads have been placed and, hopefully, we'll have someone on that job shortly. So I'll forward a copy of the review and the recommendations to the member. We are moving forward to implement some of those recommendations.

R. Neufeld: I couldn't hear you at the end. Are you saying that you're going to take all the recommendations that were made and proceed with them?

Hon. D. Miller: I think I intended to qualify. I said: "Some." I can't give it an exact breakdown. I also indicated that our ability to move forward is, practically speaking, contingent on budget resources. Notwithstanding that, we are moving forward. The most significant thing, I think, is the fact that we've had this board without staff, and we are prepared to provide the resources so that a full-time administrator can be hired who will work on those other issues. I don't have a breakdown of the 33 recommendations, but we'll forward a copy of the review recommendations -- and our position on those recommendations -- to the member.

R. Neufeld: I thank you for that. I'll get a copy of the review and the recommendations that you're going to implement and the ones that you're having some difficulty with. I understand that.

Going back a bit to issues surrounding competitiveness with Alberta in the northeast, the minister alluded. . . . We did talk a bit about it yesterday. I just want to go a little further into it, because it has to do with the oil and gas industry specifically; but later on I have some other information that I want to bring forward about interprovincial trade and trade barriers.

This one is a report that came to my colleague from Peace River South from the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, CAODC. I'll just read into the record who they are and what they do. The minister is aware, but I want to put it in the record.

"The CAODC is a trade association representing the drilling and well servicing industry in Canada. Our membership includes 100 percent of the 37 land-based drilling contractors, who field a fleet of 488 rigs, and 58 service rig members operating a total of 668 service rigs, accounting for approximately 95 percent of the Canadian service rigs."

[5:00]

Before I go any further into dealing with a couple of them in greater detail, I'm just wondering if the minister has any comments on some of that information I just gave out.

Hon. D. Miller: There are indeed differences between Alberta employment standards and our own, particularly relative 

[ Page 4162 ]

to the issue of overtime hours of work. While there was a variance in effect previously, when the new employment standards -- which I was the minister responsible for -- were brought in, that was not maintained. I understand there is a process underway now in terms of seeking a variance. That's an established process under the Employment Standards Act, so I can't prejudge any application that might be made. The requirements in B.C. are that when people seek a variance from a provision of the Employment Standards Act, it can't simply be one that comes from the employer but rather must be supported by the employees as well. The reasons for that are fairly obvious.

Beyond that, I don't have any numbers. I was reading not that long ago about the companies engaged primarily in the drilling aspect, and my understanding is that they are doing very, very well. Many of those companies are listed on the Alberta exchange. I think the article that I read referred to the fact that their share value has been increasing fairly dramatically. In other words, from an objective, economic point of view, standing back, it appears that people in the business are enjoying -- no doubt due to the increased drilling activity -- some very, very good returns, which are reflected in the increased share prices that the market establishes on those exchanges.

That's not to suggest that there aren't some difficulties, and the member did distinguish between the drilling and the service side of things. Can we ever have complete harmony in a cross-border situation? I doubt it. There will always be some differences that exist between administrations, and I'm sure that whether we're looking north or south or east, you will sometimes find differences in the regulatory regimes of different jurisdictions. You can't always simply harmonize on the border.

I hope the member appreciates what I'm saying. It's not that I'm insensitive to the issues. I am simply saying that when you establish a regulatory regime, you do it on balance for the entire province, and it would be a bit unique to have a different regulatory regime running on a thin line along the border of any particular province or state. I am not aware that there is any state in North America that does that. So there is a process to apply for variances that is underway under the purview of the Minister of Labour, and I can't prejudge the outcome of that.

R. Neufeld: Certainly, when you look at the Alberta Stock Exchange, many of those companies that do explore in British Columbia are doing quite well. I think you have to take into account that it's not just the British Columbia end of it that always makes the picture look so rosy. There's a whole bunch of work going on in Saskatchewan, Alberta, the Northwest Territories and so on. So although it is doing well, it encompasses other jurisdictions that are huge compared to ours.

But the one issue we did deal with briefly. . . . The minister says there is no jurisdiction that has a regulation that's specific to an area, and I disagree. There was, and it was the variance that the industry in the northeast used to enjoy. There was a specific difference. It was your government that changed it.

In fact, the CAODC says that the employment standards legislation -- if it's enforced the way it is now, and I know there are some talks going on at the present time -- will increase the cost of operating rigs in B.C. by $245 a day, or 7 percent. And sometimes when you include that with all the other costs that are much higher, I think it does have an effect on some companies coming to British Columbia to drill for oil and gas.

So I think it is probably a serious issue, and I think I want to go into it a little bit more at a later time on interprovincial trade and trade barriers. But this is specifically from an association that represents the whole drilling industry in all of Canada -- 98 percent of it.

There are some substantial cost increases in relation to British Columbia. Everybody expects and knows that it's going to cost a bit more; but as we as government continue to put things into place that increase their costs, I think there is a diminishing effect. At some point in time they'll say: "Well, is it really worth it or not?" I'm sure that happens in some cases, and that happens with some of the companies we have in British Columbia that move out of British Columbia. And that employment is gone. I go back to the minister's address that he made in April: "The oil and gas sector supports our vision for new jobs." I appreciate that -- I do. That's all I'm talking about. I'm trying to get us to be able to keep those jobs here.

These are serious issues. It's not just employment standards; it's vehicle compliance, WCB requirements -- the list goes on and on. If the minister doesn't have a summary of these costs or of this presentation that was made to us, I'll certainly make it available to him so that he can see some of the information I've been given by the industry and how they can try to deal with these issues.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm quite prepared to look at that material. In fact, tomorrow night, I believe, I've got a brief meeting with some CAPP representatives.

But you know, I want to stand up here as a British Columbian and say: let's not get too captured by an issue that's described by the companies involved in this business. It's not that you dismiss that; but surely, in looking at decision-making, you try to reflect a balance of interests.

We have an Employment Standards Act here. It's a primary act that deals with the basic, minimum standards available to employees in this province. It says that you work a certain number of hours, and you work over that, you're entitled to some overtime. That's pretty straightforward. But the member seems to take the position that because a neighbouring jurisdiction doesn't have that, somehow we should simply relax it. Why don't you go into Alberta and campaign for the Alberta government to come up to our standard? Why is the argument always that we have to go down to the lower standard? I don't accept that. I don't accept that for a moment.

Let's look at the sector you're talking about. They are doing very nicely. One always has to consider the state of industry in arriving at decision-making. One has to be sensitive to that in terms of the broader regulatory and tax regime. They're making money. Quite frankly, I'm not going to get overly upset about their circumstances. All it requires is that when you work in B.C., you've got to follow certain things. And they're working in B.C. People are employed in B.C. We talked about the $1.7 billion. We talked about the share value of some of these companies. They're here and they're working.

We've got some issues, quite frankly, that bother me. We can't chase somebody across the border, and I think that's terrible. If somebody comes into B.C. to work, they follow our laws. That's the way the law works. And if they think that they can come into B.C., break our laws, flee across the border 

[ Page 4163 ]

and then return with impunity, then maybe we ought to look at that. Maybe we ought to say: "I'm sorry, but we've got a problem. Before you come back to B.C., there may be some penalties." I just raise that off the top -- if indeed that's happening and you can nail that down.

So I'm quite prepared to look at protecting the interests of British Columbians in those kinds of circumstances, but I'm not going to get overly concerned about issues of differences in the employment standards regimes of our two jurisdictions.

I'm also aware and that member is aware that going back in history, lots of those businesses fled British Columbia, fled Fort St. John, back in the eighties when those variances were in place. The member knows this. They made a decision to leave British Columbia, even though we had done what the member is now asking us to do again. They took off. They left. So where is the commitment?

I sit down and deal with the Canadian Petroleum Association -- I also have a very good relationship with CAPP and others -- and will continue to do that. That doesn't mean that I agree with every single thing they say.

I'm proud to say, as a member of this government, that we've got a good Employment Standards Act. It provides those kinds of protections and an ability to fine-tune that through variances, where we get both the employers and the employees coming forward requesting that. That's a process that we don't involve ourselves in politically. That's a defined process under the act, and it will remain that way. So it's in the process now. We'll see the outcome.

I don't want to get too heated here, but the member has made some points on behalf of his constituency. I appreciate that. He knows the kind of work I'm prepared to do in terms of trying to enhance economic opportunities and job creation in the northeast sector. So, hopefully, this is not something that we go to the wall on or that is seen as the single impediment to creating what I think both of us would like to create up there.

R. Neufeld: I certainly don't want to get the minister perplexed, either. I'm not here to do that. I realize he's getting a little closer to it, but I guess it's almost suppertime.

The decision-making process is not just coming from the employers, and that's a problem that the minister is having here: there are employees that come to me. The minister shakes his head, but I think he's been around long enough to know that when folks go out to work on a camp job, they don't want to work eight or nine hours a day in a camp and spend the rest of the time watching the TV set while they're away from home and their families for three weeks at a time. They specifically go out to the bush to make some money. That's exactly what they do. They go out there to do that, and then they come home and spend some time with their families. That's how it works. So it's employees. The minister is entirely wrong. There are a whole lot of employees that are pretty upset, because some of them are going to be losing their jobs, and I don't think that's fair.

To relate it to the 1980s, when industry fled B.C. . . . My goodness. I mean, the bottom fell right out of the market. What did you expect them to do? I think we felt those kinds of things all over the province, and the minister knows that full well. Employment standards didn't have anything to do with the issue; it was prices. It was the ability to sell, and that's what it had a lot to do with. It was not at all that. . . . They are Calgary-based companies, after all.

[5:15]

Hon. D. Miller: They do.

R. Neufeld: No, they don't. Well, if they do have to, they don't do it. That's just a fact of life. In fact, that's the hard, cruel world out there, my friend, and that's how it works. You've been out there long enough; you ought to know that that's exactly what happens.

In fact, the member who sits across the way -- I forget his constituency -- went up to the northeast and did a study on what's taking place in the trucking industry. If the minister doesn't have a copy of that report, I'll make that available to him. That came from his own party. The member for Malahat-Juan de Fuca said that the cost of doing business in British Columbia is 15 percent higher than in Alberta. That's why they're having trouble competing, and that's all I'm telling the minister. Before we even take into account that the labour standards are changing, there's already a 15 percent disadvantage to British Columbia companies and to men and women that work for British Columbia companies to compete against those folks from just across the line.

You can shake your head and say no. You've obviously been down here too long. You've got to go up there and have a look around. You've got to understand the business a little bit more. And I'm sure the minister does. I mean, I've had too many conversations with the minister not to know that he understands what I'm saying.

Those are the issues; those are the things that I'm trying to get across to the minister. So be it. If double time applies to everyone, so be it. Everybody will pay it. But it doesn't. That's the hard, cruel world, and that's what happens. And that's why companies will move out of British Columbia. That's why there's more happening across the border -- Alberta competing in northeastern British Columbia. That's what I'm trying to tell the minister.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm pleased. I think I actually detected the member saying somewhere in there that there's nothing wrong. I've worked in camps; I've worked in those circumstances. I know what it's like, right? But I also know that if you're entitled to overtime commissions. . . . If, for example, you're working in camp, sometimes you're a seasonal worker. You don't work year-round; you've got to make it during the season. Often it's hard, brutal work, and you're away from your family. And you've got to make your full year's wages during that sometimes short season.

Then you've got those overtime provisions, and you're entitled to get paid what the law says. If the member knows of companies in Alberta which think they can come into B.C. and break the law, then I want to know about it. And if our laws and our regulatory regime are not strong enough, then maybe 

[ Page 4164 ]

we ought to look at strengthening them. If some company thinks it can come into our province and not follow the employment standards, not pay people what they're entitled to, duck out across the border, keep coming back and forth, and nothing's going to happen -- well, they should start thinking again. So if you've got information, give it to me. If you can name specific companies that have done that, give it to me. If you've got individuals who haven't been paid, give that to me, and I'll follow it up.

But there's nothing wrong with people getting a decent rate of pay for that kind of work, particularly the work that's done up there in the oil and gas patch. It's very hard, dirty work, and they're entitled to what they're entitled to under the Employment Standards Act of British Columbia.

R. Neufeld: Well, I'll supply you with some of the information. I mean, there's no way that I as an individual will know all of the companies that do that -- but they all do. It's guaranteed that when they're based out of Alberta, they come in. . . . In fact, your colleague the Minister of Labour did confirm that there is no authority within British Columbia to check the payroll records of any company in Alberta that operates in British Columbia. There is absolutely no way that you can do it; there's no way you can enforce it. You have nothing in place so that you can do it. The only way you can do it is if someone from Alberta, an employee, complains. Well, that's about as good a chance as. . . . I guess I shouldn't use the term, and I won't. It just wouldn't work. Someone that's happily working for a company in Alberta, and has been for five or six years, isn't going to come to British Columbia for three weeks, go back home and complain about that employer. That just isn't going to happen.

So in fact there are some difficult issues. I know this is getting a bit out of the minister's purview, but it has to do with jobs, and it is a serious issue. I want to see people employed in British Columbia. I want to see them making good money in British Columbia. I want to see young people in Fort St. John and Dawson Creek and Fort Nelson be able to make their livelihoods working in the oil and gas industry in British Columbia. I don't want to see them moving south. I don't want to see them losing their jobs and someone else coming in to take them. And that's where I'm coming from. It's not a bent of supporting one or the other. It's to maintain the industry that we have in British Columbia so that it's vibrant and buoyant and we continue to supply the employment we can, and so that people can make a darn good living and be able to survive in British Columbia. That's what I'm talking about. And right now we're putting roadblocks in the path of being able to get to that.

I'll leave that issue for a later time, when I'll have some more information for the minister. I see the Minister of Environment in the House, also. This is an issue that I guess touches on both your ministries, and again, it's one where I don't know who has the responsibility. I think it's the Ministry of Environment, but the minister of energy and mines should know because it's under the purview of energy and mines. That's gravel extraction. I have a number of people in my constituency, specifically in Fort Nelson, that have some gravel-extraction plants on river bottoms and have had their permits cancelled. As they come up for renewal, they're cancelled. The reason given is that DFO has come through with a new plan that you cannot mine gravel below the floodplain. Well, the difficulty with that in the northeast is that there's not much gravel; in fact, we're out of gravel. As we continue to do this kind of thing, we just eliminate and eliminate and eliminate gravel access. In Fort Nelson it's a little bit different than down here, where you just go in and you crush a mountain and then you've got all the gravel you need, whatever size you want. Or you go into the hillsides and get it. In the north, where we have all the muskeg, the gravel is all located in river bottoms. They don't go into the river and dig it, but it's all in the banks. So it is a serious issue. I know it is, because the Ministry of Transportation and Highways has informed me that they don't have enough gravel to put one inch of gravel on all the roads in the northeast. They don't have enough to do it because everything's locked out.

I just wonder if there's something that we can do through your ministry, working with the Environment ministry. . . . Maybe I should deal with it totally through the Environment ministry. But maybe you could give me some ideas about how we can deal with this issue so that people can have some gravel in the northeast for the roads -- or, basically, what's left of them.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the issue does reside with the Ministry of Environment, and hopefully, the member may want to pursue that. We are involved, obviously. My officials advise me that there has been some look at alternative uses -- clay binders, for example -- to reduce the reliance on gravel.

I was also interested in an observation one of my officials passed on to me with respect to employment opportunities in the northeast of British Columbia, and this is just one illustration. An advertisement was placed for a oil and gas engineer with five years' experience to locate in the northeast -- I think in Fort St. John. The offered salary: $150,000 per year. No applicants.

I'm not trying to say that there's lots of jobs going begging, but I'm just trying to illustrate that in fact there are opportunities there. I know there are opportunities in terms of employment in the northeast. Quite often we find that people in cities seem reluctant to move there, but that doesn't mean that those opportunities don't exist.

We are also working with the Northern Lights College, and I think this is important. I also believe -- and I'm sure the member would agree -- that to the extent that you can provide those opportunities for people who live in the region who may lack specific skills, but where there are jobs available, then working with the local college to put on training courses to give those opportunities to local residents is also important. We'll continue to work on that. But the issue of the gravel is not in my purview.

R. Neufeld: I will take that up with the Minister of Environment.

I only have one comment left about the $150,000-a-year job in Fort St. John that had no applicants. I don't know whether there is one or not, but it makes me wonder what I'm doing here sometimes, when there are those jobs out there that one could go back to. But just because there were no applicants for a $150,000-a-year job, which had probably some pretty stiff qualifications, doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about all the other people that work in the northeast that maybe don't need those same qualifications, that work a little further down the chain, but that are just as important to our whole economy.

I can only relate that to your government having to advertise Canada-wide here, just recently. In fact, I have all the advertisements in my office, where you've spent probably thousands of dollars -- maybe even hundreds of thousands of dollars -- advertising Canada-wide for employees to move to Victoria, of all places, to replace those people that took early retirement. 

[ Page 4165 ]

So obviously there are some people in British Columbia that don't respond to advertisements for jobs right here in what they call Lotusland. So I guess it's acceptable, then, that we have the odd job in the northeast that's not applied for, also.

C. Hansen: I want to ask the minister about the marketing of natural gas in British Columbia. I'm just wondering, given changes that have happened in that industry recently -- certainly the volumes of gas that are being marketed are appropriate -- if he's comfortable with the mechanisms and the vehicles that are there to make sure that B.C.'s gas is effectively marketed throughout North America.

Hon. D. Miller: I would say yes. Certainly the issue of marketing is the primary responsibility of the industry itself. There are some proposals that are currently on the drawing board. Alliance Pipeline is one that I mentioned, and the southern crossing. . . . The member may have read about a B.C. Gas proposal for the southern crossing, which may have the potential to increase both market opportunities and price. That's something that I think is positive. It is a North American play, and we are trying to work with the Pac-Rim LNG people to see whether or not it is feasible to develop offshore sales for British Columbia gas. But really, the final story isn't in on that one. We wish them well.

The Premier, in fact, played a very positive role. These aren't my words; these were the principals of Pac-Rim talking to me about the role the Premier played in Korea with Korea Gas and about the kind of support the Premier lent to that project, which I think was quite critical for the company in terms of advancing the project. We'll see where that ends up at the end of the day.

I think all the people that I've talked to. . . . I've had some meetings over the last month with some of the players in the gas business -- obviously the two significant companies, Westcoast Gas and B.C. Gas. I also had the opportunity to spend a day in Calgary last year meeting with some of the principal players in the gas business. It's been generally buoyant; prices have been fairly positive. You can see that the interest on the investment side has increased. That shows up in the kind of receipts we get on the sale of drilling rights. So that's kind of an overview. I don't know if the member has more specific questions, but I'd be pleased to try to answer them.

[5:30]

Hon. D. Miller: At this point we don't have any. I'm just now trying to recall the specifics. That was set up at the dissolution of B.C. Petroleum Corporation. It was a marketing entity; it was not doing particularly well. I believe their view was that they should locate in Calgary. We had a position on the board -- I think that was the circumstance -- and we're essentially out of that now. It was my view that there was no useful purpose served for us to retain any interest in that, and that's the current state of play. I thought we might have a note on it, but that's a broad recollection of the circumstances that took place in the not too distant past.

C. Hansen: My understanding is that the government was holding preferred shares in CanWest Gas until very recently, and I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the reasons why that interest was divested and what the terms and conditions were of that arrangement.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised that we had what's referred to as a golden share, which gave us a board member and a voice on the board. I think that was set up primarily to retain the company within B.C. But given the correspondence that came to me from the organization, I acceded to their request. They wanted to move to Calgary. They felt that from a marketing point of view, that would be a better location, and I didn't have any problem with it. So we've essentially severed our relationship.

C. Hansen: I wonder if the minister could elaborate on the reasons why the company decided to move their operations to Calgary.

Hon. D. Miller: From their point of view it was more advantageous. They're a marketer of producer gas; that's where the producers are. It seemed to make sense from a business point of view, and I didn't disagree.

C. Hansen: Actually, going back to the debate in 1990 when this Natural Gas Price Amendment Act was brought in establishing CanWest Gas. . . . To quote the minister of the day, the Hon. Jack Davis said that the head office of CanWest must be located in British Columbia and must have a majority of B.C. directors -- in other words, must be a B.C. company. And that was considered to be an important factor in 1990, in the interests of B.C. having a stake -- a foothold, let's say -- in the marketing of natural gas. I'm wondering which factors the minister sees as having changed in the last seven years that now make that not as important to B.C. gas producers.

Hon. D. Miller: Deregulation. The industry is entirely different today than it was in 1990 in terms of regulatory framework -- entirely different. So for the reasons I've cited. . . . If they're a marketer, it seems to me. . . . Why would government try to hamstring a marketer from being as successful as they possibly could? Their view was that being located where the producers were located gave them more of an advantage, and I certainly couldn't disagree with that contention.

D. Jarvis: I'm not going to belabour that aspect very much more, but on CanWest, Mr. Minister, I believe that at least 50 percent of all their suppliers -- and maybe now more, maybe a higher percentage -- were British Columbians. So I don't know why we would let go of those E shares that we had -- the golden share -- to allow them to take their business into Alberta. You're simply saying that if anyone wants to move, they can move regardless of what effect it has on us as British Columbians.

Hon. D. Miller: No, that's not what I said. What I said was that if they were marketers of gas -- B.C. gas -- one would hopefully want to have them be as efficient as possible so that they could indeed do a good job of marketing B.C. gas. I presume that's how one would run a business, and therefore 

[ Page 4166 ]

it seems entirely reasonable. Given that there has been a massive deregulation in the gas industry and less of a requirement for government to take those kinds of roles, it made some sense. Now, I could be wrong, but if I were to talk to anybody in the private sector, I'd be willing to make a bet -- even though I'm not a gambling man -- that they would support the position I'm taking. If you can give me a rational free-enterprise argument against that, then I'd be happy to hear it.

D. Jarvis: Well, unfortunately the subject came up, and I don't have my file on it. But it seems to me that there was no benefit to British Columbians, but there was a benefit to British Columbians as long as we held their shares and had their company here in British Columbia.

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Well, as I said, I don't have that information, but you know, you shake your head on everything that's suggested to you anyway, so you're not getting anywhere. . . .

Interjection.

D. Jarvis: Madam Chair, who is that gentleman?

I just had a few more questions to ask you. Then probably we could close for dinner, and you could let your assistants go. You brought up a statement earlier. . . .

The Chair: Hon. member, may I just remind you -- I know you're aware of this -- that you address the minister through the Chair.

D. Jarvis: I shall do that.

The Chair: The use of the second person singular is not permitted here.

D. Jarvis: As I was saying, Madam Chair, through you to the minister. . . . That gave me a thought to think of something else.

Just quickly on a couple of mining questions, and then I'll have one energy question to ask you, and I'll let you go. It's in regard to a northern strategy. Is there such a thing as a northern strategy in the mineral division of your ministry? And if so, could you give me some of your thoughts on it?

Hon. D. Miller: I did make a speech. One of the members referred to a speech I gave to the Northern Forest Products Association annual convention a short while ago, and there was an item in the throne speech that dealt with the development of regions in the province. We are currently working -- so far it's more internal than external -- to develop a work plan for a Premier's summit on northern development.

The time is really long overdue for this kind of approach to some of our regions. By focusing on the north we're not intending to ignore other discrete regions of the province, but rather we think that that's not a bad place to start, given some of the economic circumstances that we've got to deal with.

The member for Peace River North has spoken very ably about the region he represents, the kinds of benefits it produces to the province as a whole. I'm aware of that as a member representing the western side of the north, an area that's fairly resource-rich and produces significant wealth and economic benefits but because of a variety of factors -- the immense geography -- has some difficulties on the service side. We've tried to make some improvements there. There has never been a broad regional look in terms of how we might develop the economy.

My view of economic development is that certainly the provincial government and other governments have a role to play but that there has to be established, if you like, a broader-based vision of the potential. The only way you can do that successfully is to engage the people who live there.

Our fundamental notion about this economic forum could be modelled on some of the very successful forums held by the previous Premier, Mr. Harcourt. Some of those forums led to specific program development. The Skills Now program, for example, came out of the Premier's Summit on Skills Development and Training. There were some very good forums dealing with broader economic questions.

What we envisage is to bring together people from across the north, from a cross-section of the kind of interests one would normally find -- the business sector, the municipal leadership, aboriginal leadership, others -- to engage them in a bit of a focused discussion around some of the potential for increased economic development in our northern region.

It is important -- and every government has to be aware of this, given the historical developments of our country -- that the preponderance of development has taken place across a fairly narrow ribbon adjacent to the U.S. border. We see in British Columbia tremendous increases in the population base, that kind of growth. We're grappling, in many respects, with growth issues as opposed to fundamental service issues. The challenge is to maintain the ability to serve in the face of that kind of growth.

The north has also been impacted by some decisions that were taken outside of British Columbia. It's clear to me that the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act has had a material impact on the use of the northern rail transportation corridor. It has had an impact on the continued viability of the grain terminal facility in Prince Rupert.

One of the consequences of the elimination of that act, which no one at the federal level challenged, was the elimination of what was called an equalization formula. Even though the railway-equivalent mileage -- I can't remember the point of origin that's used to determine this -- to the port of Prince Rupert was considered to be equal to the railway-equivalent mileage to the port of Vancouver, when it came to the application of freight rates, you can see there was some equity. That was eliminated by the federal Liberal government with the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act and the Crow rate. Just like that, therefore, that northern terminal had a competitive disadvantage in terms of the cost of actually getting the commodity to the terminal.

It is abysmal, really, that this could happen, that there was no care and attention paid by the authors of that legislation. That has led to the description of the northern terminal -- in their own words and in the words of the northern transportation task force -- as being a marginal terminal to Vancouver, an overflow terminal to Vancouver.

Well, I'll tell you that that's not good enough. We've got, I think, far more potential in terms of our ability to turn ships around. We're a day, a day and a half closer to some of the markets that we serve. The entire grain transportation structure in this country is byzantine. It works against the interests, quite frankly, of producers. It works against the interests of 

[ Page 4167 ]

west coast ports. What we're trying to do in developing a strategy is ask: "Well, even though we don't control all these things -- we don't control the wheat board and a number of those kinds of issues -- what can we do to make things better?" We have a good transportation network in the north. It's not being utilized in an appropriate way, in my view. So let's use that in a better way.

I would recommend, if the members have seen -- maybe they haven't -- the latest issue of the "Lynch Report," the May issue. It does contain two articles relative to both the broader issue of northern development and a specific reference to a meeting that I held with the Alberta Minister of Transportation, Walter Paszkowski, and our engaging of the two governments to work together on what seems to me an obvious issue. That is -- and I spoke about this in the House yesterday -- whether we can capture more of the Peace River grain by utilizing the existing transportation infrastructure through the kind of changes that my colleague the Minister of Transportation has introduced in terms of expanding the trucking radius for the trucking of grain to gathering points, switching from B.C. Rail to CN Rail. I think the answer is obvious and the answer is yes. The minister from Alberta says he agrees with me; I agree with him. We are now working together and again we spoke of the need to. . . .

[5:45]

Hon. D. Miller: No, no. You have to work with. . . . Sometimes you don't always agree on every issue. You have to work where there's common cause. And when there's common economic cause, we're working together, my friend. And the potential. . . .

I am very pleased to listen to the agricultural people from the Peace who were down in my office recently, telling me that as a result of the kind of issue my colleague the Minister of Transportation is undertaking and the initiatives we are undertaking, there is actually a potential for a malt or barley plant in Dawson Creek. The member shakes his head. Which one is it? Malt or barley?

An Hon. Member: Malt.

Hon. D. Miller: Malt. That means jobs for northern British Columbians, and I'm delighted that we're going to. . . .

There are many other issues. Clearly mining, in my view, has a significant potential in northern British Columbia. By bringing people together, I think there is a better understanding created about that potential and the benefits that can flow to the north just by the fact of bringing people together from this vast region up in the northeast, out to the west coast. They quite often don't relate to each other, don't get a chance to sit down together to discuss these common issues and to let people know that they are linked, that what happens in the northeast has an impact on the northwest.

Now, that's obviously just a broad overview of what we're contemplating. We've also had some discussions with other jurisdictions. I spoke about the Yukon recently. There are ongoing initiatives for the northern countries, the northern circle beyond Canada, going into the former Soviet Union and some of the other Nordic countries for some type of conference with those leaders and to have a particularly northern focus on issues. I'm all in favour of that. We contemplate perhaps inviting representatives from some of these jurisdictions to attend this forum, again bringing people together.

It's a fairly ambitious undertaking. It's one that hasn't been tried in the past, one that I think has huge potential. I am very pleased, when I do discuss this with individuals -- municipal representatives, for example. . . . I've talked to a number of the mayors; they are very enthusiastic. I've talked to the president of the northern university, UNBC. They want to play a key role. I've talked to the major sectors: the gas sector, Westcoast and others. They want to play a role. Aboriginal representatives have expressed strong and keen interest in being participants in this kind of forum.

So that's the kind of planning we're doing. We hope to have specific announcements once the framework is put together. We have a reference group with representatives across the north, a broad cross-section of interests to advise us as we build our plans. I hope that the northern members, regardless of their political stripe, would want to participate -- they will receive invitations -- and take part in the kind of discussions that I hope will culminate, if it's not too fanciful to contemplate this, in northerners having a sense of their own destiny, a sense of what's possible and a sense of a broader economic vision for the northern part of our province. If we achieve that, then I think it will have been worthwhile. We'll see; it's a project that has a lot of importance for myself as someone who's lived for 30-odd years in. . . . It's not truly the north, quite frankly; Prince Rupert is only about halfway up our province. So that's the sort of bare bones of it. We're working to bring this to fruition sometime in the fall.

D. Jarvis: Well, it's kind of interesting when you're talking about ribbons of areas where production is and business is and all the rest of it. That northern ribbon that's up there. . . . It appears to a lot of people that you're just trying to change that all into parks, if you start in the northwest.

Anyway, I want to ask the minister two quick questions. One is: can you use the same corridor for gas and hydro lines? And can you tell me -- with regard to the minister's statement that in 1998, in accordance with the Columbia River Treaty pact, power is going to be brought back to British Columbia -- what lines they're going to use to bring that power back on? I was of the understanding that Bonneville was required to build transmission lines to Oliver. Is that the way they're going to do it? Or can you tell me how you're going to get that hydro back into British Columbia?

Hon. D. Miller: With respect to the first question about the combined hydro-gas corridors, it is possible with cathodic protection. I'll let the member search his dictionary. It's not desirable, I suppose, but it has taken place. There are some sections of the Vancouver Island natural gas pipeline where that has taken place.

Secondly, the obligation under the agreement we've reached is for Bonneville to return the power to the border at Blaine. There was a previous requirement under the original agreement that would have given us the ability to insist that they build a new transmission line to return it to Oliver. The agreement that we've negotiated is a better one in that not only is it returned to the load centre at Blaine, but also there is no transmission charge to us for the cost of transmitting that power from the point of origin -- I can't remember the name of the location -- to the Blaine border point. So it's a superior agreement in that regard.

I think it's time. I move the committee, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

[ Page 4168 ]

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: I would like to announce that we are sitting tomorrow at 2 o'clock. I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m. and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:34 p.m.

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

P. Reitsma: I want to finish reading excerpts of concerns expressed by a number of businesses related to the hospitality industry in regards to what the proposed signage bylaw, which is now under review, will -- not might, but will -- be doing to draw our industry in particular to those businesses. I mentioned earlier that they were good enough to send us the information expressing the concern. Again, part of their concerns stem from the fact that actually no consultation or communication took place advising the industry that all of a sudden they would be facing a new policy without any of their input insofar as signage was concerned -- and even more so in regard to paying, of course.

This particular one is signed by Rose Stenberg of the Kokanee Bay Resort -- it says Kokanee, of course -- and was faxed to the Premier as well as to a couple of ministers, including this minister, and myself. The subject is the fee or the tax on government highway signs regarding tourism facilities. They said that on May 11 they received a notification from the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association informing them that the government planned an imposition of $250 per sign. As I mentioned earlier, most businesses have two signs, one coming and one going, I suppose.

They too make comment on the free sign -- which really isn't free, anyway -- as well as the fact that it's another fee in a long line of fee increases and items that have been imposed on the tourism industry. As they say, it all adds up to allow more money for provincial coffers and less for local business and, indeed, employment. Again, they object to the proposed sign. It shows you the importance of the meetings that will be going on between the various ministries.

There's another one from the Brookside Resort in Vanderhoof, B.C., with a copy to the minister, the Premier, the local MLA and myself. They pointedly ask: "Have you considered the impact of the tax on the small businesses located in the rural areas of our province, given the fact that many of those businesses are only seasonal?" -- which is important to note as well. "Have you investigated the actual cost of such a sign?" Their contention is that given a minimum life of five years, each sign will generate $1,250 in cost to the small business entrepreneur, well in excess of the actual cost of the sign. "Have you considered the additional cost to your ministry, since the local highway contractor must be paid to remove all these signs since many small businesses will be either unwilling to or, worse, unable to pay for those costs?" As they say: "Regretfully, the signs provided by your ministry do not measure up." This one is signed by Harvey and Shirley Olm of the Brookside Resort in Vanderhoof.

I've only got a couple more. It's important that the concerns and comments noted by our constituents throughout the province be noted, be recorded. That's their way of expressing their concerns.

This one is from the Brookvale Holiday Resort and signed by Paul and Donna Davis. Again, a copy was sent not only to the Minister of Highways but to this minister, the Premier, the local MLA, a couple of newspapers and myself. They are strongly protesting the NDP government's new fee for highway service and attractions. "It amounts to no more than another money grab by the government," according to the writer. "The government has a monopoly on highway signage, which means that this new fee amounts to" -- and they use the word -- "extortion." Their concern is that if this proliferates, you're going to go back to the billboards. You may have visual pollution coming back in all of B.C. because of the attempt at uniformity and the same type of signs. They would like this to be reconsidered, as well.

In my area the headline in the Parksville News on Tuesday, May 20, was rather appropriate, because they had been suffering from the impact of the new Island Highway. Whilst it's a good sign for the motorist, it's nevertheless been very difficult for the resort owners in the north Qualicum area. This particular one, from the owners of the Qualicum Beach campground, shows the signs of frustration. In fact, they've sent a letter to me, and I passed it on to the appropriate ministry. Because of the new highway in this area north of Qualicum, this particular business was down $60,000. Again, they would like the government to seriously have a good second look. We've heard that before -- a good second look. I don't think anybody has succumbed from looking again at a particular program in order to come up with a better program.

This particular one is from Bee Lazee R.V. Park, again, objecting to the $250 per sign, which would cost them $535, including the GST. They are open only five months of the year, so calculated over five months, that's not a very acceptable rate. The other problem they say is occurring with the signs is that they are too close to the driveway that people are trying to pull off in. They've had people complain that the signs are too close to the driveway, and there's a danger in there, as well, in terms of safety.

The next one is from Chris Dadson, president of the Tourism Rockies Association, which was sent to all of their members. They sent a copy of the new tourism business fee to all those members. They asked all the members to talk to their various MLAs and impress upon the government that this is 

[ Page 4169 ]

the wrong way to go. A copy was being sent to this minister, as well. Their last paragraph states: "The minister is not too late to suspend the business name sign cost recovery program pending a review to study the sense of this program as well as the dollars."

I've got three or four more. Again, they're from all over B.C., and they show you the concern that people in my industry, the hospitality industry, have in terms of not being consulted. There was no communication. It just landed on their desk without any notification.

This one is from the Kokanee R.V. Park and Campground in Nelson and is signed by Len and Yvonne Shoefeld, who are the owners and operators. They say that they were appalled to receive notice of the above fees via the B.C. Motels, Campgrounds, Resorts Association -- not even directly. They were not presented with any opportunity to make comments on the announcement before the announcement was made. Their argument in this debate is that, as you well know, there are hundreds of small tourist destinations in the area that object to the monopoly in the highway signage. Again, it was done in order to eliminate all kinds of different sizes and colours of signs so as to have some uniformity, which of course is really pleasing.

It states in here: "Your government broke with industry standards last year when the Ministry of Tourism started charging for the new approved tourist accommodation signs after making the old ones obsolete and ordering their removal. We request the courtesy of your response to this matter." It has been sent to the minister. It was sent on May 21. I hope that the minister has had an opportunity to sign the letter of response.

This one is from Triple O Holdings Ltd., a ParkCanada RV park in Delta -- a bit closer by. Fran Oeuvray is the president. And again, they are very concerned. They find it insulting and grossly unfair to all of us who are involved in this very valuable industry not to have been told in advance, but just simply sent a bill and told: "Pay now or we'll remove it."

[2:45]

"Obviously there must be a wrong way to balance the hopeless budget created by the government, and it seems to be a successful way of decreasing tourism, revenue and the taxable income of small businesses. Go on with such a crazy policy and you will earn more deficit because of less taxpayers. Congratulations to this ridiculous new regulation. We'll keep this in mind for the next elections, be sure."

And the last two. One is from the Roger Falls Resort in Mara, B.C., sent to the minister, of course, as well as to the Premier and myself. Again, they have great difficulties. They mention the fact that in your letter, the signs are basically just private advertising:

"I didn't ask for these signs, and in a democracy I have to write to advertise my restaurant on a sign, which you would not allow me to do. There are ten bed-and-breakfasts in the area within an eight-mile radius that are taking business from my motel. They do not pay taxes, and yet they will be allowed to have free signs."

And the last one is from the Willow Shores Resort, also in Mara, B.C., and signed by Jim and Janice Krokan. The same problems are expressed:

"We are a small, seasonal business amongst many who are offered no concessions but instead are taxed to the limit, despite our short term of operation in every way, shape and form. Referring to your invoice of the amount of $535, please cease further correspondence regarding this ludicrous billing and please remove these two signs, wherever they may be."

R. Thorpe: I wonder if the minister. . . . I think when we were in the House debating the tourism bill, we or the minister made reference to a memorandum of understanding, and my recollection is that it was suggested to us that we might want to raise any questions about that in estimates. I see the minister is acknowledging that, so I'm just wondering if the minister could advise the current status of the memorandum of understanding with the industry.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Thank you for that question. We are in the process of creating a memorandum of understanding. In fact, it has been going on for some time. It will be signed after the legislation is proclaimed and the new board is in place, because the MOU will be between me and the new board. So the signing will take place when there's a new board to sign it.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister outline besides, as quickly as possible, some kind of time line that you envisage all this happening in?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I expect the proclamation will take place before too long. I don't have a date for that. I don't know when the Lieutenant-Governor is coming to do that. I would expect that very soon thereafter we will appoint the new board.

R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise if there are any major outstanding issues that still have to be negotiated with the industry with respect to the MOU?

Hon. J. Pullinger: None.

R. Thorpe: One of the things we talked about -- I believe it was last night -- was that we could get copies of the old business plan. With respect to the new business plan, will that be a public or a private document?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That will be a public document when it's finalized, and I'd be happy to share it with the members opposite.

R. Thorpe: In looking through some documents, I understand Tourism B.C. is looking at a fee-for-service with respect to some of its regional marketing programs. Could the minister expand on that, please?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The recommendation for fee-for-service, rather than the current administrative grants, came from CORTA -- the Council of Regional Tourism Associations. It has been under consideration by the SOA board 

[ Page 4170 ]

and Tourism B.C., and I expect that there will be an agreement in place. It looks like it's going that way, so I expect that will happen.

R. Thorpe: On further reading, I believe I've read that there may be a management fee of 22 percent. I'm wondering what a fee of 22 percent is going to cover.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to underscore for the member the fact that these decisions are not yet final, so it would be premature to discuss any detail. I expect that their new business plan, when it's ready, will provide a lot of that detail for the member. Certainly, if that's a pressing issue, we can make sure that you have that information when it's fully finalized. At this point it is a work in progress.

R. Thorpe: I appreciate the minister's willingness to share information. It's a positive gesture.

One of the things I want to get some assurances on -- because if the negotiations are still going on, I can only be assured at the end -- is whether there are going to be tangible benefits with this management fee. Or is this really an off-loading to regional tourism districts of administrative fees? Are they really going to get something for it, or are we off-loading administrative fees?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The recommendation came from the regional tourism associations, so I would expect that the regional tourism associations don't view it as downloading. Rather, they must be supportive of it. There is some consultation happening. Obviously, the leadership of the regional tourism associations has brought forward this idea. There is consultation happening with the regions to ensure that everybody is comfortable and in as much agreement as possible before we move forward.

R. Thorpe: In the area of brand plans, I understand a statement is made: ". . .create enough critical mass to create an impact in the market." I'm wondering if. . . .

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: No, no. It's not the minister; it's a Tourism B.C. document, I believe. It's not the minister. As the minister knows, I'm very careful when I'm quoting her.

But with respect to this document, it refers to brand plans, and I'll just restate that: ". . .create enough critical mass to create an impact in the market." What I really want to know is. . . . The words are very nice and flowery. But what does it mean? But, more important than what it means is: how is it going to be measured to ensure that we're really achieving what we want to achieve? Measurement is the key to my question.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As I understand the issue from fairly long experience with the tourism industry and, of course, more recent greater involvement, the regions have been fairly separate. Some have done an excellent job of marketing; others have done a less professional job -- not to be critical of any of them. But what Tourism British Columbia is doing -- and I absolutely support them, and I'm sure the member will, as well -- is working to integrate all the various fragmented groups -- Tourism Victoria, Tourism Vancouver and the regions -- with Tourism British Columbia. So rather than duplicating and having cracks, they're really trying to put together an integrated approach.

To that end, Tourism British Columbia is proposing to put together an integrated business plan with the regions. That business plan will include targets. And for the first time a couple of years ago, our government, through Tourism British Columbia, asked the regions to start tracking their performance. So we do have a bit of a track record a couple of years old. They will use those tracking and measuring procedures to gauge their performance against the targets they have set and agreed to in the integrated business plan.

[G. Robertson in the chair.]

R. Thorpe: One of the other statements that's made in the document pertains to regional brands -- and the brand is the region, as I understand it: ". . .building long-term equity and value in the image for the region." What methodology is going to be used to measure the equity and value in that brand?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The methodology used will be aided and unaided awareness studies -- i.e., prompted and unprompted kinds of questions. It will be undertaken by a third party to ensure that there is no bias in it.

R. Thorpe: Then will Tourism B.C., in coordination with the regions, be establishing a baseline point from which they can hopefully move up with the equity? Or if they have a little hiccup and go down, as long as it's only short-term. . . . Will you be establishing a baseline so that we can hopefully measure our equity growth?

[3:00]

R. Thorpe: With respect to requirements from marketing contractors -- ". . .marketing programs that provide maximum and effective coverage of all geographic and product groups" -- how will this be measured?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not sure I understand the question. The object, it seems to me, is to do something a little more subjective, and that is to ensure that all of the known interests in any given region are at the table. The problem in the past, as I understand it, from years ago -- and I assume the same obtains -- was that under the old system, some have made it to the table and others haven't. Therefore the marketing was not as integrated as it could be for the whole region.

So by integrating the marketing approach and getting all the interests incorporated into the plan, I think it will be more effective for the region in terms of exploiting and maximizing the potential benefits of the resources in any given region.

R. Thorpe: Before I go back to that question -- because maybe it was the way I asked it, maybe it was the way I read it, I don't know. . . . What is meant, then, by the terminology in this document -- "marketing contractor"?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That would be the regional association that's on the other end of the fee-for-service.

R. Thorpe: Program guidelines. It looks like funding of programs. It appears to me that there have been some changes, and it appears to me now that there will be funding at two different category levels: one at 50 percent and one 

[ Page 4171 ]

at 35 percent. First of all, can you confirm that that is a change? And secondly, what is the difference in the funding contributions?

Hon. J. Pullinger: If it goes ahead, it will in fact be a change. The recommendation for the new structure has come from the industry advisory group to the board, which will subsequently come to me. We haven't had the discussion yet, so it's still in the work-in-progress stage, along with the rest of it. But assuming that it moves ahead, it will be a change.

R. Thorpe: Can the minister confirm whether it was the industry advisory committee or group -- whatever the correct terminology is -- that came forward with the different levels of funding -- 15 percent, 35 percent?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

R. Thorpe: Is the Partners in Tourism program, which has been around for a while, presumed to have outlived itself now, with the introduction of these new programs?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes. It is being superseded by the new programs.

R. Thorpe: I understand that in the international tourism marketing world it's becoming a little bit historic now, I suppose, but the 1-800 numbers were one of the key tools for getting customers in contact. It's probably now the Internet, etc. The world changes so quickly now. On the 1-800, are we going to have a provincial 1-800 number? And are we going to have six super-region 1-800 numbers? Or are we just going to have the 1-800 number?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've just confirmed that the 1-800 line that we do have is available to everyone in North America, including British Columbians. If the regions want to have their own separate one, then that would be their own decision. I would expect that that's going in the opposite direction to everything else, however. That's just an assumption. But it seems to me that the tourism industry is moving to a more integrated approach rather than to a fragmented one.

R. Thorpe: If I understand it correctly, then, there's one 1-800 number for all of British Columbia: Tourism B.C. And it's not envisaged at this point in time that regions would have their own, but that's a decision they may or may not want to make. So if I'm living in Phoenix, Arizona, and I phone this 1-800 number, does that then give me a menu of things that I can listen to about mountains, golf and skiing? How does the customer in Hope, Arkansas, or Phoenix, Arizona, or Moncton, New Brunswick, know what the menu is of things that are available in British Columbia?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's a good question. My understanding, from talking to staff, is that it's kind of like walking into a travel agency, only somebody would pick up the phone and ask the questions they want to ask. There's a computerized, rather large database that the travel consultant can access readily. It's like a long-distance travel agent. You just phone and say, "I want to go golfing in British Columbia," and they take the conversation from there to determine where this individual may or may not want to go.

R. Thorpe: Where in British Columbia is that service run out of?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Vancouver.

R. Thorpe: Moving right along, at a rapid pace here --something some of these estimates haven't seen. . . . Would it be possible -- and I'm sure it is, so I should ask the question -- to have the opportunity to visit that facility, just to have a better understanding of it and see how it operates? I'd appreciate that.

In my own personal dealings with 1-800 numbers for tourism activities and resort activities, I've had some great experiences and I have had some not so great experiences. This, for many people, is going to be their first contact. Often we tend to take millions of dollars and put them in advertising programs, and somehow we forget to do the other things that really create the sell, make the sale, close the sale. What kind of efforts are taking place to make sure that we've got top-notch people who are fully conversant with the market and who have been trained properly?

Hon. J. Pullinger: First, I would like to say I'm really sorry that the member has had a negative experience.

R. Thorpe: No, I didn't mean our own. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Oh good. Okay. Somebody else's?

R. Thorpe: Yes. Sorry.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Okay, that's good. That helps us competitively.

There's a very good effort made to ensure that the counsellors who answer the phones are fully apprised of how they ought to function and what they need to know to be very effective. They are provided with direct input from individual operators, plus they get general travel-counsellor training and education on the database and things like that. There is also external evaluation happening there. By and large, that service has been a resounding success; it has exceeded its targets for the most part.

I get complaints about all sorts of things, as the minister responsible for tourism -- as one would expect. But I get very few -- in fact, I don't think I've had any since I've been minister -- about this service, so I think it must be very well run.

R. Thorpe: For the record, I'd like to clearly state that as a matter of fact, I've never phoned the 1-800 Tourism B.C. number, and therefore I have never had a complaint. And if I had a complaint, I would not bring it up in this forum; I would have brought it up with staff in a private forum, because I would want all British Columbians to work together to make sure that everybody benefits.

With respect to Tourism B.C., is it going to operate using the auditor general's accountability information matrix?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The staff have already been meeting with the auditor general and will certainly comply with those standards as set out with and by the auditor general. However, I am apprised that Tourism British Columbia intends to add extras to make sure that the reporting is very full. Obviously, tourism is a service-oriented industry; there's a huge amount of interest within the ministry and in the existing board -- and I'm sure I can say the same for our future board -- in ensuring that everything functions as it ought.

[ Page 4172 ]

I also want to extend an invitation to the member to take a politically correct gender-balanced bipartisan trip with me to the information centre, the 1-800 centre in Vancouver. I haven't been there, either, so if the member wants to go and visit that location, I'd be happy to go with him.

R. Thorpe: Thank you very much. I do accept that invitation; I look forward to doing it at the minister's convenience. I'm also extremely pleased that Tourism B.C. is going to enhance the accountability and accept the amendment we proposed to the bill.

My last question is just a general one. Does your ministry operate on the new corporate accounting system? Are you part of the new corporate accounting system, or are you outside that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The short answer is that we're not there yet, but we're moving towards the new accounting system.

R. Thorpe: I thought the last one was going to be my last one, but you know, sometimes you never really know. My last question is: what kind of an internal deadline have you got for complying? I understand it's better to move sooner than later, because there will be a logjam at the end. So I just wonder what your internal deadline is for getting on the CAS accounting system.

[3:15]

P. Reitsma: Before I go back to what I started with the old SOA based on the matrix, just a quick question to the minister, probably more for my benefit, too. When we're talking about the 1-800 number. . . . I liked the reference to a kind of one-stop travel agency; it happens to be the business that I'm associated with. When visitors do phone the 1-800 number, there is. . . . I don't know if it is kind of a general information service. I assume no bookings are being done, but it's simply giving information about skiing, sport fishing, hiking, boating, camping, hotels or motels. I just wonder if the minister would be good enough to kind of elaborate on the scope and mandate of those behind the 1-800 number.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to say that in 1993 what was an information line became a reservation service. There were over 70,000 bookings made last year, which exceeded the target set.

P. Reitsma: When the minister talks about a reservation service, do we include kind of an umbrella of all kinds of reservations? Are we talking about hotels, motels, sport fishing trips, boating, hiking, canoeing and visiting all kinds of organizations, like Butterfly World and Bird Garden, for instance, in my area? Is that being done? Secondly, do they derive a commission from that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: To answer the last question first, the commission is 10 percent. The service provides bookings primarily for fixed-roof accommodation, but it does provide for other things as well. My understanding is that there was a gap that industry recognized in the ability to make those kinds of reservations. Certainly this has proceeded with the full support of the industry.

P. Reitsma: That's good. Thank you to the minister for that. I assume -- and the minister can just nod -- that things like bed-and-breakfasts, in terms of the availability of information, are available through that service as well.

Hon. J. Pullinger: If they choose to sign up.

The Chair: Through the Chair, please.

P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Chair. I take the minister's comment: "If they choose to sign up." That is good.

Might I expand a little bit about the 10 percent commission? Is the minister able to give us an answer on the financial consequences -- the cost of operating the service, how many FTEs there are -- and also if there's any recovery? Obviously, there's some recovery in terms of the 10 percent commission rate, which is basically the industry standard.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are one and a half FTEs in my ministry that work on this. The actual service is contracted. The budget for that is just under $2 million. It's not cost-recovered; it's an expense. Excuse me, I want to clarify that: not fully cost-recovered but some cost recovery.

P. Reitsma: Just on that particular point, does the minister have the numbers available? If not, if I can get them at some time. . . . I'd just be curious to know, in terms of the cost recovery, how much of that component is derived from the industry standard of a 10 percent commission.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Rather than venturing a wild guess on my part -- or an educated guess from my staff, we'll provide the member with the information later.

P. Reitsma: I thank the minister for that. I've a couple of last questions on this particular service. Whether it's a small business plan for that service. . . . I just wonder what the future goals are. Is any marketing. . . ? What kind of marketing is done? How does the ministry measure the success of this particular service?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There were targets set that I responded to last night. In most cases the targets were exceeded. The number of calls expected was exceeded; the number of reservations set as a target was exceeded. So by the measures set out for the service, it has excelled.

P. Reitsma: Good. Using the matrix again and going back to establish some comparisons for years to come. . . . I want to go back to the old SOA and where we left off yesterday morning, or actually early afternoon. Was the planning. . . ? There was one further question on the planning of the old SOA. Could the minister provide details of any specific initiatives which are designed to improve the capacity -- probably looking partially at how to fill up hotel rooms, the tours that are available, resorts and things like that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of the programs of Tourism British Columbia are under review with industry, with a view to 

[ Page 4173 ]

making them better wherever possible and ensuring that they are as effective and as efficient as they can be. They're under review.

P. Reitsma: In terms of the results on the operational side, what are the key performance measures on the long-term goals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The broad targets or your measuring sticks, if you like, are primarily gross revenue, for which the target was $7.1 billion -- we essentially hit $7 billion -- and visitation. Other than that, different programs have different targets, and we would have to go through them all one by one. But I would suggest that that would be a futile exercise at this point, given that they are all in transition and being reviewed, with a view to changing them where necessary.

P. Reitsma: I don't necessarily see that as futile, and I don't necessarily want to zero in on that, but I suppose there are certain benchmarks. If you want to compare this coming year with last year, it's good to have the results as a benchmark in order to improve. Or maybe the improvement has been made, if the results this year over last year are improved or better. Or if they were to be negative in comparison, then I think it would give us some opportunity to negate that through a different approach and make it positive again.

The last question on the operational side, in terms of results, is the assessment of financial condition, protection of assets, employee skills, work environment and operating controls. I wonder if the minister could comment on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I wonder if the member would clarify which employees he's speaking about. It sounds as though that's either internal to the ministry or internal to an individual business. Perhaps the member could clarify what he's looking for.

P. Reitsma: It's of the ministry, and if it's internal. . . . For instance, when I'm looking at the work environment, is the minister happy with the work environment that her ministry is giving to the employees? In terms of operating controls, are they according to the guidelines and expectations set out? Is the financial condition according to the budget? If there are any assets, how are they protected? What measures are taken to be protected in terms of employee skills? I think that's self-explanatory.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: In response to the member's question, I would offer that this has been an extremely difficult year for staff. I applaud all of the staff in my ministry for the sometimes heroic efforts to get through the last months of last year. With all the downsizing, it's been very difficult on everyone. Obviously, it's one of my very sincere concerns that we provide the best working environment possible for staff, and we have internal committees that work on issues to do just that.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate what the minister is saying, coming from the small business field myself. This is said with absolutely no disrespect but just as a matter of fact. As I mentioned earlier, any time in the last year or two that we've seen four changes at the top, three changes at almost the top, being a deputy minister. . . . I emphasize that this is no disrespect. This has taken place for whatever reason. But the fact of the matter is that any time you change a CEO or an assistant CEO in a large company, for employees obviously there is anxiety, there are questions. There's the stability, there's the security. And, of course -- I would like to think and would hope and am quite certain this is the case -- everybody has got a lot of pride in the organization one works for, and it's no different in the public sector than it is in the private sector. As an owner of a number of businesses, I know that when you do have changes, when there are financial difficulties, obviously that has a direct impact on the conduct of staff. And I mean this in a very sincere, positive way. So I appreciate what the minister is saying in terms of the changes at the top and the sub-top. I appreciate that.

Still on the financial aspect of the former SOA in terms of the government achieving its financial objectives, what were the financial objectives of the government with the SOA, and are they being successfully realized?

[3:30]

P. Reitsma: On the same topic, in terms of the funding and particularly the affairs, are the affairs of the SOA being managed according to sound financial controls?

Hon. J. Pullinger: An SOA -- special operating agency -- is an agreement between any given ministry and the Ministry of Finance to create circumstances agreeable to both. The operating of the tourism marketing is still fully within my ministry and therefore subject to all of the normal accountability and controls of government.

P. Reitsma: Is the minister happy with the objectives and the financial success that the plan sets out to fulfil?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I take the member's question to be about the SOA. Is that correct? I am absolutely thrilled to be the minister responsible for moving forward to take what was simply an advisory board with an agreement between my ministry and the Ministry of Finance for tourism and move it into the new Crown agency. It's a historic movement for the tourism industry, and I'm absolutely delighted. Given that the member is asking my personal opinion on how I feel about it, I'm ecstatic that I'm the minister who has had the privilege of taking that step with the industry.

P. Reitsma: In terms of the planning from the financial angle, could the minister advise us of the planned financial position of the SOA including debt?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to restate that a special operating agency is an advisory board, and it's simply a financial agreement between the Ministry of Finance and any given ministry that alters the normal functioning of that part of the ministry or agency or whatever. So it's not separate from my ministry; therefore it's part of my ministry and part of government as a whole, and it functions as part of government as a whole. Therefore I don't believe I can answer that question in any meaningful way, because I can't separate it out.

[ Page 4174 ]

P. Reitsma: What about the details of any major changes that were made or are to be made to the financial controls? Or is it still all within that mandate?

Hon. J. Pullinger: My ministry functioned within the agreement with the Ministry of Finance -- which changed pattern somewhat -- and an advisory board, both of which were set up by the SOA. The major changes in how it operates and how it functions in control come through the introduction of Bill 9, which we have just passed and made into legislation, in which we as government have moved into territory that few if any others have, providing industry with a voice in managing the tourism marketing function of government in a way that we have seen nowhere else. There is a massive change in governance coming up, and we're in a transition process, looking forward to that new body.

P. Reitsma: I think we might have canvassed it a little earlier. I'm talking about the old SOA. Did most of the funds in terms of expenditures go basically to marketing and salaries?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The funds of that part of my ministry have covered all the tourism functions, all the funding. It's salaries, all the programs within marketing and the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. All the tourism-related functions to date have been covered by my tourism budget, including staffing. In future, when the new agency is up and running, we will retain policy and some development function -- it's to be a shared function -- and land use. All other programs will move into the new Crown agency.

P. Reitsma: Is the minister roughly able -- not down to the penny -- to give the amount spent on pure marketing and the amount spent on salaries? A ratio?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The salaries and benefits shown in the blue book are $4.879 million. The rest is all one form or another of marketing, including the various functions that we'll discuss here today, whether it's tourism information centre staffing or the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. The budget last year was $23.4 million, with roughly $4.8 million for staffing. These are rough.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. So we got a good $18 million in staffing versus around $5 million to marketing.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The figures are the other way around, Paul. It was $5 million for staffing. . . .

P. Reitsma: Oh, okay. Thank you. This is a heck of a lot better, let me assure you. So it's $18 million for marketing, which is good, and then $5 million for staffing. Thank you, minister, for the clarification.

And for the last question, we had talked about expenditures. In terms of the operating revenue, does that include a certain amount of cost recovery from programs? I'm not thinking of donations but of general cost recovery -- and, of course, the pure revenues in terms of transfer from the government.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The way it appears in the blue book is that the amount printed is the net amount. So if in fact any given service such as the accommodation service is a recovery account -- in other words, if there are some revenues produced from that service -- then the revenues are subtracted from the full costs, and the net amount is the cost in the blue book.

P. Reitsma: Somewhere there must be a record. The minister doesn't have to give that to me right now, but somewhere there must be a record of the gross cost, the gross expenditures and then of course the bottom line. It's part of the cost recovery, I suppose, but there' will be less cost recovery and more direct expenditures. There must be kind of a net total versus the full total, I suppose, the actual amount less the cost recovery. There must be a breakdown somewhere of that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be delighted to send the member what we have, which I think is several pages.

P. Reitsma: My Finance critic is already sitting up, taking up the whole night. Of course, we have read the report that was tabled today. I say that tongue-in-cheek, of course. In terms of the results on this, where we have talked about the actual revenues and expenditures, could the minister advise us of the actual financial position, including any debt of the SOA?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is no debt. We have, as I've said earlier, undertaken an asset evaluation at present to move it out to the new Crown, and the revenue will be coming via the new legislation from the hotel tax.

P. Reitsma: This is the last question under the financial aspect. Is there a sign-off by management, by ministry officials or by the minister for that matter, regarding the adequacy of financial controls? Are they within the guidelines? Is there a sign-off by anyone?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All the accountability processes within government are controlled by and overseen by the comptroller general and the auditor general, and our ministry is no different.

P. Reitsma: I would assume, of course, that ministry officials will do all the preparatory work for the comptroller general -- it's almost like an audit, I suppose -- to verify the statements and to investigate and do an audit if necessary and so on.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes. What was the question?

P. Reitsma: I saw that coming. Thank you. I saw it coming, and I heard it, too.

In terms of compliance -- and I'm still talking about the old SOA, of course, which is basically still in effect until we have everything in place -- are government affairs conducted in accordance with legislative requirements and with expected standards of conduct?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to underscore again that an SOA is not a separate body. The member appears to believe that this is a separate body. It's not. It's simply a way of dealing with part of a ministry. The functions remain fully within my ministry, and it is therefore fully under the control of the ministry and of all the normal constraints and reporting and accountability practices of government.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that, but I wish to get that on the record, of course, so that we know that the rules and regulations are being followed. What laws does the government need to comply with -- or the SOA, I suppose, in this particular case? And is it complying with them?

[ Page 4175 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The Financial Administration Act is the overriding legislation, and of course we comply. One of the reasons for creating a legislated agency, such as we are, is to provide greater flexibility. The accountability processes on government are enormous within ministries, from the comptroller general, the auditor general, etc. They're very necessary. I'm not suggesting that they shouldn't be there -- quite the contrary. However, I would offer that all of the controls necessary to run something as huge and complex as government have been very frustrating and impeding for those trying to use public funds to market tourism. One of the reasons to move it out is to simplify those processes without losing any accountability. But anything that's in the ministry is fully accountable, with all of the checks and balances that are normally in place for any ministry.

[3:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The SOA is not a separate entity. All it does is create an advisory board and an agreement for certain financial arrangements between my ministry and the Ministry of Finance. It's not a separate entity. Therefore all of the controls standard to government -- public accounting practices, comptroller general, auditor general, all of those controls of reporting -- are fully in place and will remain so until it is a Crown corporation, at which time all of the processes relevant to government Crown corporations will be in place.

R. Thorpe: I'm not sure if my questions here are in the right place. If they're not, you can refer me to the other parts of the estimates.

The Kettle Valley Railway Heritage Society -- is this the right time to ask any questions on that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It depends on what the question is. It's actually under heritage, but ask away and then I'll. . . .

R. Thorpe: I just want to know what funding commitments are in this year's budget for that society.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's $25,000.

R. Thorpe: Does that flow directly from the ministry, or does it flow through the Duncan railway museum? Or do you know at this point in time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's the Provincial Museum's budget. It's actually a heritage item, but I just happen to know.

R. Thorpe: Okay, thank you. I'll leave any further questions until the heritage part, then. Does the Mascot Mine in Hedley fall under this?

Interjection.

R. Thorpe: That's under heritage, too? Okay, sorry.

P. Reitsma: Just a few questions on the old SOA, and then I would like to go into the new agency design. Of course, I'm going by the matrix of the auditor general. As they pertain to the SOA, what are the government's internal social policy objectives and how well are they being achieved?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member keeps asking questions about the SOA as if it were separate from government. It's not. Once more, an SOA is simply an agreement for certain financial arrangements between my ministry and the Ministry of Finance. Therefore there are no special circumstances for the people who work in the tourism part of my ministry. It's still simply a part of my ministry and a part of government at this point. Obviously that will change when the legislation is proclaimed, the new board is in place and the Crown agency is up and running.

P. Reitsma: In terms of the planning aspect, could the minister. . . ? I'm still talking about the old SOA, of course; it's still in force. The long-term goals and the annual objectives. . . .

The Chair: Member, I believe we're into repetition on the state of the SOA. I've heard previous members ask these same questions, so perhaps Hansard would be helpful in this case.

P. Reitsma: On the old SOA question -- which I don't think has been asked -- could the minister provide me with some answers on questions such as: are ministry officials provided with transportation, like cars? If they do fly on business, is there a central booking agency? What happens with things like frequent flyer points, and so on?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of our ministry falls under the travel guidelines of government.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister tell me the some of the details of those guidelines, in terms of who gets assigned transportation -- cars -- who can travel, what happens with the benefits of the travel, such as the frequent flyer points, and so on?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is a fleet of vehicles that are used for business purposes -- nine fleet vehicles. The only position. . . . Actually, there are no positions in Tourism B.C. that have any assigned vehicles. No one collects travel points.

P. Reitsma: Going from the old SOA to the new agency, which was discussed under Bill 9 -- which, of course, we support -- I take it from the questions asked by my colleague from Okanagan-Penticton that the memorandum of understanding has not been signed yet but that there are no outstanding issues. Did the minister indicate an approximate time frame as to when the signing might occur?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The MOU will be signed by myself and by the chair of the new board, and therefore we need the new board in place to sign it. So it will be after the legislation is proclaimed and the board is in place and Tourism British Columbia, as a separate Crown agency, exists.

P. Reitsma: Certainly, insofar as the tourism industry is concerned, one of the cornerstones was to have an absolute firm commitment and understanding -- not only an understanding but also a commitment -- that of the 15 board members, the ten that would be advised and put forward by the Council of Tourism Associations of B.C. would be part of the 15.

I have a letter addressed to the minister on April 2, signed by Pat Corbett, who is the chair of COTA -- no doubt the minister knows of that letter. As the voice of the tourism industry, they emphatically stated that COTA's requirement for the MOU centres around the nomination process for the first, and all subsequent, boards of directors of Tourism B.C. 

[ Page 4176 ]

And it includes the stipulation that within 30 days of the board nominees being provided to the minister, confirmation be given to COTA on their acceptability. Let me assure you, minister, that the COTA members developed this decision seriously, through an industry resolution, and are therefore united in their absolute commitment to ensure the principles of board representation are upheld, because of their involvement in and support of the industry.

I have a list of ten nominees. The industry wants those ten nominees. The signatures of the groups. . . . And I would like to read them out, actually, because I think it's important. It shows you the diversity of COTA.

The signatures of those groups that attended the annual general meeting were: B.C. Fishing Resorts and Outfitters Association, B.C. Helicopter and Snowcat Skiing Operators Association, B.C. Motels Campgrounds Resorts Association, B.C. and Yukon Hotels Association, Canada West Ski Areas Association, High Country Tourism Association, Hospitality Industry Education Advisory Committee, Kootenay Country Tourist Association, North-By-Northwest Tourism Association, Okanagan-Similkameen Tourist Association, Peace River Alaska Highway Tourist Association, Restaurant and Foodservices Association of B.C., Sport Fishing Institute of B.C., Tourism Association of Vancouver Island, Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Victoria, Vancouver, Coast and Mountains Tourism Region, Vancouver Hotel Association, Doane Raymond of the Great Canadian Railtour Co., McGown-Intermac, and the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism.

Is the minister at liberty to advise me if the request made by COTA, signed by Pat Corbett, in terms of those ten people will be met?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Two brief points. The first is that we're back to the legislation. We discussed and canvassed this issue fully in the debate around Bill 9. The second is that I will answer briefly just this one question, and then I think it's fair to say that we have canvassed this issue.

The legislation says very clearly in subsection 2(4) that on the first board, the tourism seats will be based on recommendations made by the existing SOA.

The Chair: I just remind members that legislation is not a subject for debate in these estimates.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that, and I have noted the minister's response. No doubt COTA will be very interested in the minister's response on that, since COTA emphatically mentioned that in order to get the support, it should be the recommended names to the first board.

As I mentioned, I'll be very happy, of course, with the new agency. In terms of policies, mandate, business plan -- is that being worked on at present?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

P. Reitsma: That leads me to a whole host of questions. I would hope that that process would have been started anyway. I'll go back to the matrix, of course, for the new one. When could we expect the mandate and future goals to be enshrined -- completed -- so that the industry has a base to go from?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The mandate is in the legislation.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister tell us what has been accomplished so far in terms of creating a business plan?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to share the business plan with the members when it is complete.

P. Reitsma: When does the minister expect completion of the business plan?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I expect I'll be discussing it with the committee later this month.

P. Reitsma: Has the ministry, up to this point, been involved in formulating and helping to formulate the business plan? And who else are partners in formulating the business plan?

[4:00]

P. Reitsma: Since the formulation of a business plan is going on -- which is fine -- could the minister give us some details on the focus of how marketing is going to be done?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of those details will be made available when the decisions are made after the business plan is in place and public, and the agency is up and running. At this point, we're in transition. Everything's under review and the business plan is being formulated.

P. Reitsma: When I took the tour up north a couple of months ago -- and I'll get back to that later -- certainly the concern expressed by the tourism industry up north was that -- and they coined it: "There's no hope beyond Hope." Other than the golden triangle of Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler, certainly not enough consideration and detail and, indeed, funding for marketing is being allocated to those particular regions. I know, of course, that the north wishes to have fair representation on and input into the board of the tourism agency. Is the minister able to give some comfort to that area of the north in terms of making sure that representation will be on the new board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I also toured the north some time ago, and I've also toured the Kootenays -- and, of course, I live on Vancouver Island. I'm very aware of the concerns, therefore, of the industry about representation. My awareness of the industry -- of the regions of the north -- has resulted in my insistence that in the legislation are two sections. One is subsection 4(2)(b), which refers to the promoting of all regions of British Columbia, as well as all sectors of the tourism industry. The other is about the diversity of the board. Those are both items that I insisted be in the legislation.

P. Reitsma: In the backgrounder that was provided to us in terms of tourism and looking to the future, I know that the business plan, of course, is going to be made up. But what are the minister's personal views, I suppose in terms of her goals, her marketing wants, or indications in terms of what tourism might be in the future? What are the minister's -- and the ministry's -- personal goals for tourism, looking to the future?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm working very closely with the industry, and I will continue to do so to ensure that tourism in 

[ Page 4177 ]

British Columbia reaches its full potential. I believe that the ministry and the industry have done a superb job thus far. I also am clear that we're at a crossroads, that competition is increasing around the world and that if we want to maintain our first-place position, then we have to put our collective attention to that.

There are a number of opportunities. Clearly the north is one area where we could focus some effort. There's a wealth of parks in this province now as a result of our government's decision to engage in the land use planning process that resulted in 250-plus parks around the province. Also, there are some significant opportunities in first nations cultural tourism, and certainly those and other opportunities ought to be fully explored. I'll be working closely with the board to do just that.

P. Reitsma: And again, looking to the future. . . . No doubt the whole industry is looking for guidance and input and enthusiasm from the minister, and I certainly would like to hear her views and comments on what she anticipates for the future in terms of the need to ensure that economic growth is based on principles of environmental, social and cultural sustainability. I wonder how the minister sees that as part of the marketing and the business plan, to ensure that the principle of environmental, social and cultural sustainability particularly is incorporated in that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be happy to share the business plan with the member when it's complete.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister comment on. . . ? Would she see a need to increase and diversify in terms of market trends? The comments of the minister -- how she envisions any new markets and if she foresees or can detect a change in market trends. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would like to remind the member that we discussed trends last night, and I went through them in some detail. I actually read a number of trends into the record. I would direct the member to the Blues from last night.

P. Reitsma: In terms of regional distribution of tourism benefits, I wonder if the minister would give her view on that and on how she sees regional distribution of the tourism benefits in terms of the marketing approach -- unless the minister's going to tell me: "Wait until you get the business plan."

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: Since it's going to change and it's a much more hands-on approach by the tourism industry itself, how would the minister see her role and the ministry's role in the new agency?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I expect to work very closely with the new agency.

P. Reitsma: "Expect to work very closely with the agency" -- could the minister elaborate on that, please?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's going to be a board that's dominated by industry, but it's still a part of government; a Crown agency is still a part of government. It will report to me as the minister. It's still fully accountable, through me, to this Legislature and to the public.

I will be meeting with the board on a regular basis. I will be approving the business plan, and I'm sure it will be a very close working relationship over the years with myself and any minister responsible.

P. Reitsma: The reason I ask is -- and I share the minister's enthusiasm -- we are charting a new course, as the minister has indicated many a time. We share that enthusiasm, as well, but we also would like to be sure that the agency will still have -- maybe at a certain arm's length -- some involvement, some direction and guidance from the ministry. The minister has just indicated that she will be doing that.

In terms of the funding, some of it based on the 1.65 percent, have any of the questions, such as, as I mentioned earlier -- transportation, flying, travelling plans, etc. . . ? Is that all part of the forthcoming business plan?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That will all be budgeted for and proposed, I would assume -- other than the intricate details, obviously. I would expect it would be in the business plan. I don't have it yet, so I'm guessing, but I would assume it would be.

P. Reitsma: Has the minister given any advice or suggestions in terms of certain future goals, mandates, marketing tools and guidelines, and an opportunity to evaluate and measure success, or failure for that matter, of the new Tourism B.C. agency -- any input this way?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Currently, the entire operation still falls directly within my ministry. We don't have the new board yet; we don't have the new agency yet. So everything that's happening is happening within my ministry at this point.

P. Reitsma: Going to a number of questions on PRIT, the Pacific Rim tourism training, could the minister advise me of, in terms of the policies, the mandate and the future goals of PRIT?

Hon. J. Pullinger: PRIT has existed for some time now, and its mandate is to provide standards for tourism occupations. It has worked closely with the colleges and universities around the province, as well as with industry to (a) create standards and (b) create training programs to meet those standards.

P. Reitsma: And the future goals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: PRIT is operated by a private sector board, and I can certainly ask PRIT to send its documents to the member.

P. Reitsma: Is there a certain time limit associated with PRIT? Do they have a guaranteed time of operating, so many years? And the funding is coming from where?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism is a private-public partnership with a ministerial appointee board.

P. Reitsma: A public-private partnership we should appreciate. Is the ministry or the government involved directly or indirectly with funding, and if so, what percentage?

[ Page 4178 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a private-public partnership. Last year government provided $350,000. It would be somewhat less this year, but the details of that, again, will be forthcoming.

P. Reitsma: A quick question: the $350,000 represented approximately what percentage of their budget?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, I just learned that they get federal money, too, which is a surprise to me, so it's a three-way partnership. I don't have the total amount. I can tell you that the contribution I'm accountable for was $350,000 last year.

P. Reitsma: And what is the anticipated amount this year, which I would assume is in the budget?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It will be somewhat less, given the new arrangement that will be happening shortly. Those decisions will be made by the new board of Tourism British Columbia.

P. Reitsma: So part of the funding towards Tourism B.C., then, includes an apportionment for PRIT, to be determined by the new board. It might consist of ten of COTA's recommended people.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The legislation for the new agency says very clearly, in section 2(4), that the current SOA board will make the recommendations for the industry appointees on the new Crown corporation board.

I forgot the other question.

P. Reitsma: The funding.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The funding. . . . Everything except land use, policy and some development -- which is a shared responsibility -- will move over to the new agency.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. So there are no guidelines or direction or directives from the ministry in terms of a certain guideline, a certain plus or minus of the $350,000 of last year. It's entirely up to the new board.

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of those kinds of decisions will be in the new business plan, which I will sign off on.

P. Reitsma: Talking about the business plan: since the new business plan is not in force at present, what is the current business plan and marketing approach of PRIT?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The functions of PRIT are governed by the board of PRIT, not by Tourism British Columbia or my ministry. We are funders of that organization and certainly work closely with PRIT, but the business plan of my ministry, the SOA or the new agency will not determine what PRIT does.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: I would assume, though, that the ministry has some inkling of a business plan and a marketing approach before funds are given to an organization. I'm somewhat surprised about that. If I were to give money to a particular organization, I wouldn't do it blindly; I would have to know some business plan or the way marketing is done. So I wonder if the minister could answer that question: are the marketing plan and the business plan known to the ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Of course. PRIT puts together its own business plan, and it is certainly funded on the basis of the activities it undertakes. They have a business plan, and the business plan of Tourism B.C. determines how much funding goes to PRIT to carry out their business plan.

P. Reitsma: What, then, is the business plan of PRIT?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be delighted to send you a copy.

I. Chong: Given the response from the minister regarding PRIT, I just want to raise a few questions. I want to be clear, for the record, on what the minister said -- that the funding was previously provided through the ministry, through the Tourism British Columbia special operating agency, and that with the new legislative authority, that will still be done by them through the new Crown corporation. Therefore the budget that PRIT would have would be an amount from Tourism B.C., an amount from the federal government and certain sums raised from the private sector.

Given that the ministry had a government appointee to PRIT, as I understand the minister's. . . .

Interjection.

I. Chong: I hear the minister stating that the ministry appoints the entire board of PRIT, and that's where I'm headed with this. Given that the funding was a portion of a public-private partnership, I thought that the private sector would have a substantial role in appointing some of the board members -- as would the federal government, given that they're providing funding. So my question was going to be: if the funding is now removed, what kind of role would the ministry or Tourism B.C. have in appointing a member? If I hear now that the entire board is appointed by the minister, that raises some questions. So I'd like the minister to clarify that before I ask another question.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me do a little bit of history, so that the member can make more sense of what's happening there. The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism was initiated in '88-89. It had a three-year sunset clause, and it was a creature of the provincial government. For the first time. . . . And we hear a lot about popcorn stands and minimum-wage jobs. What PRIT set out to do was set standards in the industry to professionalize the industry. It had been an emerging industry, and it was becoming clear that it was becoming a major economic driver. So PRIT was formed by the provincial government to professionalize the industry by setting standards of service. At the same time, in order to ensure that those standards of service could be met, they also worked with industry and with colleges and universities to create training programs to ensure that there were ways that people could qualify to meet the standards set.

So PRIT's role was to professionalize the industry and also to create career paths for people. You can take a variety of very short courses that lead to certificates, which then lead to diplomas, which can actually lead to degrees now. It's become very professional. That has tended to make the jobs much better, and it has certainly professionalized our industry to make British Columbia a very attractive place. I hope that's helpful.

[ Page 4179 ]

Obviously PRIT had a three-year sunset clause; it was initially supposed to exist just for three years. We have retained PRIT, and it's expanded. It seems to me that with the importance and significance of the tourism industry to both the people and the economy of British Columbia, it will be around for some time to come. It has, I think, a very important mandate.

PRIT was set up with a view to creating private-public partnerships. It was a creature of the provincial government, however -- thus the government-appointed board. It has successfully sought partners in the private sector and clearly found some federal funding as well. I hope that provides a little context for the member.

I. Chong: I appreciate the background. I was aware of some of it -- not all of it -- so the clarification certainly helps.

But the board composition is still not clear to me. What I would like to know. . . . Given that it has evolved from government and has now moved from being, I guess, totally government-funded into a private-public partnership with the federal government and with the private sector, then surely the board should not be. . . . Perhaps the minster thinks it should be, but again I would seek clarification on this: surely the board should not be entirely government-appointed, given that there are other sources of funds for this. That's what I'm seeking clarification on; once I understand that, I can ask a few other quick questions on it.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I've asked the same question, and I'm sure that's something that the new Tourism B.C. board will be looking at: the status of PRIT, the composition of the board, its mandate, its relationship to Tourism British Columbia.

As I say, I've asked the very same questions. Why is it an entirely ministerially appointed board, when it is in fact funded. . . ? I don't have the exact composition of the funding. I should say, though, for the record that it's essentially a private sector board, so maybe who's on the board is more significant than who appoints the board. It's essentially a private sector board of educators and tourism interests.

I. Chong: I can appreciate that it's a private sector board, but who appoints it sometimes does, I suppose, make a difference to those who are looking to serve on that board. If the industry were the ones responsible for appointing a certain number -- as the new SOA, Tourism B.C., would be permitted to do -- perhaps that would remove any kind of perception that would otherwise be there.

But the importance of this question -- and I hope the minister appreciates this; she's mentioned it a number of times earlier -- is that the business plan will be coming and that she will be signing off on the business plan. Of course, this will be part of the business plan.

So in relation to that, when the stakeholders or those concerned about the way in which it's now a government-appointed board come along and say, "We would now like PRIT to not be a government-appointed board; we want it to be solely a private sector industry decision, with elections or however the membership wishes it to be," would the minister consider that there is a role for her to play before she signs off on such a suggestion? Would the minister insist that one of the board members still be a government appointee -- or two, three, four or five? What is it that the minister would consider as the minimum criterion to allow her to sign off and also allow the new PRIT board to become established, if you will?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I actually haven't heard any complaints thus far. PRIT has been marvellously stable and marvellously effective, so I don't anticipate any huge concerns. However, I do think it is important to review PRIT and ensure that everybody is happy, that its mandate and function are still relevant and that everybody is working in cooperation for the benefit of the industry, which is imperative.

I guess it's a hypothetical question that the member poses; therefore I could only pose a response hypothetically. But I can say this: if there's any significant government funding involved, then clearly -- and I know the member would agree with this -- there must be the same significant accountability, which would mean some kind of representation on the board, or a majority of the board, or whatever, depending on the funding. That is somewhat of a hypothetical answer in terms of how it may look. But there must be accountability for public funds, and I will ensure that it happens. I have not detected any great discontent with the system the way it is, so don't expect any revolutionary changes. But I do think it's a good idea to look at it.

I. Chong: Certainly I do agree; that is hypothetical. But given that there will be a substantial change with this new legislation and that the new Crown corporation will have some $6 million less to deal with in its marketing, that $6 million can easily trickle down to the provision of grants and funding for an organization like PRIT. If their $350,000, for example, was eroded to $5,000 or $10,000 or only $20,000 -- a very minimal amount -- if that was one of the recommendations that the new Crown corporation board were to decide, then clearly there wouldn't necessarily be a revolution. But that would put everything in a new perspective that there wouldn't be a substantial funding from the province. It would be a minimal amount of funding by the province.

When things like that happen -- and things can, given that this is the direction we're heading in with less funds available -- then I want to be assured, I suppose, that the members who belong to PRIT are able to say: "Given that our funding has been reduced substantially, we would now like to deal with our membership and appointment to the board in a much different way, in a much more democratic process; we would like elections" -- or any other number of things.

I am looking to perhaps even provide it as food for thought for the minister, so that when the business plan comes before her, those things are considered, and so that there would not be any kind of hindrance. Because surely, oftentimes things move down from being 90 percent funded by government to 10 percent if the program or the institute is successful. So what I am looking for is to ensure that the minister would not see that as a major problem.

[4:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the member's comments. Philosophically, I certainly don't disagree in any way. I just 

[ Page 4180 ]

want to say, though, that PRIT has become a very professional, very important tool in ensuring that we have a professional, competitive tourism industry in British Columbia. I would be absolutely amazed if there was a massive reduction in funding; I just don't think that's going to happen.

I'm aware that there are some crossovers on the board, from the SOA to the PRIT board, as well. So while theoretically, you know, we can theorize about reductions in ministerial appointments, the fact is that I expect there will still be significant amounts of funding going to PRIT from Tourism British Columbia. Also, just a point on process that's worth noting is that PRIT makes recommendations for people that they want on their board. I signed off not long ago on the new board, and there was certainly no disagreement or anything. There are simply good, solid people on the board. I see no reason why we would change them.

Also, in terms of elections, I'm not sure who would elect them, because there isn't a big body or society or something behind PRIT that I can see, where you could hold elections. They would have to change their entire structure, I would think, if they were to move to that kind of a structure.

So the point is well taken; I don't disagree with it. I don't expect any very significant shift in funding levels or in the structure for the foreseeable future, but I'm certainly open to it.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her comments, because when those who review Hansards look back at this, they will perhaps feel somewhat comforted with the minister's thoughts that, hopefully, there won't be a huge change in funding, because that is something that is always of concern. Certainly if it happens I won't hold the minister responsible. But because her expectations are not there, then let's hope that this expectation holds true and that there won't be a substantial cut in funding.

I want to comment on what the minister said regarding the election of the board. Again I'm not clear, as well, as to what may happen. But given that you have private sector funding, which will perhaps be more sought after, then you will now have private sector members, I imagine -- after a length of time, I mean. When I say private sector members, you know, I'm presuming that if PRIT went out, asked for corporations, for example, to come along and said, "Will you give us funding for this and provide us with a base for our operating budget?" then surely there may be pressures on the PRIT board, saying: "Well, we also want accountability of our funds. We want to have one of our members on the PRIT board." That would be the only time I see that would require some sort of democratic process for the election. But I won't pursue that line of question. I'm satisfied with the comments that the minister provided.

But I would like to know the composition of the PRIT board at present, if I may ask the minister that: the numbers that sit on the board, if she can give me an idea as to who they are, and also the remuneration, honorarium, compensation or whatever that is paid to board members who serve on PRIT.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The business plan and the list of board members is on the way over, so we'll provide that to the member as soon as possible.

I just want to clarify how PRIT functions. Its focus is on education for tourism, because it's very much focused on professionalizing the tourism industry. Mine is the lead ministry. However, there would be funds from Education, Skills and Training, for instance, that would flow in there, as well.

I don't know exactly what the federal government funds are, but I'm assuming they'd be the same kind of thing. For instance, since 1989-90 they've created a library people can use. I would assume that's fee-for-service. They have things like the SuperHost programs, which the private sector gains access to for a fee, so their funding. . . . The money from the private sector tends to be on that kind of a basis rather than just block funding from the private sector somewhere.

There is no membership attached to PRIT; it is primarily a publicly funded body with private sector funding, as well. I don't have the exact proportions of just exactly how that works, but it is a vehicle used very much to inform and work with the public sector -- universities and colleges, as well as different training programs that the tourism industry uses.

We'll provide you with that information, which I think will answer a lot of your questions when you have a look at the board. I know there are people from colleges and universities. I believe Pat Corbett from COTA sits on the board, and others. It's a very good institution.

I. Chong: That was my last question, but I just want to raise a point. When the minister said that there could also be funding from the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, perhaps that clarifies, too, where they would procure their base amount for their operating budget.

I guess what I'm looking at. . . . And I want to provide this as well to the minister, so that she knows I'm not trying to trap her into any kind of statement. I was viewing this as similar to what we have in Victoria here -- the greater Victoria economic development commission, for example, which I know has in the past been funded through this ministry. Also, the commissioner has gone out to get private sector funding. He's got some private sector funding from a large accounting firm, from some very large corporations and law firms and things like that. I can't name too many others, because it seems like they're the only ones that have been hit up for some money to run the economic development office. So there is an economic development commissioner.

The chamber of commerce is also involved. That board is composed of representatives which are also appointed from various local area councils, because the local municipalities have provided funding, as well. Everyone sends their representative along because they have a share of the budget; they have a share of the funding that's provided. Camosun College has a representative; as well, someone from the arts and cultural industry, because they also have provided some funding. I agree that there may not be a membership, but those who have contributed sometimes asked for a place at the table, shall we say, to be a part of the board.

Those are the reasons why I raise the question -- to get a better understanding of PRIT and how PRIT may change if the funding were to change as well in the future.

I just want to advise the minister that I appreciate her viewpoints and to explain to her what I perceive. Without considering that it may be a hypothetical case, I'm basing what I think may occur on what I've seen occur in the past, on things that have developed in the same way and have come about the same way.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's one significant difference between an economic development commission and PRIT, and it's very significant. The economic development function is primarily a chamber of commerce, community-based, municipal government function, largely driven by the private sector, in cooperation with municipal governments. PRIT is a 

[ Page 4181 ]

creature of the provincial government. It's very involved with provincially funded post-secondary education institutes and very involved with other education and training programs of the ministry and of government. That is a very significant difference, and thus the difference in the governance. PRIT is largely public sector; your economic development commission is largely private sector and municipal. That's why the difference.

The board reflects. . . . It really is, within the context of the public sector, very much made up of the interests. It has people on the board from colleges and universities; it has private sector tourism interests on the board; it has someone from my ministry on the board. As I said, I think Pat Corbett is on the board. I'm not sure of that; I may be wrong. But there certainly is representation on the board, so it is in fact that kind of board. It has not been at any time contentious about who is on that board. It's a very professional board and is doing a very specific job.

Interjections.

The Chair: I think there's been a motion for a ten-minute recess.

Motion approved.

The committee recessed from 4:41 p.m. to 4:56 p.m.

[S. Orcherton in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: We've completed PRIT. Before I go to a couple of the other programs, if I may, I have just a couple of almost generic questions.

I noticed in the announcement -- in fact, the minister and I just had a private comment on that -- that the new agency will also have unlimited authority to partner and raise funds for marketing British Columbia with the private sector, which is a good step. Might I ask the minister what kind of opportunities for the industry and the ministry the minister thinks might become available in terms of private funding, either to match or to supplement the initial base? I'm quite looking forward to that, because there may be all kinds of good opportunities. And how is that marketed?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to preface the example I'm going to give by saying that they have carte blanche to enter into any reasonable partnership they like. Certainly this is not any type of limitation; it's just an example of what they've done.

There was a massive marketing campaign that Tourism B.C. participated in with CTC, the Tourism Alliance, Air Canada and the Vancouver, Victoria and Whistler tourism associations. It was a big marketing campaign, mounted in San Francisco, I believe -- obviously to a specific market. All those interests got together with Tourism British Columbia to market. That's the kind of partnership I envision.

P. Reitsma: Sustaining this line of questions, I think the opportunity for private contributions is quite marvellous. Obviously of extreme importance is tangible success in the first year's operation of the new agency. Will there be limitations? Will there be some prohibitions in terms of funding that will not be accepted by the new tourism agency as directed by the ministry? In other words, there might be groups or organizations that because of self-interest might wish to give all kind of moneys in order to get a foot into whatever door. Are there some guidelines?

[5:00]

P. Reitsma: On that, could the minister foresee. . . ? Let me preface my comments: I would assume that if a decision made by the new board is. . . . It's not likely to happen, but one never knows. I wonder if there's some Checkpoint Charlie at the final border. If -- and it might not necessarily be hypothetical -- the board makes a decision that is wrong and it's not palatable to the ministry or the minister, who ultimately has the final authority and the say? Would it be the minister? Or once the decision is made by the board, which might be very unacceptable to the minister or the ministry, is that a fait accompli?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The Crown agency will be fully accountable to me and to the public. I remain responsible for the board. If they were to commit errors, as some have, I would certainly take the appropriate measures to deal with it.

P. Reitsma: Which could be the annulment, the overturning, of any decision made?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not prepared to speculate on what the board might do and what I might do in response to what the board might do. But I think it suffices to say that the board reports to me. I'm responsible for the board to the Legislature, for the agency to the Legislature, and I fully expect that the board will behave within the rules laid out for them and within the bounds of public expectation.

P. Reitsma: I can read between the lines in the statements and obviously, if ultimately through the legislation the board was responsible through the minister to the Legislature, then. . . . I do not, let me be abundantly clear, expect any decision of such magnitude to be made that could be quite upsetting to the Legislature. But the facilities are there and the opportunity is there to rectify that.

Before I go to those other programs, just something for some comparison. When I look at the background or, when it was announced -- "Tourism: Looking to the Future. . . ." I'd like some comparisons, if the minister has the numbers. How many people, directly and indirectly, were employed in the hospitality industry, and how many businesses is the minister talking about in 1996? While it's very difficult to forecast, what is the generally acceptable level for 1997?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The number of people employed in tourism by the. . . . Obviously, all of these kinds of numbers are -- like the estimates we're discussing -- estimates, but they're highly educated estimates. It's 223,700 people who work in tourism; 83,790 are direct tourism jobs and 134,380 are dependent tourism jobs -- in other words, they wouldn't exist unless the primary industry existed.

P. Reitsma: For 1996?

[ Page 4182 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes.

P. Reitsma: And would the minister also mention the number of businesses, directly and indirectly? Do we have stats on that, related to the tourism hospitality industry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: In 1995 there were 15,355 -- that's the most recent number I have. That's a 56 percent increase since 1990, which is remarkable. Clearly, we must be doing something right to have that increase of businesses in tourism.

P. Reitsma: I'm part of that number, as well, as a matter of fact, with my businesses.

This might have been asked before, and I take guidance on that. As I like statistics and locations in terms of where people are coming from, would the minister be good enough to give a quick breakdown of where the visitors came from? I know that western Europe, particularly, has gone up quite dramatically. And it is the same in the Pacific Rim, of course. I know that internal traffic within B.C. is the greatest amount. I wonder if there are some numbers in the western United States -- and, I guess, Alberta, being the immediate next-door province.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The short answer is that the regional market, which is the contiguous states and provinces -- i.e., Alberta, Washington, Oregon and the north. . . . There are 5.8 million visitors from there, 58.35 percent of the total; long-haul North American, 27.94 percent of the market; Asia-Oceania, 7.9 percent; Europe, 5.03 percent; and "other international," 0.78 percent. I have all of these figures that I was checking, but I won't read them into the record. I should make the point, however, that while the percentage of visitors from Asia, for instance, is small, the amount of dollars and the length of visits are significant. So the percentages of the numbers of people that come here don't necessarily accurately represent the percent of the economic benefit to British Columbia.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that, because that is absolutely true, particularly when you see visitors from western Europe, and Germany, in particular, visiting northern B.C. -- the wilderness -- whether they go fishing or trophy hunting. The cost, of course, is substantial, and the benefits, in terms of derivatives from money spent and respent -- the recycling -- is tremendous. They've had to come a long distance, but they don't mind spending the money.

I take it that those are the 1996 numbers. Are they up quite substantially from 1995? Do we have some comparison numbers from 1995?

Hon. J. Pullinger: These are the percentage increases over last year: total U.S. is up 2.3 percent, or 7.8 million visitors; overnight U.S., up 1.7 percent; total Asia-Oceania, up 18.3 percent; Australia, up 6.6 percent; China, up 18.1 percent; Hong Kong, up 23.2 percent; Indonesia, up 15.1 percent; Japan, up 11.1 percent; South Korea, up 48.8 percent; Malaysia, up 57.7 percent; New Zealand, up 1.6 percent. I'm only one-third of the way down the page, but I think that will give you a sense of where we are.

P. Reitsma: I would ask the minister if I could have a copy of that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure.

P. Reitsma: The answer is yes. Thank you very much. Pardon me?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is a user fee. I'm kidding.

P. Reitsma: I'd like that on the record.

That's quite an exciting part in a way, too.

Yesterday my hon. colleague from Okanagan-Penticton asked a question in terms of the offices throughout the world, and the minister complied and gave the numbers. I understand there used to be Tourism B.C. offices in Los Angeles and in Seattle. I know it's going to be out of the purview of the minister and that it's going to be in the hands of the new Tourism B.C. agency, but has the minister conveyed some suggestion to the new agency that they might wish to look at reopening in Seattle and particularly in Los Angeles? I think it would be extremely beneficial.

Hon. J. Pullinger: As the member is aware, all aspects of Tourism B.C.'s function are under review. The purpose of having an industry board and having this new model is, by and large, to allow industry to put forward its ideas and plans and to point the direction for the use of the public funds available to it. It's not my intent to spend a lot of time telling the board what to do. Rather, I would prefer that the board review all the functions of the SOA and the marketing branch of my ministry and put forward its business plan, which I will then receive, meet with them to comment on and, ultimately, with or without changes, sign off on. That will be the document they'll work toward and from for the ensuing year.

P. Reitsma: The reason I mention it during estimates, as the minister knows, is that it's not only our opportunity for asking questions but, I like to think, a very genuine opportunity for input as well. When the policies, marketing strategies, targeting, etc., that are being formulated at the moment. . . . I know the ministry is involved. Very seriously and genuinely, I'm asking if there are opportunities for the opposition to have input, which will be valuable and non-partisan. What mechanisms are there for us to do that -- simply by writing to them? Or is there some opportunity to sit down with the board or whoever the policy-makers are going to be? I think we are a part of the happy solution to tourism in B.C. Are there some real possibilities for us as opposition to have input?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a public board, and certainly there's nothing to stop anybody from communicating with the board. The intent of the board, however, is that it really will be a bottom-up kind of process, in that the industry goes out and consults at the grass roots with the communities and with the tourism industry around the province -- hence my insistence upon diversity on the board and regional focus, both of which are written in the legislation. The intent is to move out to determine what the communities, what the regions and what the industry itself requires and to formulate that through the processes set out by and for the board.

[5:15]

P. Reitsma: I thank the minister for the positive reply on this. It may be ad nauseam, but it happens to be probably the 

[ Page 4183 ]

only thing I know. The tourism industry has been my life and my commitment -- as I mentioned -- for 30-plus years in various aspects of this industry.

Since the minister and the ministry are still actively involved until we have the new Tourism B.C. agency, has the minister or the ministry pondered the possibility of perhaps opening an office in western Europe, and in Germany in particular, because of the incredible economic potential -- particularly since East and West Germany are now one country? And the Pacific Rim, which I see as an emerging market maybe five or ten years from now -- getting a foothold into mainland China, with a billion people. . . . Although economically not up to the standards that we enjoy, nevertheless, five to ten years from now mainland China, with a billion-plus people, has an enormous emerging market. To repeat: has the minister pondered on the ministry perhaps opening, or considering opening, in western Europe, in the Pacific Rim, and given some thought to the emerging market in mainland China?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: As well as the two offices here, we have a presence in Australia, California, Germany, Taiwan, the U.K. and Japan. It's already in Germany. And the stats I read earlier about market trends. . . . I would assume that the new board would be watching the market trends, the potential airline routes and different things like that to get people here, and would strategically deploy their resources accordingly.

P. Reitsma: I guess sometimes one listens but doesn't hear. I'm glad that there is one in Germany. Has that been opened recently, in the last couple of years? What is the cost attached to that, and how many FTEs are there?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Under our government, we put someone in Germany. He's been there for two years. He's a general sales agent and functions not as a direct employee but in a sort of broker role. It's a contracted service, in other words.

P. Reitsma: The contract is to facilitate the marketing or promotion of B.C. in Germany? Is there an additional function associated with it? What is the cost of the contract?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That individual is a general sales agent, and she or he would deal with travel agents, tour agents and the like. Basically, that individual's job is to sell B.C. to the people who then sell tourism trips.

P. Reitsma: And the cost?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry, I don't have that level of detail here, but we will be happy to provide it for you.

P. Reitsma: Thank you very much.

The minister said that there was one in Asia-Pacific or Korea, Japan. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: Taiwan.

P. Reitsma: Okay. Could I have a breakdown, if at all possible and if the minister has it, in terms of FTEs and the function? It may very well be the same. That's fine. We want to have it on the record, if the minister has any costs associated with those, for each individual one, and if there's more than a single role -- if there's a dual role.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Sure, I'll provide that information to the member in the form that I have. I don't want to raise an expectation, but I believe I have some reasonable level of detail, and I'll certainly provide that.

P. Reitsma: That's quite acceptable, actually.

Could the minister -- in fact, I haven't had a chance to go back to those -- advise us with. . . ? Of course, I find that research and development must be ongoing as part of the funding. I know we're going to have a new agency. But could the minister identify the research and development that's going on now and the new areas for tourism opportunities? I'll get back to ecotourism, for instance, as a big one. But are there research and development funds available, and is that ongoing?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There's approximately $800,000 earmarked for research. I expect that the key activities for this coming year will be primarily visitor research. Obviously that's a key focus of the ministry, and it will be a key focus of the new Crown agency to find out who's coming here, from where and how happy they are about being here. So that, plus monthly measurements of the market and those kinds of things, are the. . . . The report I was reading from, for instance, about the increase in visitors from different areas of the world -- when I read a list of percentage increases -- would be the kind of research project that we would be undertaking.

P. Reitsma: The $800,000 is for the research in terms of visitor identification -- reports. Is that a component of the ministry, or is it contracted out? Are there a certain number of FTEs associated with the component of research?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are four FTEs in my ministry that crunch these numbers and do this kind of research. Other than that, it's contracted. The majority of the work -- obviously a lot of legwork is involved -- is contracted to an independent contractor, Angus Reid. We are in the second and final year right now of a massive two-year study to determine visitation.

P. Reitsma: Let me assure the minister that I find this type of information rather crucial in order to target promotion and to look at what might become emerging markets and so on. I take it, then, that the portion that is contracted out is, or was, up for bids. If so, could the minister or a member of her staff remember how many bid on that contract, approximately?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Due process was certainly followed in the contracting of this research process and project. The ministry works with the Purchasing Commission to ensure that all of the appropriate hoops are jumped through. It's just by memory, so it could well be wrong. But we understand on this side that there are three to four major research houses that responded.

P. Reitsma: We're somewhat in a transition period. I appreciate that. But, be as that may, I'd just like to know if target promotion is going on at the present moment. Has the ministry identified emerging markets or, certainly, well-producing markets? What kind of targeting, in terms of promotion and marketing, is going on at present? What does the ministry see and identify as emerging markets?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Despite the fact that we are in a transition period right now, we continue to market British 

[ Page 4184 ]

Columbia aggressively in all of our major markets -- which, of course, are the ones that I have alluded to earlier: Europe, Asia, the United States, etc.

P. Reitsma: Turning now to a couple of the programs. . . . As a backgrounder, I'm looking at "Tourism B.C.: Developing Skills for Tourism Growth." There are four programs that I know of: (1) the tourism workplace training program, (2) Destinations, (3) Tourism Careers for Youth and (4) the foods trade apprenticeship program. Are those the only current programs?

Hon. J. Pullinger: A lot of those programs have been around for some time. The training programs are significant and varied, and they are virtually throughout the entire public education system. As well, I'm sure there are many private training programs. For instance, Malaspina College in the member's riding has a significant hospitality program.

P. Reitsma: I wish now to go into detail on those. I have quite a number of questions on all of those. I'll start with the Destinations program. When was it established? Is there public-private funding? Is there a board? And are there directors?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The Destinations program is not run through this ministry. It's run through Education, Skills and Training. The member may want to direct his questions there. But it's part of the workplace-based training initiatives, like A Guarantee for Youth and B.C. Benefits, etc., to provide people with on-the-job training.

P. Reitsma: The reason I mentioned it is that the backgrounder is provided by Tourism B.C., which is part of the ministry, of course. So I see no problem asking questions about this particular program, because it's done through Tourism B.C. Is there a board or directors in the Destinations program? Is it a contract based on certain fees?

[5:30]

While the member is correct that it is in our literature, nevertheless that program is not delivered through this ministry nor funded through this ministry. I'm not able to discuss it, and in fact it would be inappropriate to do so in this forum. I would suggest that the member take his questions to the Education, Skills and Training estimates, where you can get the answers you want.

P. Reitsma: I have no quarrel with it, although the minister did give me a bit of an opening by saying that they provide input and assistance. Could the minister please elaborate on the input and assistance? What kind of input and assistance is given?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Professional expertise on the development of the program.

P. Reitsma: Professional expertise and development program.

Hon. J. Pullinger: On the development of the program.

P. Reitsma: Okay. Is there a cost related to that? Is there a charge back to the ministry because of the expertise, input and assistance given?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me be clear. We're talking past tense here, and we're talking about the expertise of my very capable staff, working with the Ministry of Education. No, ministries don't charge each other for services rendered.

I just want to put on the record a response, while I'm on my feet, to another question the member asked earlier that was to do with the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism board members -- what their status was and payment, etc. They are volunteers, and they receive travel expenses only. I have a package here that I'll provide to the member.

P. Reitsma: Could the minister, then, advise me about the other programs? Tourism Careers for Youth, the foods trade apprenticeship program and the tourism workplace training program are all also part of the other ministry. However, that being the case, does the assistance and input given by the ministry relate to any specific recommendations, specific inputs, specific assistance at all, or just generalities?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The way government works is that when there's an issue, a project or an initiative to be worked on, individuals from various parts of government generally come together to provide the expertise necessary to do so. We have done so in the case of development of programs relating to tourism where necessary. That assistance is in the form of meetings and so on. It's not quantifiable; it's not costed; it's not billed to another ministry or anything of that nature. It's simply staff people working with each other to make programs happen in the wonderful way they do.

Interjection.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, Education, Skills and Training.

The Chair: Through the Chair, members.

P. Reitsma: Thank you, hon. Chair, I know I'm supposed to go through the Chair, but I thought I'd shortcut to the fast answer. It's Skills and Training's ministry. I would not want to be chastised by the Chairman. He is bigger than I am, but be that as it may. . . . So those are part of the Skills and Training ministry.

Could the minister advise us as to what kind of innovative and incentive programs and courses are available, have been made available or are going to be available to those in the hospitality industry with the aim of bettering their skills and knowledge, other than the ones we've mentioned here?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The most significant programs -- and almost the only education programs actually provided through this ministry -- are the SuperHost programs, and there is the basic SuperHost or fundamentals program that's been around for a while. I believe it was initiated in anticipation of Expo 86. Since then, the Japanese service expectations SuperHost program has come on stream and the ones that I mentioned earlier, to work with and serve people with disabilities, and Service Across Cultures, which is intercultural 

[ Page 4185 ]

-- how to effectively get by your own ethnocentric biases and work effectively with people from another culture. Those are the primary training programs that are provided through this ministry.

P. Reitsma: Zeroing in on SuperHost, which is good, are there such things available as certificates or pins or certificates of achievement for having finished a particular course? Is there any reward or certificate or recognition of courses taken?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Actually, the very first event that I did as the Minister of Tourism was with the Root Bear and others, which was the graduation of the first class of people from the two new SuperHost programs. They do in fact get a certificate. There's also a relatively new program that certifies a SuperHost business, and that's a business that has put 70 percent of its employees through the SuperHost program.

P. Reitsma: All quite successful, I take it.

I have a side question on the information outlined on that 1-800 line. The question coming to mind is that you'll have many people phoning with language skills that are not necessarily English. Do we have multilingual people on the telephone when people phone in for service and guidance?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's only for the North American market, so it's either French or English. I understand most people on the line are. . . . There may be somebody who speaks French, but in fact it's an English-language service, because it's a North American service.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate what the minister says, and that's fine if it's a North American service. My only counterpoint would be that many people from Japan, although they may have tour guides. . . . Having done the reverse, going to Japan. . . . I do not speak Japanese, other than the odd word -- thank you and please, and those are the two most important words, for that matter. But we always avail ourselves of local tour guides.

I could foresee circumstances and situations whereby somebody from an Asia-Pacific or European country whose English is not necessarily great might wish to phone for information. But by the sounds of it, the only language spoken other than English appears to be French.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm not even sure that French is spoken. It's a North American service. It's the United States and Canada, primarily, where English is spoken by virtually everyone.

P. Reitsma: In-house mail does move fast, and I just want to acknowledge that hand-delivered, of course, was the request for a copy of the business plan for the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism and a list of the board members. There are the volunteers and the travel expenses. And there are 21 board members; I just tallied them up. Do I take it that they are all appointed by the government?

By the minister -- okay.

Talking about education, although it's a different ministry, nevertheless tourism education, of course, is important. The minister alluded. . . . Certainly it's important to my riding, in terms of Malaspina College. The previous Minister of Education announced a new program -- a tourism degree. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that: what it entails, where it's going to be held, how long it is for and some of those things.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, I can't. It doesn't fall under my jurisdiction.

P. Reitsma: Okay. They are tourism degrees, and I'm glad that they're now being offered, which is important, I guess, for our industry. I'm somewhat surprised that the minister wouldn't want to comment on that, because I think it's important for our industry to have the skills, to have the availability of schools in order to acquire those skills, which will be to the betterment, of course, of the tourism industry.

Given the hour, is it the pleasure of the minister to keep on going or to adjourn now?

Hon. J. Pullinger: To rise and report progress.

P. Reitsma: I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to meet again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:43 p.m.

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