1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1999

Volume 15, Number 18

[ Page 13197 ]

The House met at 10:04 a.m.

Prayers.

Tabling Documents

[1005]

Orders of the Day

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

The Chair: I believe that by agreement we're starting with section 5, the section that was stood down.

On section 5.

G. Farrell-Collins: Section 5 is a very interesting section of this bill. If I can quote from the explanatory note to section 5, it "allows the government and government bodies to enter into commodity derivatives in order to manage risks or maximize benefits associated with fluctuating prices of commodities." It's important to note that there are two goals here: one is to manage the risks, and the other is to maximize the benefits. Those are different things.

The government has, for many, many years -- in the risk management branch that deals with public finances and public debt -- managed the risk by hedging our investments in order to protect ourselves from interest rate fluctuations, currency exchange fluctuations, etc. That, I think, is wise; I mean, everybody would agree that's wise. In fact, they've done an excellent job of doing that over the years, and I think people all think very highly of the department, the people who are in it and the work they've done over the last number of decades. They're well respected.

Those are financial derivatives -- I guess that's what we would call them. This bill allows for something else. It deals with commodity derivatives. In section 5, it allows the government to do it. Section 12 allows B.C. Hydro to do it also. Essentially section 12 says that section 5 will apply, for all intents and purposes, to B.C. Hydro. It is probably best to have the debate at once and to do it all together.

[1010]

The second stage that B.C. Hydro took in wheeling power, or trading these derivatives on the market, was really designed to be a revenue-generating unit of B.C. Hydro. It came to be a profit centre for B.C. Hydro. As long as they do well, everybody's happy. In fact, B.C. Hydro has done fairly well. Powerex has done fairly well in their trades in the last number of years and has sent a significant portion of that to the bottom line of B.C. Hydro and, in turn, to revenues to government.

The concern I have, first of all, is that apparently -- we don't need to get into a big discussion about it -- Powerex has been doing this for some time. This bill is going to legalize it, or put it into the Financial Administration Act that allows them to do that. I understand there has been some discussion and disagreement back and forth about whether they really were allowed to do it or not. This will formalize what they've been doing. I have a concern. My concern is that this legislation really deal with the oversight and control of what's likely to happen as this process expands.

I think one can look at the record and say that the debt management branch, and the risk managers in the debt management branch, have done a good job of managing our risk in a conservative way. My concern is this: if B.C. Hydro continues to turn this into -- in a greater and greater way -- a profit-generating centre for Powerex and B.C. Hydro, what are the long-term controls? How can we be sure that B.C. Hydro hasn't just had a string of very good luck in the energy commodities markets and isn't likely to find that that stops at some point in the future?

Other people have engaged in the derivatives market for power and have not done very well. I mean, we all know about the Orange County example of a municipality that engaged in commodity futures and commodity derivatives and found themselves about $1.9 billion short one day, which brought about the collapse of their municipality financially. There are also a couple of examples that happened in 1998. In mid-1998 there were some pretty serious problems that happened in the energy market. There was a bit of a shake-out, and a number of people lost a significant amount of money -- not just large companies but small companies too.

PacifiCorp of Oregon lost $32 million in the second quarter of 1998 in its power-marketing business. They've decided to get out of that business altogether. They entered into it; they were doing well and making money, and then all of a sudden they were $32 million short one day. It happens fairly quickly. It doesn't just sort of evolve over a period of months. In this case it happened fairly quickly. Westcoast Energy, a British Columbia company, has a subsidiary company which they own called Engage Energy. They co-own it with Coastal Corp. of Houston, Texas. In 1998 they lost $18 million in that mar-

[ Page 13198 ]

[1015]

I'm interested in understanding from the government, first of all, what oversight provisions are going to be put in place, what limits on exposure, what volumes we're likely to be trading, what sort of reports are going to be made. How are we to be assured that B.C. Hydro, in the first instance, is managing that risk properly? Private companies do it with their own capital; Hydro does it with our capital. It belongs to everybody in British Columbia; it's public money. I would like to know what controls are in place, what plans there are to improve those controls, what limits are there and what accountability structures are going to be in place to ensure that the public interest is protected.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Those are very good questions, and they're the questions that were asked by government in order to institute this legislation. I'm pleased to be able to share the information with the member. He certainly has articulated the questions that needed to be answered in order to bring forward this legislation.

Just a couple of opening remarks, if I may, on what brought this about, because this has certainly been in the making for a substantial period of time, in order to make sure that there is not only the maximum reduction of risk to the taxpayer -- or to the ratepayer in the case of B.C. Hydro, but to the taxpayer as well -- but also maximizing of benefits on behalf of the taxpayer as well. The reason why we're bringing forward this legislation is so that the province, through commodity hedging, can reduce risk and exposure to fluctuating prices of commodities -- electricity the member has mentioned -- from a point of view of profit-making but also from a point of view of reducing the risk to the customer. This is also in the area of natural gas and particularly fuel oil as well.

B.C. Ferries could engage in an exercise of commodity hedgings that would actually cap its costs on oil prices, not just on the basis of how much it can store physically but on the basis of future use as well, so they could have taken advantage of the low prices. And yes, the hon. member is quite correct that we are putting in place stringent checks and a balance system as well, and I'll go through those with you on the record, if you wish. But I'd also like to offer the member -- to any members, I should say -- the actual document, the portfolio management parameters.

I'll get the member the most recent version of the parameters, but let me just outline the model that we are going to put in place for commodities derivatives. It is based, as the member referred to earlier, on the debt management branch risk committee parameters. I would suggest that the parameters in place for financial derivatives will be the absolute minimum -- and, in fact, will probably be either applied or, in themselves, beefed up to deal with commodities derivatives.

So here are the risk parameters that the risk committee now enforces and that will become the floor for commodities derivatives. They have to take into consideration the following parameters: a portfolio management authority matrix, the term structure of the debt, the floating rate exposure, foreign currency exposure, liquidity risk, authorized derivative transactions, counter-party credit exposure, matched financing and warehouse programs. So that will be the floor by which we manage the risk and maximize the benefits for commodities derivatives.

[1020]

So I expect, unless the member. . . . I don't think the member's saying this. They wouldn't engage in commodities hedging; I don't think the member's saying that. I expect the member and I are in agreement on what's necessary to manage this aspect of the portfolio.

G. Farrell-Collins: The concern I have is. . . . Let me put it this way. I think there is logic behind all of what the minister said. There is logic behind having B.C. Ferries engage in futures to iron out bumps -- spikes -- in the cost of their fuel supply. The same would apply to B.C. Rail or any Crown that is buying those commodities. There is logic in doing that.

My concern -- and I think it's a real one -- is this: commodities derivatives are a zero-sum game. If we win, it means someone else loses; if we lose, it means someone else wins. There are no real profits in there, because you're. . . . I shouldn't say that there are no profits. There are profits if you win; there are losses if you lose. But it's not where you can have win-win situations, for the most part.

My concern is this: the government's record in overseeing the financial operations of Crown corporations has been abysmal. The fast ferry instance is the most recent example. That project ended up costing over twice what it was originally to cost, it's three years behind schedule, and the taxpayers are going to have to pay for that.

Other examples come from B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro -- which is the same company that's running Powerex -- set up a deal with a power project in Pakistan that has yet to produce one watt of power. Several million dollars of taxpayer money have gone into that project. All the risks that were associated with that project were there. The government could have looked at them; the government could have measured those risks and made a determination of whether or not it was good to go into that investment. The fact of the matter is that none of those measurements of risks was done on the Pakistan

[ Page 13199 ]

Certainly at B.C. Ferries -- where there was no reporting structure, according to the government that was in place -- people working in the corporation and people on the board of the corporation failed to report to the minister, according to the minister. There was no communications, no control and no oversight.

The thing about the Pakistan project is that there was an upper limit to our risk. We'd lose the money we'd invested, but there was an upper limit to it. There was no longer-term obligation; there was a limit to what we could invest -- or what we did invest. With the fast ferry project, while there wasn't a total limit to the risk that was there, there was at least a range. I don't think anybody ever thought it was going to cost twice as much to build these things, but at least it was limited. There were only three ferries being constructed; that risk was somewhat limited and could be managed over time.

My concern is this: if we end up with B.C. Rail, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Ferry Corporation. . . . Maybe ICBC gets into financial derivatives; maybe WCB does the same in managing their risks. Pretty soon we've got five or six Crown corporations and agencies of government out there playing the market, not only to reduce their risks and iron out the bumps in their expenditures but to maximize the benefits also. That is a huge concern to me.

I don't think this government has a proven track record of oversight with Crown corporations. I don't doubt for a minute that the Ministry of Finance, the debt management branch and the risk managers are going to be able to put in place a very tight set of controls that will look good on paper. I don't doubt that for a minute. I'm sure it will all be there. I'm sure that lots of work has been done on it. But I just don't believe that the government has a track record that gives us and the public any confidence that there's going to be sufficient oversight of those guidelines, rules and parameters to ensure that they're adhered to.

[1025]

I would think that the Minister for Ferries would be a little nervous about it too, given the mess that he has to deal with. This could make the fast ferry fiasco look like a rubber ducky in a tub, compared to what might happen if we end up extending ourselves out there and trying to generate revenues from trading oil futures. I think the risk is there, and there is no proven track record whatsoever in government. In fact the opposite is there. There is no proven track record that there is an oversight system in place -- whether it's through the Crown corporations secretariat, the Ministry of Finance, Treasury Board, cabinet or whatever.

There is no proven track record whatsoever that would lead me to believe that that oversight is going to be followed up on, that it's going to be ironclad and that we're going to be protected. I think the risk to taxpayers is huge. The potential exposure is immense. Rather than having any sense of confidence that the government's going to be able to oversee this, I have a great sense of dread, given the track record, that in fact just the opposite's going to happen. We're going to find ourselves someday -- maybe next week, maybe six years from now -- in a position where some minister has to stand up in this House and explain why Crown corporation X has lost so many hundreds of millions of dollars in a bad trade.

I'm extremely worried about that, because I know it will happen. A minister of the Crown will stand up and say: "Well, we had all of these things in place, but nobody told me. If they'd only reported to us. If they'd only followed the guidelines. You hire good people, and you expect them to deliver. If they don't, you fire them." They'll say that $200 million later. How many times have we heard that story in this House? I'm terrified, quite frankly, given the track record of the government and its oversight ability on Crown corporations, that some minister is someday going to stand up in this House and give just that explanation. And the taxpayers are going to be left holding the bag.

I don't know how big an exposure we're going to see on this, how often it's going to happen, how frequently these trades are going to be going on and what the limits are. I do look forward to getting the report from the minister with the parameters on it. But unless the minister can tell me why there's going to be better control and oversight on this -- on a daily basis, if not almost an hourly basis -- then I have no confidence that those controls are going to be in place and are going to be able to be enforced at the political level.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I'm actually going to just take the opportunity to treat this within the parameters with which we're dealing and not explore the other issues that the member has raised.

I think the member is asking for demonstrated proof that even as we have been in government, we -- or the officials responsible for debt management -- have successfully managed this issue effectively. I think that's what he's looking for, regardless of relating it to fast ferries or other issues. So let me just narrow my comments to his request in that area.

Even as we have been in government -- we being the New Democratic government -- the OCIO has operated with great success. The rate of returns of the office of the chief investment office has managed public funds on the market incredibly well and has more than outshone many, many other funds. That has been under the course of this government, so there's proof. That has proven to be very beneficial to pension funds and to taxpayers as a whole.

[1030]

[ Page 13200 ]

The other factor that is key here is who we use as our intermediary in carrying out commodities hedging. We will -- I'll put it on record here -- only use the firms with the best reputation. We'll make those firms public, and their reputation will be put on the line as well as our government's relationship with them. The intermediary is key. In fact, the two examples that I read about in the media today -- I don't know where. . . . I'm certainly not accusing the opposition of raising those examples. The examples I read in a column this morning were simply. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. J. MacPhail: No, no. I'm not accusing the opposition of relating themselves to those examples at all. But the Barings bank and Orange County examples were because of lack of controls and fraudulent behaviour. I look forward to the day that any organization, whether private or public, can legislate against fraud. I look forward to that very much. Those two examples either engaged in fraudulent behaviour or had no parameters in place and were using intermediaries that simply had no proven record.

Setting aside the political concerns that the members opposite may have about the competence of our government and dealing only with the issue that is before us, I accept the member's requirement to have all of the controls and checks and balances in place, and I agree with the requirement to have those controls and checks and balances, and we are doing that.

G. Farrell-Collins: I would argue that the competence of the government in overseeing its Crown corporations is exactly the issue that's before us right now. That's exactly the issue. That's the worry; that's the concern. As I said earlier, I think the debt management branch has done an outstanding job in the last number of years in reducing our risk and hedging our investments, and I think any analysis would indicate that -- some of the best around. They deserve the credit for that, but my concern continues. The minister says that you can't legislate against fraud. I agree with that. But you also don't have to hand somebody the opportunity to commit fraud.

Let's look at an example of how this government has been overseeing its Crown corporations. There is nothing in legislation that permits B.C. Hydro to do what they have been doing for the last number of years. B.C. Hydro is already trading in natural gas derivatives. B.C. Hydro doesn't produce natural gas; they don't sell it; they don't distribute it. But they're trading in it, and they have been for some time. Where did they get the authority to do that? Who allowed them to do that? Who said they could do that? Who's overseeing how they're doing that? Nobody, aside from themselves. So my concern exists.

In the past that's been the case: the government hasn't done proper oversight. I understand that part of the effort here is to put in place good controls and oversight. That's part of it, because that improves. . . . At least there's something. But the fact of the matter is that the other side of it is that you're giving the power not just to B.C. Hydro to do this but to the Ferry Corporation, which has not proved itself to be a good financial manager. You're giving it B.C. Rail, which operates generally as a private sector company but still has only public money to invest and public money to deal with. We're still accountable for it.

[1035]

I think that the very fact that B.C. Hydro would have felt comfortable going out and turning Powerex into a profit-generating entity, engaging of their own free will in commodity derivatives around power and then natural gas, indicates to me an attitude there of risk-taking that's not accountable to government. The fact that that debate has been going back and forth for some time between Powerex and Hydro and the B.C. government about what they could and couldn't do indicates to me that it's difficult for the government to control -- or whether the government is unwilling to control -- the investment policies of that Crown corporation in particular. They seem to be doing it on their own.

I'm not convinced for one minute that, despite all of the controls and the parameters that the government will put in place, they're necessarily going to be followed. I'm just not convinced of that at all, and I don't know how the government can be comfortable with that. The electricity market over the last number of years has probably proven to be, if not the most, one of the most volatile markets in existence. Hundreds of millions of dollars are won and lost on a daily basis. I just think that it's a new market, still untested, and I'm not convinced that we have the protections in place.

I can tell you that I'm even more concerned, quite frankly, about B.C. Ferries out there trying to trade in crude oil and in oil derivatives and futures in an effort to generate benefits in order to maximize revenue -- in order to try and generate some revenue. I'm very concerned about that -- extremely concerned about it -- because there is no expertise there whatsoever in that. If this were a government that had gone through the last eight years and we hadn't had the crises of the various Crown corporations that we've had, if we had had good oversight of the Crown corporations, if we had had good financial management at the Crown corporations, I must say I'd feel a lot more comfortable. I'm terrified, quite frankly, of what the government is doing here.

You've got Crown corporations -- B.C. Hydro, for example, and maybe B.C. Ferry Corporation -- that have been running around with a water pistol, and you're going to hand them an Uzi. That's how big a jump we're dealing with if they

[ Page 13201 ]

I would like to understand from the minister what actual structure is going to be in place at the political level and at the senior bureaucratic level to ensure that these guidelines are being followed on a daily basis. What process is going to be put in place to ensure that these guidelines, as tight as they are, are being followed?

The Chair: Just while we're waiting for the minister, members, could I have leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

The Chair: Visiting us today in the gallery is a school group that comes annually, for the past several years. They obviously have a good program for giving their school an understanding of government and B.C. history. The school is the Haney-Pitt Meadows Christian School in Maple Ridge. Would members join me in welcoming this group to the Legislature.

[1040]

G. Farrell-Collins: That's the upfront structure that's going to be there to ensure that the risk policy is something that's -- how would I put it? -- pragmatic, that there is a sensible risk management strategy for dealing with trades. What I'm wondering about is, on a daily basis, who's going to be overseeing this. Who's going to be monitoring? The minister said earlier in her explanation that at the end of the day, Public Accounts will have a chance to look. Well, Public Accounts is about a year and a half after those trades may have happened, maybe longer in some cases. I'm concerned about who is going to be overseeing this on a daily basis to ensure that all those guidelines that are being put in place are actually being followed.

Hon. J. MacPhail: Again, I did outline the criteria by which this would occur; that includes management on a regular basis. I can't commit to a daily basis -- who knows whether there will be activity on a daily basis? When there is activity, the criteria apply on the specific activity level.

For instance, as I mentioned, the portfolio management authority matrix is a document that puts approval limits, spending limits, on it. The other factors that are in place are on who they can trade with. The plan that will be approved will have very specific limits on it. Overseeing that is the risk committee.

I would just note for the members of the Legislature that this is the model on which the debt management branch operates, with great success and with great minimization of risk. The auditor general actually reviewed that, I believe, around 1997 -- I'm not sure, 1998 or 1997 -- and confirmed that he was comfortable with the control mechanisms that were put in place. That is the model upon which commodities derivatives are based as well.

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is, however, that the debt management branch trades in financial derivatives in an attempt to reduce our risk. As I said earlier in my very opening comments, that's a laudable goal; that should be done.

My concern is that it's not what this legislation limits it to. This legislation allows for commodity derivatives to be traded in an effort to maximize benefits, in an effort to generate revenue. There's a whole different trading strategy around maximizing revenue than there is around minimizing risk. It's a very different tactic that a trader or group of traders would take. Is the minister telling me that there is not going to be an attempt by any of the various Crown corporations to be generating revenue out of this, but, rather, merely to be hedging their investments and minimizing the risks? Can she assure me, then, that there's no attempt to maximize revenues?

Hon. J. MacPhail: This legislation exactly reflects the legislation that's contained. . . . It's exactly the same as the legislation in the Financial Administration Act that applies to debt management. So it is exactly the same requirement.

[1045]

These are exactly the rules that are in place for this. Legislative requirements are exactly the same and reflect exactly the same requirements and the same principles as are contained in the Financial Administration Act currently, which is about managing risk for commodities. It says "maximize benefits," but not in the context of specifically maximizing revenue.

G. Farrell-Collins: My understanding is that the debt management branch has not been out there trying to make as much money as it can trading in financial derivatives, but rather has been trying to hedge investments and reduce risks. As I said, those are two different strategies.

Now, that's a policy decision that they've taken, and generally that's great. My concern is that there's nothing that limits the various Crown corporations, with their lack of oversight and lack of experience, to go out there and try and turn this ability into a revenue-generating item. In fact, Powerex has done just that. With no oversight, no governance, no control by government, they've gone out and done that, and they've been doing it for the last number of years. Indeed,

[ Page 13202 ]

I don't get the assurance from the minister that the Crown corporations are going to be limited in the way they engage in this. She's asking us to give the government fairly sweeping powers to trade in the most risky of market vehicles without the track record of oversight of Crown corporations. I'm sure that the debt management people and the risk managers there have done a good job. I've said that three or four times. I'm just not convinced that they're going to be able to watch what's going on at the Crown corporations and make that happen.

As I said earlier, I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense to engage in commodity derivatives and the trades if the goals are correct, if the oversight is there, if there's a proven track record of accountability. I am saying that this government does not have that proven track record of accountability. The minister sidesteps that issue and says that she doesn't want to get into the political aspect of it and the accountability of it and that that's not the issue she wants to deal with. I think that is just the issue; that is exactly the issue. As I said, if there was a proven track record of oversighted Crown corporations, if there was as good an oversight of Crown corporations as there has been within the debt management branch by risk managers, then I would feel much, much more comfortable.

I'm not saying that another government or a different set of ministers or different people -- and not even necessarily that party -- can't do it. But certainly the track record in the last number of years has not been a good one. I'm not prepared to give this government carte blanche to go out and do that, given the dismal accountability structures they have in place for Crown corporations. We would be negligent in doing that. I think until the government learns to manage its finances a little better, learns to manage the Crown corporations in a more accountable way, there is no way that anybody should be giving those powers to the various Crown corporations.

[1050]

Section 5 of Bill 62 approved on the following division:

[1055]

Section 12 approved on division.

The Chair: Members, by agreement we're going to go to section 7 for an amendment by the Attorney General.

On section 7.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move an amendment to section 7 of this bill, a copy of which, I believe, would be given. . . . This is a housekeeping amendment to put a date in section 7.

[SECTION 7, in the proposed section 6.1(1) by deleting the words "the day on which this Act received First Reading in the Legislative Assembly" and substituting "May 19, 1999."]

Section 7 as amended approved.

Sections 13 and 14 approved.

On section 15.

G. Plant: The provisions of sections 15, 16 and 17 of this bill amend the Offence Act, which will remove the restrictions that currently exist in that act on the powers of a justice to adjourn a trial. I must admit that when I first read this I thought this might also apply to judges of the Provincial Court when they are acting under the Offence Act, as opposed to, say, the Criminal Code. Are there circumstances in which Provincial Court judges would also come under this, or is this strictly limited to JPs?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: It could be argued that it would only apply to the justices of the peace. But the definition of justice in the Interpretation Act might indicate that it also may apply to the Provincial Court judges.

G. Plant: Can the minister give an example of the kinds of proceedings that will be caught by this? That is, are we talking just about photo radar tickets? Or might we also be talking about environmental prosecutions or other prosecutions under provincial statutes? I'm trying to get a sense of the reach of the change here in practical terms.

[1100]

G. Plant: This is probably not the time to try and explore the relationship between the Offence Act and the Criminal

[ Page 13203 ]

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The Criminal Code was amended some time ago to eliminate the eight-day rule; this simply brings our own Offence Act in line with that. This has no impact on the Criminal Code one way or the other, anyway.

G. Plant: Well, we have just rediscovered the extent to which I don't keep up with criminal procedure. That's all that I have on those provisions.

Sections 15 to 17 inclusive approved.

On section 18.

G. Plant: Sections 18, 19 and 20 introduce some changes to the Public Sector Employers Act, one of which is a new defined term, an "employment termination standard." Then, as I understand it, this thing which is an employment termination standard to be established by the council, will then have operation. Employers associations are going to be required to comply with employment termination standards. Perhaps I could impose on the Attorney General to outline the intention of this, in fairly general terms, so I make sure that what I assume this is about is in fact what it's about.

[1105]

G. Plant: So the gist of this is to fill a gap rather than to change the approach of government to questions around the substance of employment termination standards. Is that correct?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Correct.

Sections 18 and 19 approved.

On section 20.

G. Plant: There are a number of provisions here that amend the Social Service Tax Act, and there was some discussion about these during the course of second reading debate. I just want to confirm that these provisions don't expand the reach of the social services tax. They don't expand the tax in any way. They are intended to facilitate a way of collecting tax that is, under the law as it now stands, due and owing in respect of transactions but that for administrative reasons, is just not collected as efficiently or effectively as it should be. Is that a correct summary?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Absolutely correct.

Sections 20 to 28 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Chair, I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

[1110]

The Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time or considered as reported?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, with leave now.

Leave granted.

Bill 62, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999, read a third time and passed.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: Hon. Speaker, I call committee on Bill 70.

AGRICULTURAL LAND COMMISSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

On section 1.

B. Barisoff: By adding subsection (1)(d) to section 40, decisions already made by the ALC can be reversed. Will this make it easier to draw land out of the ALR in the name of political interest?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

B. Barisoff: By adding subsection (3) to section 40, the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council must take three factors into account when determining provincial interest: "(a) the public interest that all British Columbians have in the preservation of agricultural land as a scarce and important Provincial asset, (b) the potential long term consequences of failing to preserve agricultural land, and (c) the province-wide context of the matter."

Moura Quayle's fourth characteristic in her definition of provincial interest was open and accountable decision-making. Why was this characteristic not included in this amendment?

[ Page 13204 ]

B. Barisoff: Why is the definition of "provincial interest" being addressed in this section and not in the definitions section of the act as well?

[1115]

B. Barisoff: Specifically, then, how is the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council going to take this into account for these factors?

Hon. C. Evans: I'm going to interpret the question as not so much how cabinet's deliberations proceed -- because, of course, under any government it would proceed with logic and with care and concern for the well-being of the province -- but how would the public be ensured that these considerations were taken into account by cabinet? The act is very careful to make it clear that in such a declaration, cabinet has to tell the public its decision. I believe that the consideration of these issues -- (a), (b) and (c) -- would be part of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council's announcement to the world. Obviously they would have to be as broadly public as possible. As we move through the act, the hon. member will see that you're triggering a public consultation where everyone in the province concerned with the issue will want to know how cabinet considered those three issues.

B. Barisoff: Will there be some kind of checklist that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will follow? Is there a way that they'll follow some kind of a list that tells them whether they should be doing something -- right or wrong?

Hon. C. Evans: If such a decision is taken by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, the order that results from that decision will state right on it the considerations of these three sections: the preservation of agricultural land, the potential long-term consequences of the failure to preserve agricultural land and the provincewide context of the matter. Now, those aren't a checklist; those are, in essence, the requirement that cabinet consider and report on their considerations.

If the hon. member's question means, "How does cabinet consider the issue of the preservation of agricultural land?" or "How does cabinet consider the long-term consequences?" I would think that would be up to the ministers and officials of the day. The correctness of the order that results would be critiqued by the public through the next step in the process. So I don't think we need to concern ourselves with the creation of a checklist of what these people would consider. We can assume that the language is perfectly clear, and the accountability, in terms of the public's view, will directly follow.

[1120]

Hon. C. Evans: I think the fact that the opinions of others will be considered is somewhat obvious, because officials would be involved in the creation of the background material that led to such a decision. But keep in mind that the question at this stage is not whether or not a development or an exclusion or an inclusion is in the provincial interest; it is whether or not that question should be considered. So there is not a checklist of people whose opinion would have to be polled for the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make this order.

B. Barisoff: Subsection (4) is being added to section 40: "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make an order under subsection (1) on the Lieutenant Governor in Council's own initiative or at the request of (a) a municipality or regional district, as set out in a resolution of the applicable municipal council or regional district board, or (b) the commission, as set out in a resolution of the commission." Does this mean that cabinet cannot request the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make an order?

Hon. C. Evans: No.

B. Barisoff: Should there be additional methods of requesting the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make an order -- for example, public petitions or something of that nature?

Hon. C. Evans: I don't really think that you need to increase the list beyond (a) and (b) -- the municipality, the regional district or the commission itself. In theory, if a group of citizens or an individual desired to petition for such an order, the options of that citizen or group are almost infinite. They could approach the commission and ask the commission to request the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to do so, or they could approach the municipality they live in and ask the municipality to make such a request, or they could approach cabinet itself. The section says: ". . .on the Lieutenant Governor in Council's own initiative. . . ." The landowner, developer, citizen or group interested in making such a request of cabinet can do so through any of these means, which basically means that their options are that they can work either locally, through the Land Commission, or on the provincial level.

[1125]

Hon. C. Evans: I'm sorry for the delay. I want to make sure that I understand both the question and the answer.

I want to refer the hon. member back to the Six Mile case. The hon. member will remember that there was a lawsuit brought under that case by the Farm Folk-City Folk Society, who asked a court whether or not the act was being contravened because. . . . The question was: does a request for reconsideration by the Land Commission constitute an opportunity for cabinet to invoke the act? The court rejected that argument. But what we are doing by adding this section is enlarging the window just a bit -- and not at all in terms of

[ Page 13205 ]

J. van Dongen: So this is reaffirming the decision that came out of that court case. Is that, in effect, what this section does?

Hon. C. Evans: That's correct. It is ensuring that all matters that the Land Commission can consider are eligible for referral, if that is the decision of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council.

[1130]

I want to ask the minister about the reference to the board. I know that in the press release, as I mentioned in second reading comments. . . . There were a number of statements in the press release on January 27, where there may have been some modification in what was actually written in the legislation. There was a comment about the inquiry board, the reference here being to a board established under the Inquiry Act as opposed to the Environmental Assessment Board. Really, the original legislation. . . . The current legislation says that if there is no Environmental Assessment Board in place, a board under the Inquiry Act will be the one that is implemented. The press release gave the impression that it would explicitly say that the Inquiry Act would be the governing legislation.

Hon. C. Evans: I take the question to mean: is there a contradiction between the press release some months ago at the conclusion of the process, which appeared to imply that the act would expressly say that the Inquiry Act and not the Environmental Assessment Board would be used. . . ? I don't have before me the exact wording of the press release. However, it was intended to suggest that rather than creating a separate Environmental Assessment Board at this time, the government would use the Inquiry Act, which is already in place.

I don't mind to add that I personally did not ever intend to bring to this House a section which eliminated the ability of some future government to have the Environmental Assessment Board do this work. However, I am quite satisfied and actually think it's preferable that the present system is used where an independent inquiry is established and a commissioner is named, just for a consideration of a declaration of the provincial interest. This has only ever happened once. The law was changed in '93. Since 1993, we have only had one application to have hearings under the provincial interest clause. I actually don't think there's a need to create a whole new board, appoint a bunch of people, give them an annual stipend and never have them do any work.

J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for his answer. I would think that there would have to be other reasons to establish that Environmental Assessment Board, besides this one. At the time that the government would be making a decision under this section, would cabinet select the commissioner that would carry this out -- or the board member? We have to be careful not to confuse the Land Commission. Would cabinet select the individual or individuals who would conduct this inquiry? A related question: does the minister have any thoughts as to whether it should be one person or possibly three people to conduct such an inquiry?

[1135]

The answer to the second question: does the minister have any thoughts on the matter. . . ? In the only case that I've ever experienced under this act, I was actually quite satisfied with having one individual. The reason for that is that we are trying to establish a set of values in this act, which have to be considered by someone. Then as we move through the act, we'll discuss the fact that this person, or persons, has to move around the province and hold hearings in six regions. I believe that because the values are now laid out in language that's clear and understandable -- and it has to move and hear lots of people's opinions -- the most flexible system should be used. That would be one person, instead of moving a group of people around the province. However, this question will be answered by future ministers and cabinets of the day. What we need to have on the record here is: yes, cabinet will decide, and cabinet will have the option under the Inquiry Act to have one person or a group of people act as the commissioner.

J. van Dongen: The issue of the decision by government not to explicitly include a definition for provincial interest, as had been discussed by Moura Quayle -- and it was also mentioned in the press release. . . . Was that simply a case where the legal people and the minister felt that the objectives that Moura Quayle had in mind, which appear to have been initially accepted by the government. . . ? Does the minister feel that the addition of section 3, in effect, accomplishes everything that might have been accomplished by having that specific definition?

Hon. C. Evans: The hon. member's question ended by saying: does the minister feel that, in effect, we've created a definition by virtue of these expressions of value? That is exactly what I feel. I believe that the definition that we've presented here, while not a definition per se like in a dictionary, does reflect Moura Quayle's recommendations. It does so in as broad a way as possible. It says: here's what you have to consider, understanding that the provincial interest is a somewhat ethereal question. But if you state what you have to consider, you're essentially boxing in not the definition of the provincial interest but the definition of when it applies. We discussed this as we worked through the legal process with Dean Quayle, and she agreed that we had captured her objective in asking for a definition.

J. van Dongen: Just one more question, and it's probably more of a comment on this section. Under the addition of subsection (4), I think it's important to point out that the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council may make an order under subsection (1), either on its own initiative or at the request of local or regional government. It's a permissive wording, so

[ Page 13206 ]

[1140]

J. van Dongen: I just have one more question on this section that I thought of. Would the minister care to speculate as to whether, if this section was applied to the historical decision on Six Mile or if this section is applied to a possible decision or an application on the Western Star Trucks situation, this section would result in a different decision than was made in Six Mile -- or what the impact might be on a current application?

Hon. C. Evans: I would like to say on the record and for the protection of the officials who are here with me today that they advised me not to answer this question. Just in case I answer it badly, I don't think it should impact on them.

I do not wish to speculate on any particular case like Six Mile or Western Star. However, I will say that should this act pass and be declared law, I will actually be pleased to have experienced the Six Mile application and the public debate that followed, because I think the act that was passed in 1993 was flawed in not saying how a referral process would take place, in not saying what cabinet had to consider and in not saying what the commission would have to consider. I think that in future, this act, written in this way, will end an era where there was a patina of politics over the agricultural land reserve.

[1145]

J. van Dongen: I want to thank the minister for not following his staff's advice and giving us a broader answer. I say that seriously. I wish I could fully share his confidence, because I don't think that what happened on Six Mile was, as I said yesterday, so much a function of a deficiency in the act as it was a function of some very serious, heavy-duty political decisions. It's my view that while the current proposal is an improvement, it is not an absolute assurance that the same thing couldn't happen. As I said, I just want to register that view. I think it's an important topic, and I do thank the minister for sharing his view on it.

Section 1 approved.

On section 2.

B. Barisoff: The amendment to section 41(1) hands the power to suspend a matter before the ALC from the minister to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. Does this amendment mean that the minister has no authority to suspend ALC matters? Is the minister now out of the loop when the request goes to. . . ? Or can he request the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to suspend matters?

Hon. C. Evans: I understand the gist of the member's question. I take his wording of: "Does this get the Minister of Agriculture out of the loop. . . ?" The answer to that would be no. The intention of this part of the section is to consolidate what exists now and make it work. I think that the member's question is really a political question. Obviously the Minister of Agriculture is part of cabinet. I can't imagine a time in the future when the Minister of Agriculture would ever be out of the loop. So I do not feel that this section in any way diminishes the interest in an application by the Minister of Agriculture.

[1150]

On section 3.

B. Barisoff: By adding subsection (3) to section 42. . . . It says that if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council makes an order and refers a matter to the board, the commission must prepare a written report and submit that report to the board, for the purpose of assisting the board in conducting a public hearing, within 14 days of that time order. What information will be in that report?

Hon. C. Evans: Whatever the Agricultural Land Commission wishes to put in the report. By not describing the information that they put in, I kind of think they are free to put technical content into their report -- for example: "What is this land good for? What is its soil capacity? What are the hours of sunlight per year?" Also, they can put in the history, if they choose: "What applications have we received from previous owners of this land? What did we consider when we made our decision? What are we considering?" -- and what would their recommendation be? In other words, it is as open-ended as the Land Commission, following its mandate, desires it to be.

B. Barisoff: That would indicate that if the ALC has a different definition of provincial interests, then that perspective would be taken into account?

[ Page 13207 ]

B. Barisoff: As this issue revolves around provincial interests, shouldn't the report be made available to the public at the same time that it's made to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council?

Hon. C. Evans: I think that in the next section, the hon. member has his question answered. The short answer is yes. But we can discuss it at greater length, if he desires, when we actually get to that section of the act.

Section 3 approved.

On section 4.

B. Barisoff: The completely amended section, subsection (1) of section 43, requires the board to prepare a discussion paper with respect to the matter and make that paper available to the public before holding a public hearing. What is the deadline for completing the paper and making it publicly available? Or is that entirely up to the board?

[1155]

B. Barisoff: What elements would be included in this discussion paper?

Hon. C. Evans: The act itself describes the terms on which a matter can be considered in the provincial interest. It would seem logical that the answer to the hon. member's question is that the commissioner will respond in terms of the act itself and the questions it might have directed to it, under the terms of reference under section 43(1).

I just want to say, though, that the commissioner's job is to hold public hearings, and we will describe that they will have to happen in six regions. So the public might want to raise issues that are not described in this act. The commissioner might find that some of those issues have value and wish to put them in a report. Nothing in the act limits the commissioner from doing so.

B. Barisoff: Should there not be a specified window of time between when the paper is made available to the public and when the public hearing is to be held, so that basically what we'll have is more time for public scrutiny when that happens?

Hon. C. Evans: Yes, it is correct that the learning experience that Dean Quayle considered in her report was the Six Mile experience. One of the greatest criticisms was that some people felt that they didn't have enough time to consider the matter. We did not, in the writing of these amendments, specify a period of time that had to go by between the writing of the report and the holding of hearings. However, I think it is logical to assume that the terms of reference would, in future, allow for a reasonable amount of time. If they didn't, it would be to the chagrin of the government of the day. It is difficult to imagine what period of time you might put in law which would, in a regulatory way, nail down some number that everybody thinks is okay. If you put two weeks, would people say that it's not enough time? If you put two months, would people say that it's just the creation of unnecessary red tape and a period of time that has to pass, even though some day in the future there might be an issue in which there's general public support? I think that by leaving it not proscribed but based on reason, you have some assurance that a reasonable amount of time will be put into the terms of reference.

[1200]

B. Barisoff: Noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Hon. G. Wilson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:01 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 10:10 a.m.

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

Hon. I. Waddell: I just want to say that I have with me my deputy minister, Lyn Tait. On my right is Rick Lemon, from Tourism B.C., who's representing Rod Harris, who had an unavoidable commitment. Len Dawes is also here from Tourism B.C.

[ Page 13208 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that of the three items, the first one is that with an expenditure of $5.7 million, they were able to leverage $20 million for programs from the private sector and other sectors. Second, the revenues shown in the business plan reflected that last year it was $8.8 billion to the provincial economy. Third, of course, is the increase in the U.S. visitation, which was way up.

R. Thorpe: We hear these numbers: $8.3 billion, $8.8 billion, $9 billion -- these huge numbers. How do we measure those with any degree of accuracy?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. has become quite a professional outfit that was set out in the Tourism B.C. act. Part of their mandate is to do research and to really crunch these numbers. They have a series of indicators. I can get the exact list from Mr. Harris. I think I should get that for the hon. member, and I'll do that later. I can give him some of the hotel tax revenue, to see how it's coming there, and surveys they take periodically with the stakeholders. They're doing some primary research on a regular basis. I know that's not all specific, but I'll identify that. I'll try and get the specific indicators, because it's a good question. The figures they give me are $8.8 billion, and they are at arm's length from me.

R. Thorpe: I would appreciate it if we could have a commitment, to follow up these estimates, that will have a timely briefing, a detailed briefing, on those indicators so that we too can be as comfortable as you and the Tourism B.C. staff are with those numbers. Hopefully, we could do that later this month.

[1015]

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm not speaking for Tourism B.C.; I'm speaking for the province. You know, Tourism B.C. is the marketing outfit to promote tourism in British Columbia. They're a Crown corporation that reports through me to the Legislature, to the people. It's basically run by ten members who are from the private sector on the board and five from government appointments. So it's really a private industry-run vehicle. So it's somewhat difficult for me to give their three strategic goals, but I think that's reflected in their business plan, which the hon. member has a copy of.

I'll tell you what my goals are. For the province it is to work on ecotourism. Tourism is the fastest-growing industry in the world; ecotourism is the fastest-growing part of that industry. The second goal is to spread the good news of the increase in tourism throughout the province, not just in the lower mainland or in Victoria here. Look outside. It's booming here with tourists -- da Vinci really helped that, and it's continuing. But we've got to get the tourists up-Island, get them into the Okanagan and open up the Kootenays. We have the best tourist products in the world, I believe. It's just a matter of getting the tourists up to them. The other area is to build some infrastructure.

Those are mine. Now I can give you. . . . Do you want Tourism B.C.'s?

Interjection.

Hon. I. Waddell: Okay.

They are: (1) maintain investment in regional-destination tourism development through the tourism partners program; (2) actively support key product sectors through cooperative financial partnership by providing leadership and marketing-plan development, execution and results monitoring; (3) capitalize on the growth of getaway travel -- that's three-to-five-days -- and the ease of access. . .new direct-air routes and capacity as provided.

I should say that I helped open the south terminal of Vancouver Airport, which provides access to interior destinations. You know that we've been targeting, through the Open Skies program, getaways for American tourists -- for baby-boomers like us.

R. Thorpe: I'm just wondering. I appreciate the minister's comments about the province's role, but this is Tourism B.C.'s We could talk about the province's when we get to tourism policy perhaps. So it might be in the best interests of time if we could focus on Tourism B.C.

What I'd like to know, then: is what are the three measurable strategic goals for the development of regional tourism in British Columbia, and what are the goals that you're going to measure yourself against?

Hon. I. Waddell: The three points would be: increased visitation and volume in each tourism region -- the province is broken into different regions; improved off-season and shoulder-season targets -- there are targets set, and we can get you the exact targets. And then we want to improve some of the outdoor adventure programs as part of ecotourism in the regions.

R. Thorpe: What is the total provincial spending, excluding staff costs, on advertising and promotion in the effort to bring people to British Columbia?

[1020]

R. Thorpe: So out of a total budget of approximately $27.5 million, $7 million would be for -- if we could say, in the purest sense -- marketing and promotion dollars to attract people to British Columbia. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes -- but. That includes advertising, not sales or operations. But you know, a lot of this operational cost is their marketing people too. I mean, that's how it's marketed.

R. Thorpe: What is the spending by region?

Hon. I. Waddell: The Islands -- $472,500; Vancouver Coast and Mountain -- $433,500; Thompson-Okanagan -- $886,500; B.C. Rockies -- $674,500; Cariboo Country -- $309,500; North B.C. -- $429,500.

I also have. . . . I should get that to the hon. member. I don't want to anticipate his question, but you should look at

[ Page 13209 ]

R. Thorpe: I don't know, but some may argue that there's a great upside potential there. Some may argue that; it depends on what perspective you want to take on these issues.

With respect to those allocations to the region, are they done on a historical basis? Are they done on the basis of: "We sit down very year and look at the programs that we want to execute"? That's my first question on that area.

Hon. I. Waddell: It's based on the marketing plans that the regions submit. Their performance from the previous year is looked at, and then there are some adjustments made for the distance they are from the lower mainland.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding -- and I know that if my understanding is incorrect, the minister and the staff will correct me -- that Tourism B.C. was going to look at its spending based on a return-on-investment basis. Is that in fact a way that you were going to look at it? Is it in fact the way you are looking at it?

[1025]

R. Thorpe: How much money is envisaged in this 1999-2000 plan to be spent on the development and the marketing of ecotourism?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. puts out an outdoor adventure guide -- 140,000 copies worldwide. It puts out a winter adventure guide. Thirdly, it is doing some workshops on industrial development with operators. They're spending approximately $500,000 to do that. Plus there will be some new initiatives. They haven't determined the final amount of money, but they will dedicate money to that. They have money on contingency to deal with that. Ecotourism is really new, and it's just beginning. This is just one of the priorities for next year.

R. Thorpe: Ecotourism, I guess, is new -- depending on where you start measuring from -- but it has been around for some time and has been talked about for many years. But I'm a little bit puzzled, then, if one of the minister's opening comments was that this is one of the key thrusts. I thought what I heard -- and maybe we could get some clarification on it -- was that the programs for this year which are going to lead in this development have not been finalized yet. Those funds -- are they earmarked in what is called the CEO's contingency fund?

Hon. I. Waddell: The reason for this is that you're now blending two things. You've got Tourism B.C., which is the marketing and promotion. But the ministry is doing the planning and the policy -- because it has to -- with the other departments. This is probably going to be one of the major issues in B.C. in the next few years. As you know, the environmentalists in the forests was a big issue. What it will be is competing land interests -- competing interests in provincial land in the back country, for example. So these things have to be sorted out. As someone said to me this morning: "I don't want to go hiking and turn around and find a European castle in front of me."

A Voice: Unless you're hiking in Europe.

Hon. I. Waddell: But this is hiking in British Columbia. So we have to sort out some of these land use problems, and we're working on that. We're working closely with Tourism B.C., which is basically a marketing agency.

R. Thorpe: The second part of my question was: the Tourism B.C. funds for this program -- are they currently part of the CEO's contingency fund? If so, how much?

[1030]

R. Thorpe: There seem to be some inconsistencies there, at least in my interpretation of the answer, but we can pursue those under Tourism policy.

If the minister could just confirm that the current size of the board is 15 -- that ten of those are industry representatives and five are government appointees.

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes. What happens is that under the act. . . . This is unique in Canada, and some of the other provinces are really looking at it. When the tourism ministers met last year, they were amazed at this progressive setup that we have in British Columbia, as opposed to the difficulties they've had in Alberta, for example, where they've reorganized and reorganized and reorganized.

A list of ten people from the industry is submitted to me. They are now trying to elect these people from amongst themselves. This thing is kind of developing as it goes along, but it seems to be working. They submit the list to me, and I've said to them: "As long as you don't give me Clifford Olson's name, I'll appoint who you give me." And I've done that. I'm a little concerned about reflecting the regions of the province, and I've tried to use some of my appointments to get people from different regions. Sometimes you leave it to the industry, and they'll just do the lower mainland. I've told the industry -- and I'm telling them this publicly right now -- that they should give me names that reflect all the regions of British Columbia so that we can get everybody, as much as possible, represented.

R. Thorpe: Could I please be advised. . . ? Are the industry reps done by individual industry organizations? In other

[ Page 13210 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: There is a well-articulated process to get representatives. There is only one dedicated seat, and that's for COTA -- Council of Tourism Associations. That's the industry group, and they're seated right on the board. The rest of it is more by sector rather than by organization. They try to get someone from transportation, someone from accommodation, someone from food services -- that kind of way.

R. Thorpe: If I remember correctly in the legislation. . . . Are the appointments to the board for a two-year period?

Hon. I. Waddell: No. As I recall -- I had a copy of the act, but I don't have it with me at the moment -- the answer is no.

R. Thorpe: It's my understanding in talking to some industry representatives that it was their understanding that they were two-year appointments. I'm just wondering if that's a discussion that's going on with the minister, the industry and board members. Could I have the minister's comments on that?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, it's in a protocol, I think, with the minister. I'm looking at that. I wrote the board on April 20 -- I can get the member a copy of the letter -- with respect to. . . . I wanted the board to represent all regions of the province, and I'm requesting that the nomination of the industry seats reflect this. Their other nominations didn't reflect it, but I made the appointments anyway. But I want them to reflect it, and that's why they've got one-year appointments instead of two-year appointments.

[1035]

Hon. I. Waddell: We are -- I wouldn't use the word -- experimenting with this. This is a new system and an industry-led board. I think it's by and large working. Board members are not chosen by region; they're appointed to represent the broad-based sectors, as I've said, within the tourism industry in the province. What happened last time was that they didn't give me any names from these northern areas. I appointed someone from Prince Rupert, the Okanagan -- the Okanagan hadn't been represented -- and Kamloops, I believe. Mike Duggan, the ski. . . . The Kamloops area and the Okanagan are now represented.

I want the board to give me some more names from these other areas. We don't have a person from northeastern B.C., and the next appointment that's up we'll get someone from northeastern British Columbia. You can tell the hon. member for Peace River South that I said that.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if we could have just a quick exchange on the day-to-day working relationships between Tourism B.C. and the Ministry of Small Business and Tourism policy section. What are the day-to-day working relationships? How does that work?

Hon. I. Waddell: Perhaps I could ask the deputy to answer that.

The Chair: I'll ask the deputy minister to stand.

L. Tait: As you know, I am a representative of the government on the board and work very closely with the board. With regard to day-to-day operations, our Tourism policy shop works very closely with the staff of Tourism B.C. on special projects, and we meet on an ongoing basis.

R. Thorpe: I wonder, very briefly, if we could maybe get a list of the top five projects -- if there are five -- that the Tourism policy section and Tourism B.C. are working on together at this point in time.

L. Tait: The top five, in no particular order of priority, would be: land use issues, ecotourism, cultural tourism, Oceans Blue policy and back-country leases.

R. Thorpe: I didn't quite get the fourth one. Was it ocean. . . ?

L. Tait: It's Oceans Blue.

R. Thorpe: Oceans Blue -- I'm just wondering if we could get a little further explanation on that one.

L. Tait: The correct name is Oceans Blue. It's an environmental tourism initiative related to growth management in the tourism industry.

[1040]

Hon. I. Waddell: It's part of the Georgia basin initiative. They're doing a number of initiatives to have sustainability -- that is, using resources now that you can keep for future generations. Sustainability is the basis of modern environmentalism. This is part of a strategy for sustainable tourism in the lower mainland -- in the Georgia Basin, rather, which is bigger than the lower mainland. We will send material and details on this to the member.

J. Reid: As I haven't seen this in the material supplied, could the minister tell us how much money is allocated in the Tourism B.C. budget for this project?

Hon. I. Waddell: There are a number of partners, as these things tend to in these times. For example, Tourism Vancouver will be contributing. Tourism B.C. is contributing $50,000 over two years -- $25,000 a year -- to the project.

[ Page 13211 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: The funds go into a pot, and they're administered by a committee, which is Tourism B.C., Tourism Vancouver, the University of British Columbia and my ministry.

J. Reid: Back to the purposes of this: sustainable tourism. Certainly tourism is sustainable in the sense that it doesn't consume anything. So I'm still a little bit vague as to what objective. . . . In differentiating this from other Tourism B.C. projects, what really, in promoting. . . ? We've already got ecotourism, so as a different project, how is this different from either ecotourism or other tourism efforts?

Hon. I. Waddell: I respectfully disagree. I don't think that tourism is necessarily sustainable. It leaves a footprint on the land. It consumes air and water and resources and fuel. How can I put it? Let's put it this way. If one Zodiac goes out and looks at whales, it's wonderful. If ten Zodiacs go, it's wonderful. But 30 Zodiacs looking at three whales starts to become a bit unsustainable, for the whales and for other people. So it could be not sustainable.

This is more like futuristic research. It's a very small amount of a $27 million budget -- $50,000. It's part of looking at a little bit of the future in tourism. I think that's the best way to say it. I apologize -- I haven't got the information at my end, but I'll get the opposition more information on that.

R. Thorpe: I wonder if we could just ask what the day-to-day working relationship between the Ministry of Tourism communications branch and Tourism B.C. is, please.

Hon. I. Waddell: They work together.

[1045]

Hon. I. Waddell: They have separate shops. Bill Eisenhauer is the communications director for Tourism British Columbia. Jennifer Smyth is the director of communications for my ministry. But they work together on a number of aspects -- a joint press release, for example.

I put that in the context. . . . I'm kind of proud of this. We're breaking new ground in British Columbia in the sense of having almost a private sector tourism marketing group working with the ministry, working through a Crown corporation. We're feeling our way through that, and I think that by and large it's working.

R. Thorpe: Looking at Tourism B.C., what are the three biggest downside risks to executing a successful business plan this year?

Hon. I. Waddell: Here are the three I would say. One is if Asia-Pacific doesn't recover. We are holding our own right now -- barely -- from Asia-Pacific. We haven't forgotten Japan and that, but their tourism is down all over the world, except for Las Vegas. It's down. If that continued to be down or even got worse -- I don't anticipate that -- we would have some difficulties. That would be a challenge.

Secondly, of course, the Canadian dollar. You know, it's pretty obvious. With the advantage we have, if it were to precipitously rise -- go up -- we could be in some trouble there. We've got a lot of competition. I went to Berlin, to the world's largest tourism market. You should see the competition -- it's unbelievable. The euro is coming in, which could mean hurting us a little bit from European tourists, which we've been working hard to build -- Germany and other jurisdictions there. If the euro dollar works, in a certain way it could mean that the tourists might stay more in Europe. It would be easier to move around with a single currency.

I guess I'd add another one to that: to keep the presence in the U.S. market and to grow that market. It is growing; they like us. They come up here and they like us, and the word is going back. I think those are the challenges.

R. Thorpe: That's quite interesting. Let me talk about the value of the dollar first. In Tourism B.C.'s estimates, where do we start to see concern about the viability of our tourism industry vis-à-vis our planned expectations with respect to the dollar rates?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed they see the threshold at 80 cents.

R. Thorpe: Well, I don't like to go out on a limb, but if the dollar is one of your major concerns this year, I don't think you have a major concern. I don't, quite frankly, see the dollar going to 80 cents in the coming year.

With respect to the U.S. market, I just wonder if Tourism B.C. and the minister could comment on a recent report out of Tourism Vancouver that has stated: "Even more disheartening is that 50 to 60 percent of Americans in Canada are not aware of the exchange rate while purchasing here." If the United States is such a key focus to us, how are we trying to ensure they know in fact that the value is here?

[1050]

The Chair: The division bells have rung in the House, and so we'll recess until we are finished there.

The committee recessed from 10:51 a.m. to 11 a.m.

[E. Walsh in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the committee back to order and recognize the member for Okanagan-Penticton.

R. Thorpe: With respect to the U.S. exchange rate -- and I don't believe that we're going to have to worry about an 80-

[ Page 13212 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me just reiterate. What Tourism B.C. is doing is taking packages to the States. They're in their dollars -- they call it price point -- so that they see this is a value. You can go to -- I don't know, Ocean Point Lodge or wherever -- some lodge, and here's the deal: getaway packages for baby-boomers, three days or five days in U.S. dollars. "Wow, that's a good deal." I want the member to understand what I think I'm beginning to understand: they're price-sensitive, but they're also quality-sensitive. That is, if you're treated well and the people are nice to you and the accommodation is good, that gets back by word of mouth. That's why we think we're increasing, more and more, our American visitors -- not just on the dollar.

R. Thorpe: I can appreciate some of that, and I understand most of it. But what I was talking about and what I'm trying to pursue is in a statement by Tourism Vancouver about the apparent 50 to 60 percent of Americans not understanding that. Now, I do know that there have been some communities -- I believe Nelson is one of them -- that have been fairly aggressive with a. . . . I'm sorry -- I don't know if it is a better-than-fair-value program. Is Tourism B.C. working with any of the regions or border communities on any kind of specialty advertising programs? For instance, people can drive and go down to Spokane or Seattle and some of those close markets with a better-than-fair exchange program -- whatever the correct terminology is. I'm sure the staff from Tourism B.C. know the name of the program.

Hon. I. Waddell: With reference to fair-exchange programs. . . . First of all, generally, in all ad packages Tourism B.C. says: "Your money is worth a lot more here." So that is using our advantage on the dollar and trying to get that education out to Americans that way.

Fair-exchange programs, I'm informed, are more like getting the right rate of exchange while you're here and not getting ripped off. Tourism B.C. had, in the past, been working on this. It's not presently working on this, but some local regions are working on it.

Excuse me -- if I could add that it was a bit of an issue in the past. It's not quite the same issue. People are not doing the same kind of ripoffs -- that is, Canadians -- that they were when the dollar first fell. Now they're giving a fair rate of exchange generally.

[1105]

I would ask, hon. Chair, if we could get an undertaking from the minister and Tourism B.C. that they would aggressively look at that kind of program, especially in some of the areas that other members in the House are in now, where we may be able to help some of these areas in the short term with the marketing expertise that's there. I see that there's over half a million dollars of CEO contingency fund that maybe, for very little time and effort, in something that somebody's already looked at and developed and had some success. . . . I know it was a big story on BCTV at one point in time. I just wonder if we could get an undertaking that something like that at the grass roots could be looked at rather quickly by Tourism B.C. as a way to help these communities and maybe stimulate something in the short term.

Hon. I. Waddell: I certainly would undertake to pass that on to Tourism B.C.

R. Thorpe: Just to go back, we were talking about the three potential areas of risk. I just wonder what comments the minister has or Tourism B.C. officials have when Tourism Vancouver is suggesting -- albeit it's out of the newspapers from time to time; some of the quotes get a little worked around -- that we need a more focused approach and a more price-conscious marketing emphasis with respect to the Japanese market. Apparently they were being constructively critical that some markets in the world are in fact growing with Japanese tourism, and they were concerned that our programs into British Columbia, in their opinion, were not quite as focused as they perhaps could be.

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. is maintaining its investment in Japan. I've told the Japanese when they've come here -- and I've given speeches to tourism groups -- that we remember the good times, that we're with them in the difficult times and that we hope they'll come back in the numbers they used to come. That's why Tourism B.C. is maintaining its investment there. They spent a million dollars on marketing in Japan. The Sumo Basho here was very, very successful in projecting British Columbia to Japan. I was really proud that we were able to have them come to the Legislature, with the sumo wrestlers here. No doubt the member has seen the picture of the minister with Yokozuna Akebono and determined who the bigger guy is.

R. Thorpe: I must have missed that.

What is the reporting frequency from Tourism B.C. to the ministry? Is it monthly? Quarterly? I know it's annually. What level of detail is reported through to the ministry?

Hon. I. Waddell: Monthly.

R. Thorpe: How often does the board of Tourism of B.C. meet?

Hon. I. Waddell: Quarterly.

R. Thorpe: I note from the budget of approximately $152,000, they must meet throughout the province of British Columbia. Are board members paid a fee? And if so, what is their remuneration?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm told that they meet throughout British Columbia. They get an honorarium in accordance with agencies, boards and commissions guidelines.

[1110]

[ Page 13213 ]

R. Thorpe: Over the years there have been, in some quarters. . . I suppose the Golden Triangle would say that they never get quite enough promotion support, and other areas of the province would say that they get too much. Does Tourism B.C. believe that there is balance in the province for all regions of the province with respect to promotions?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. thinks that the current infrastructure is fair -- the way it's being allocated. But there is a potential to grow regions, and they have the ability to identify that. It's part of their mandate to do that under the act. They have an ability to go into the regions and maybe invest more money to do that.

I want to speak personally, as the Tourism minister. I'm committed -- I've said that many times -- to getting tourism around this province -- not just to the lower mainland and lower Vancouver Island but around the province. I think that's a bit of a challenge. If you have to spend more money doing that, then you have to spend more money doing it. You know, I represent a seat in the lower mainland, but I've been around the province. I know the potential, and we're committed to getting it around there.

R. Thorpe: What is the role that Tourism B.C. will play in the marketing of sport fishing, and what is the budget contribution from Tourism B.C. for that sector?

Hon. I. Waddell: I might add that that's a good question. Tourism B.C. is investing $250,000 as part of a two-year joint marketing campaign to counter misconceptions in the marketplace about fishing and to ensure that residents and visitors know that B.C. is open for sport fishing.

Part of the problem was in the ads that DFO and David Anderson put out, showing. . . . You remember that ad with no fish in the river? It really hurt our industry. There are fish in the rivers and fish in the oceans. Mind you, we have to conserve them and so on, but we worked hard with the national Canadian Tourism Commission to get a joint campaign to show our potential visitors -- mainly American -- that there's still fishing in Canada. You might not have been able to fish for coho in certain places last year -- now more so -- but you can fish for coho. But there are still lots of other fish and lots of other ways of fishing. I think -- I hope -- that we've got around those misconceptions, and that's why we're investing in this. The campaign was launched last year by Tourism B.C., the Sport Fishing Institute, industry operators, the Canadian Tourism Commission -- who we have a good relationship with -- and even DFO to help the vital salmon fishing sector and deal with the negative publicity of restrictions on salmon fishing in B.C. coastal waters.

R. Thorpe: So all of those programs are done in coordination and working with the Sport Fishing Institute of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes.

R. Thorpe: What role is Tourism B.C. playing in developing and marketing the ski industry in British Columbia?

[1115]

R. Thorpe: Perhaps I wasn't clear. What is the financial contribution of Tourism B.C. to marketing programs for skiing in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: We'll have to get back to the member, because they're different in every region. We'll try to identify that.

R. Thorpe: What would be the role of Tourism B.C. in marketing golf throughout British Columbia, and what would be the financial contribution to golf marketing throughout British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's interesting that the member asked that. I was just looking at a golf leaflet yesterday, and I was trying to. . . . It was very attractive. But it's actually done by one of the regions. Thinking that I might spend some time this summer golfing in Okanagan. . . .

The answer is that there's no specific package. It's in all the packages -- golf is featured. As a matter of fact, Tourism B.C. is going to do some specific research this year targeting how they might better market golf next year. Of course, the regions market golf and are producing pamphlets -- like the Thompson-Okanagan region.

R. Thorpe: If we have -- at least my interpretation was that we have -- somewhat of a coordinated ski marketing program that would tend to be for the winter months, would it not make sense that we should have a coordinated program for golf marketing in the province for the spring, summer and fall months? What we're trying to do is get people here. I happen to follow golf a little bit -- not quite as much as I used to, since I became an MLA -- and with the rates of play in the United States and the quality of golf courses that we have in British Columbia, I would like to strongly suggest to Tourism B.C. that we have an opportunity in the spring, summer and fall months that is potentially as big, if not bigger, than skiing in the winter. I would like to suggest -- and get the minister's comments -- that we could undertake that and maybe have a report back on that.

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that the B.C. Escapes program, which is marketed in the United States -- both long-haul and short-haul -- features golf potential for tourism. It's in these other seasons. I agree with the member, and I'll pass that on to Tourism B.C. One of the biggest challenges, I've found out, is to get the visitors to Canada -- and all the graphs from 1945 on show summer -- and to get the shoulder season. Golf is one way. I'll pass that on. I think they're good comments.

R. Thorpe: I'm sorry that the member for Nelson-Creston isn't here, but I notice that other members from that area are here. What role is Tourism B.C. playing in agritourism marketing?

[1120]

[ Page 13214 ]

J. Reid: When we look at tourism on the Island, certainly, and then from Vancouver Island to the other islands, we realize that there is a definite tie-in with B.C. Ferries. I wonder whether Tourism B.C. has any formal working relationship with B.C. Ferries and what that relationship would be.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that Tourism B.C. works with Ferries in joint marketing programs. Ferries become part of the package, like if you're going from, say, Port Hardy up to Bella Coola and into the Cariboo and back to Vancouver. It's a circle tour, and they work with Ferries.

I might add to that. Rod Harris, the CEO, is not here, but he and I met with tourism operators in London this year. They identified the ferries as one of the areas that they wanted us to work with them on, in terms of making Ferries more tourism-aware, if I could call it that.

I've spoken to the new Minister for Ferries, who is particularly aware of tourism potential on the ferries. The first meeting that he as the new Minister for Ferries had with anybody was with the chair of COTA, Kevin Walker, and other representatives of COTA and the Premier and myself. We discussed the ferry situation and how we could make it more tourism-friendly.

J. Reid: Other than the promotion that goes along with tourism and with ferries, is there any gathering of information as far as the effects on tourism of the ferries -- the ferry rates -- so that details can be submitted to B.C. Ferries? Is there any attempt to collect information with regard to tourism and impacts on tourism that then would be shared with B.C. Ferries?

Hon. I. Waddell: Let me answer that by saying. . . . First of all, I don't know if the member is aware of the little fact sheet that comes out every so often now -- I had a copy there -- with the latest tourism stats. That is very well. . . . Everybody wants to see it in government and in industry and so on, because it's got some of the most up-to-date stats that you can find. Tourism B.C. passes that on to Ferries. It's their statistics, and they pass it on to the ferries. They share the research, and that's been a big change from past years.

Secondly, they work together in joint programs. I already mentioned working with the European tour operators to try and get the ferries on board when they're putting together programs. I still think a lot of work can be done there. It's a matter of getting the ferries into thinking about the new economy which. . . . They're coming, slowly, but surely.

[1125]

Hon. I. Waddell: The chair of Tourism B.C. is Jean Anderson, and she and the CEO have been meeting with Ferries on this. Let me just give you the benefit of my own little experience in this to tell you where the real issues are. The real issue is that a European tour operator wants to know the ferry schedule in advance. B.C. Ferries says: "We produce a ferry schedule at a certain date. We've done that for years; we'll keep doing that." So you have to convince B.C. Ferries that they've got to produce a schedule sufficiently in advance, with sufficient certainty. A German tourism operator -- who has strict rules and laws there and could be liable if things go wrong in British Columbia, or could be liable in Germany, because they have very progressive laws there -- needs to know in advance. That's the kind of real business thing that has to happen. That's what is starting to happen now, and it's being done through Mr. Harris and Ms. Anderson, dealing directly with B.C. Ferries on the vice-president level.

J. Reid: I have a quote here from May 26 of this year, from the Minister Responsible for British Columbia Ferries. The question was, again, forecasting measures. He said: "My colleague the minister responsible for tourism in British Columbia has extensive forecasting work being done on a whole host of tourism initiatives. . . ." So in trying to clarify where this extensive forecasting work is, what's been done and, again, the impacts. . . . Now, we realize there are many different factors that affect tourism and with respect to the ferries. So just to clarify what work has been done, what kind of forecasting work and who is doing it. . . .

Hon. I. Waddell: The biggest breakthrough. . . . When the tourism ministers met a year ago in Quebec City, one of the top items was on recent statistics -- to get real stats that were up to date and current. Tourism B.C. has really started to do that in a big way in the last year. You've seen -- and I'm holding this up -- the "1999 Tourism Outlook." There are tons of statistics on market origin, on forecast, on the different countries -- age-specific Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong -- and about Europe, about the general economic performance in Europe and what's happening there and how that affects tourism. Anybody can read these very quickly. That, together with actual stats that we get from Statistics Canada, from border crossings, from the tour operators, B.C. Ferries. . . . We have B.C. Ferries statistics. We can tell whether they're up or down in certain regions. We've got where tourists are coming, how many are crossing the border and where, and so on. This is quite a big breakthrough, and just in the last year. I think that's what the hon. minister was talking about. As I said previously, we're passing that on to B.C. Ferries and to the public.

J. Reid: Again, with the ferry-dependent communities and tourism, now that I understand there has been some work done as far as the different ways that the ferry service, the ferry rates and the dependability of service impact tourism with the ferries, would there be a more cohesive or more fully developed work in progress here that's going to be done through Tourism B.C., to make sure that B.C. Ferries is aware of all those different factors with regard to tourism -- with, perhaps, recommendations?

[1130]

[ Page 13215 ]

I still get the sense that the minister is suggesting that as long as there is this general feedback, that's sufficient, and that as long as the Minister Responsible for Ferries has a concern, that's sufficient, and as long as Tourism B.C. has some occasional conversations, that's sufficient to be able to produce this cohesive work plan. I suppose I'm recommending that it might not be sufficient and hoping that, whether through the ministry or through Tourism B.C., more work is actually being done in specific areas to ensure that there's no doubt at all about the fact of the impact and the service and the costs and the reliability and the many different factors that impact on the tourist industry.

I have a question with regard to some specifics within Tourism B.C., on the evaluation system that goes on -- the evaluation system where the different tourist outlets are. A staff member from Tourism B.C. travels the province and visits these tourist bureaus and gives an evaluation or rating. There was a recent meeting in Nelson of chamber members and managers, and they had concerns about this evaluation process. One of the first questions is: what is the cost of the evaluation process? How many people participate in that evaluation process? Is it conducted every year, and will it be conducted every year?

Hon. I. Waddell: I'm informed that what this system is, is that two people go out across the province annually. They visit the visitor information centres, and they give them feedback as to how they're performing. They get two visits to each centre. This was on the request of the centres, and it appears to be working. I have a figure of $30,000.

[1135]

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no, generally. The dollars that they get are determined on visitor volume. They get a bonus if they can improve that volume, to help them improve the volume. The quantitative report as to how they're servicing there, reflected by the people visiting, is to help them do better in cooperation with them. The dollars aren't predicated on that.

R. Thorpe: With respect to planning at Tourism B.C., what is the planning cycle? When does the planning cycle start, and is it a multi-year planning cycle?

Hon. I. Waddell: The annual plans -- very disciplined -- have been in place for a while. They start in September with consultation with the partners. They finish in January. They're based on the previous year's performance, on the results of the consultation and on the general objectives of Tourism B.C. There are plans for getting into some longer-term planning.

R. Thorpe: Based on that answer, then, can I conclude that Tourism B.C. is not currently doing multi-year planning? Is it a one-year planning cycle right now?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is yes -- that is, to the one-year plan -- but they're looking at a five-year corporate cycle.

R. Thorpe: Given the fact that the minister shared with us some of the things he found out on his trip to Germany about what people have to know to plan, etc. . . . The regions are telling me that the planning cycle that's currently in place needs to be refined. Tourism B.C. now has a relatively secure and known source of revenue going forward, based on the 1.65 percent of the 8 percent tax. What consideration, then, is being given to the regions so that they can get past the one-year scenario and into the two- and three-year scenarios, which they feel they have to do to be competitive in the global tourism industry?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. intends to work with the regions to develop a five-year strategic plan, taking up some of those concerns.

R. Thorpe: First of all, when will those decisions be reached? Secondly, since Tourism B.C. has some stability in its financing needs, will they then be able to commit to regional tourism organizations so that they can actually get into multi-year programs and make the commitments into the marketplace that they need to compete?

[1140]

R. Thorpe: We will be very pleased to provide those to the opposition at the time -- and well in advance.

With respect to the getaway program, I understand that there have been a huge number of calls on that program. In fact, I managed to make myself one of the callers. What is the tracking on the calls? But most importantly, in our tracking, are we able to not only track the calls but actually make linkages to real bookings?

Hon. I. Waddell: I think we are able to do that. On the B.C. Escapes long haul, I'm informed that to date the program has generated 12,862 inquiries. Of that, person reservations totalled 8,028; that's 56 percent of our objective. In terms of B.C. Escapes regional, it generated 44,366 inquiries and 1,312 party reservations -- the average size of the party, we've got to determine. But that seems to be a good indication.

R. Thorpe: Since it appears to be a success in Tourism B.C., sometime following estimates -- probably in late June or July -- would it be possible for us to receive a detailed briefing on all of the aspects of the program and have a better feel for it?

Hon. I. Waddell: I would certainly agree to that.

R. Thorpe: Let's just talk for a second about the global marketplace and having to compete in a technological world

[ Page 13216 ]

Hon. I. Waddell: Yeah, that's again a good question. The Internet site for consumers, the big site which I've been pressing Tourism B.C. to do, will be ready November 15, at a cost of $240,000. Currently they're doing live transactions on the call centre web site, and bookings. The big web site will be available November 15. The member's right: this is very much a future way of doing reservations and bringing tourists to British Columbia.

R. Thorpe: So the actual web site -- the new, improved, globally competitive, technological, leading web site -- will be launched on November 15. Is that correct?

Hon. I. Waddell: Yes, that's the target date.

R. Thorpe: Minister and staff, are we making sure that this web site. . . ? As I understand, some of the regions actually have exceptional web sites. I'm advised that the Mountains region has a very world-class site. Are we making sure that Tourism B.C. provides that umbrella, with hot links to all of the regions?

[1145]

R. Thorpe: We'll be looking forward to that. I want to move on to another point, but I just want to make one comment. One of the comments I've heard back is that Tourism B.C. has been rather slow at this development and that it's being done by a committee. Some of the regional and tourism operators are saying: "Could the committee please get. . . ? It's time for action now. We've got to get competitive." So I look forward to those results.

With respect to the Princess Marguerite III, have any impact studies been completed by Tourism B.C. to see how the Princess Marguerite car ferry affects tourism in the Vancouver Island area?

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is no. Also, the member will be aware that this ministry is not responsible for the Princess Marguerite. But I appreciate his point and the fact that it does affect tourism for Victoria and the Island.

R. Thorpe: I too know that the minister is not responsible for the ferry, but he is responsible through Tourism B.C., I thought, for gathering very pertinent marketplace information and research which has an impact. I think that ferry comes from the United States, and that seems to be one of our key marketplaces.

Does Tourism B.C. have any marketing or research programs that would link in directly with this ferry service to understand what the pluses and negatives are with respect to bringing and increasing tourism to this part of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: Tourism B.C. does broader research with reference to transportation and the impact of coming into British Columbia. They haven't done that specifically with the Marguerite; it may be that Tourism Victoria has. I will ask Tourism B.C. to get that information for the hon. member and provide it to him. I'd like to see it myself too.

R. Thorpe: Looking at the draft of the financial statements that I have -- a faxed copy -- I notice a revenue item of $938,000, I believe, for Discover Camping. Is that a new revenue stream this year?

[1150]

R. Thorpe: Time always tells. Yes, he's an accountant.

Well, I see the revenue. Is that just for government campgrounds, or is that for all campgrounds in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Waddell: Before I answer, I must say that the last comment about an accountant was directed at me, not at the hon. member who is, I think, a real accountant.

The answer is: provincial campgrounds and Pacific Rim National Park campgrounds, not private campgrounds.

R. Thorpe: I would appreciate a follow-up, if somebody could identify -- since it's a flow-through -- where the expense side is in here. You don't have to do that now, but if they could do that and let me know which one of these other numbers it's in. . . .

I notice with interest that there's a CEO contingency of $585,000. I'm led to believe that $85,000 of that is allocated for a potential northern project and that $100,000 is now ecotourism. What would the other $400,000 be allocated for?

[1150]

R. Thorpe: Could somebody tell me: what is the approval process for releasing these moneys? Does a chief executive officer have sole discretion, or does he need board approval after a certain level?

Hon. I. Waddell: It's through the executive committee of the board.

R. Thorpe: I received from the minister's office, the other day, the business plan highlights. It's an interesting document.

[ Page 13217 ]

I did notice that we're looking for economic growth of 3.3 percent in tourism, but our visitor rate is only growing by 1.5 percent. Where's the rest of that growth coming from?

Hon. I. Waddell: We hope that people will stay longer and spend more money.

R. Thorpe: I suppose we could get those details on the $8.8 billion or $9 billion -- whatever it is -- when we have that detailed briefing.

Hon. I. Waddell: We'll send the member more detailed forecasts now.

R. Thorpe: One other thing that I've been asked to raise by some of my caucus members, mostly from the interior and the north of the province, is a concern that seems to be going on with ICBC about gross vehicle weight. I'm just wondering if Tourism B.C. is taking any actions, through its strategic border information centres, to alleviate some of the apparent misunderstandings on this subject. As we all know, when negative word-of-mouth messages start travelling into Alberta and Washington, we potentially have a significant problem. And I just wonder if the Tourism B.C. chair is addressing that issue.

Hon. I. Waddell: The answer is that we aren't. Tourism B.C. isn't, but it's a good idea, as part of getting information out. I gave you an example in sport fishing. We'll follow that up, and if I've got any memos on that, I'll pass them on to the member.

I move the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:54 a.m.

[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada