MARK MACDONALD
BRITISH COLUMBIA – So you want an economy that is primarily based on tourism. . .
Be careful what you ask for.
There is no doubt that tourism is an important piece of the economic picture, particularly in beautiful British Columbia. There’s plenty of picturesque scenery and outdoor activities that have proven to attract people from throughout the world to witness what residents have enjoyed on a daily basis for most of their lives.
To see B.C. is to believe it, and love it. Tourists come to experience the scenery, clean water, fresh air and the great outdoors. In order to expand tourism-related businesses and opportunities, so-called “dirty” industries – most notably logging and mining – need to be curtailed, or eliminated. Extreme “green” advocates tend to salivate/hallucinate at the thought of any and all such resource extracting sectors being eliminated.
However, to quote Newton’s Third Law of Motion: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”. Even when it comes to tourism.
Opposite reactions to economies that are first and foremost tourism reliant? Overcrowding as tourists come and go, and the resulting two-tiered economy where workers are paid a fraction of resource-based industry. Often, workers require subsidized housing just to allow them to afford to live close to where they work.
As visitors come and pay rates that can be justified as holiday expenses, those costs are often above and beyond what local people are willing – or able – to pay.
This is not a complaint, as businesses need to be profitable in order to continue to provide returns for investors and as a result, jobs for employees. After all, companies aren’t started with the sole purpose of creating jobs, although that is the natural byproduct of a healthy organization. Profits are what I call “overtime pay for owners”, the just reward for their hard work, extra hours, and for running a good operation.
As the summer season approaches, accommodation at some of Vancouver Island’s top resorts can go for between $400-600 per night, or more. Meals are on top of that, and although the culinary offerings can be extraordinary, a dinner for two in a prime restaurant starts at $150-200, or more, before drinks.
Because it is a vacation, visitors tend to justify the expense as part of the memory-building experience. But locals? If they have six-figure plus jobs, perhaps they can treat themselves to meals out every now and then. But not every night.
I remember doing a story on an exclusive resort in the area that catered to U.S. celebrities, who were treated to magnificent experiences of catching fish and shellfish and cooking what they eat. Then having helicopters take them to remote lakes and streams to view wildlife in their habitat. Almost 30 years ago, those excursions cost $1,500 U.S. per day. I marveled over what they were willing to pay for, because growing up on the coast, we did most of that, as a youngster, for free.
We’ve been to Hawaii numerous times, and always enjoyed it. On our last trip, I couldn’t help but notice bumper stickers proclaiming “Go Home”, and a palpable resentment from locals who were tired of tourists taking over their beaches and restaurants.
We’ve been to Europe and had wonderful times. Yet most everywhere we went, there were crowded streets, and long lines for attractions. Both are the result of successful attractions and ventures.
But what if you lived near an iconic tourist venue? One might need to consider wearing body armour to get through the crowds of people that don’t speak your language that may or may not have manners, just to get groceries or just to stand in line to get a cup of java in your favourite café.
A tourism-dominant economy’s downside also includes high prices, often out of reach of industry workers who don’t make enough money.
One overly simplistic solution might be to just raise their wages, but the only result of that is having the business owner recoup their increased costs by hiking the price of the food, lodging and services they provide – further driving them out of sight.
To quote a good friend, again: We need to offer our young people more than an opportunity to serve coffee to kayakers.
Those jobs can’t raise families, buy homes or purchase sleek vehicles and take vacations.
It doesn’t matter what we do in terms of industry or economic pursuits – there are unintended consequences. For example, “green” industry requires power, mostly electricity, which is produced by dams – most recently Site C, pushed forward by former Premier Christy Clark. Dams change the vicinity’s eco-system, flooding potential farms. Wind power? Now, people lamenting the piles of birds that are found, julienned, at the feet of turbines, the victims of haphazard collisions with the fast rotating blades above.
Nuclear power? Toxic waste, and heaven forbid that Canada has its own Chernobyl incident.
We now have enough runway to determine that almost every major ‘green’ policy has an expected end: Less economic activity. Ultimately, in the ‘green religion’, anything that might produce harm to the earth is destructive and must be stopped. Stopping or curtailing those activities results in less pollution, so the less industry, the cleaner the planet.
I used to marvel at Justin Trudeau’s vacuous claim (paraphrased) that “the environment and the economy are intricately linked.” No statement could have been more intellectually absurd.
Yet Canadians bought into the notion that tax increases – starting with the new “carbon sin tax” – would somehow drive down the temperature of the earth and change the weather.
So while ‘green’ policies kept in-demand resources in the ground, presumably keeping Canada “cleaner” and more reliant on tourism, it remains to be seen what the result is. A higher standard of living, or lower wages for Canadians who have to jostle with tourists to enjoy their own back yards.
Mark MacDonald writes for the Business Examiner News Group and is President of Communication Ink Media & Public Relations Ltd.: mark@communicationink.ca
