Tourism Powell River’s name change to qathet Tourism Society was questioned by a delegate before City of Powell River councillors.
At the September 2 committee of the whole meeting, George Orchiston asked: were the January 1, 2024, to December 31, 2028, Tourism Powell River service agreements between Tourism Powell River and the city breached by Tourism Powell River, when the organization, without discussion with or approval by the city, used funds provided by the city to change its name from Tourism Powell River to qathet Tourism Society?
“Is this taxpayer justified in requesting that should the tourism society decline to change its present name back from qathet Tourism Society to Tourism Powell River, then Powell River city council should provide the tourism society with 90 days’ written notice of termination of agreement as per section 2.3 of that Tourism Powell River service agreement?” asked Orchiston.
He said that in December 2023, city council reported that it had approved the Powell River Tourism service agreement for 2024. He added that in early 2024, council invited Tourism Powell River to submit a proposal for tourism services for the time period of January 1, 2025, to December 31, 2028.
“Tourism Powell River was pleased with the opportunity to promote tourism on behalf of the city, and at the end of July 2024, council instructed city staff to enter into a four-year tourism service agreement for $527,134,” said Orchiston.
He said the agreement has an important pledge of promise made by Tourism Powell River that the society covenants and agrees to use funds provided to it by the city pursuant to the agreement, exclusively for the purpose of promoting the city as a tourism destination.
Orchiston said at the October 15, 2024, annual general meeting, Tourism Powell River adopted a special resolution to change its name from Tourism Powell River to qathet Tourism Society.
“The record establishes that Tourism Powell River was engaged in its name change initiative as early as August 2024 through March 2025, using funds provided to it by the city, rather than spending those funds to promote the City of Powell River as a tourism destination,” said Orchiston. “Should either party determine that a particular provision of the Tourism Powell River service agreement no longer suits them, section 11.6 of that agreement provides that party an option to pursue change. However, as of this date, the tourism society has never written to council seeking an amendment of the Tourism Powell River service agreement.”
Orchiston said he agrees that a society would normally have the legal right to change its name, however, in this case, Tourism Powell River entered into an agreement with the city and made covenant and agreed that it would promote the city as a tourism destination, not qathet.
“Is it logical to say that changing the name Tourism Powell River to qathet Tourism [Society] is promoting Powell River as a tourism destination?” asked Orchiston. “I think not. By using city funds to change its name from Tourism Powell River to qathet Tourism, the society breached the tourism services agreement.
“Should the tourism society be unwilling to change its name back from qathet Tourism Society to Tourism Powell River, I would urge city council to instruct staff to provide 90 days’ notice of termination of the Tourism Powell River service agreement.”
Councillor Earl Almeida said, regarding the funds for the name change, the tourism society receives funding from three primary sources, including the city, qathet Regional District, plus revenues from the membership.
“I presume those funds used were membership dues,” said Almeida. “The funds we provide are strictly for the visitors’ centre and they have continued to use those funds for the visitors’ centre.”
Almeida said this matter was first sent to council in May or June, when the society changed its name. He said they haven’t changed the name of the visitors’ centre, which, last time Almeida checked, still said visitors information centre. He added that anything that references Powell River still says Powell River on the website.
“I asked staff at the time if that change impacted the agreement that was set with the city,” said Almeida. “A legal opinion was garnered in June, and while that legal opinion was not shared publicly, it did come back saying, in the eyes of the legal team, nothing had been breached.”
Orchiston said he disagreed with the legal counsel. He said the commitment by the tourism board is more than an agreement, it is a personal promise or pledge not to spend the money.
Councillor George Doubt said the society is capable of funding a simple thing like a name change without using city funds.
“There is nothing in the contract that suggests that qathet Tourism has to provide a Powell River visitors’ centre,” said Doubt. “It says it has to provide a visitors’ centre. That’s similar to the language that is in the Sunshine Coast Tourism [agreement]. The name change is the least important thing of all the things they are doing.”
Councillor and committee chair Jim Palm said it was a messy situation. He said looking at the agreement and the guidelines that are supposed to be followed, there are a lot of questions in his mind.
Palm asked Almeida whether the discussion on the name change was in an open or closed meeting. Almeida said he believed that all meetings are open.
Palm said council was never formally notified of the name change.
“I have seen nothing up until today about a legal opinion, because with the information I received earlier today when I asked the mayor [Ron Woznow] about the situation, I received correspondence indicating that mayor and council were notified about a legal opinion back on June 28,” said Palm. “I never saw this correspondence. The first I saw of a legal opinion was today.”
Join the Peak's email list for the top headlines right in your inbox Monday to Friday.
