(Hansard)
MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997
Afternoon
Volume 5, Number 17
Part 1
[ Page 4035 ]
The House met at 2:05 p.m.
Prayers.
Hon. G. Clark: I ask the House to join me in a tribute to Stanley Knowles. Mr. Knowles was a United Church minister whose political ideas were forged by the Depression. He never forgot those experiences nor why he came to Parliament in 1942, which was, of course, primarily to fight for social justice and particularly to fight for the establishment of a pension plan for seniors in Canada. He took the view that his constituents were not just those who lived within the boundaries of Winnipeg North Centre, but also pensioners, veterans and people in need right across Canada. His experience in the thirties caused him to move from the pulpit into politics. His life's work was to achieve greater equality amongst the people of Canada and to solve some of the problems people faced.
He had survived four elections and served most conscientiously in four parliaments before the event occurred which made him a major figure in Canadian parliamentary history -- the pipeline debate. I know the Clerks are listening with rapt attention, because it was Mr. Knowles's encyclopedic knowledge of the rules, and the ingenuity to use them, that drove the Liberal government of the day to defeat.
He was three times offered the speakership of the House of Commons and turned it down because he felt it would have cut him off from his party and from the struggle for social justice. Mr. Knowles's conception of social justice was dynamic. Under the pressure of world crises, he moved away from his early commitment to pacifism and acknowledged that peace sometimes requires the use of force. The Canadian veteran never found a firmer friend than this man of peace who never bore arms.
Mr. Knowles was 40 years a parliamentarian and was later made an officer of Parliament. He was truly one of Canada's most distinguished parliamentarians, and we will miss him greatly.
G. Campbell: I rise to join with the Premier in his acknowledgment of the passing of a legend, the man from Winnipeg North Centre, the conscience of the Commons.
Stanley Howard Knowles has been called many things. He received many awards and was accorded many accolades. But the truth is that his greatest achievement was not bestowed by some organization or some institution. It was bestowed by Canadians who gave him the label that everyone strives for: they called him a great Canadian. It was the people who accorded him that label, and they did that because he always understood how important our democratic institutions were, and he always stood on the side of our democratic institutions -- nearly 40 years of elected work for the people of Winnipeg North Centre, the people of Manitoba and the people of this country.
Mr. Knowles belonged to the CCF and then the NDP, but his work was on behalf of all the people, not of a party. He was the master of parliamentary procedure, and for this he earned the respect of parliamentarians everywhere. But it was procedure for a purpose. It was hard work and attention to detail that made him the best-known and best-loved opposition MP in Ottawa. This Legislature, I know, will recognize his work, his honesty, and his unfailing courtesy and decency as the hallmarks of what we should be striving for in this chamber. Indeed, it's what all legislative chambers should be striving for.
He struggled for years against multiple sclerosis, and he was subjected to a massive stroke. Yet he soldiered on in his work, with great good humour and with unflagging effort. Today all Canadians mourn his passing. We mourn the loss of a decent man who put service above self -- the best interests of us all above mere political or partisan purpose.
You will hear people say of him that his passing marks the end of an era. Let us hope, as he would hope, that that is not true. If his passing marks the end of an era, it would mean we mark the passing of hard work and social consciousness and dedication to democratic principles. He would not want that, and neither should we. Let us say instead that we in this chamber honour his work, his passion, his decency, his life. Let Stanley Knowles serve as the standard to which we all aspire, not the light that has forever fled. Let us honour him by striving to achieve in what ways we can the greatness he believed resides within us all and within our democratic institutions.
I. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House might permit me a minute to say something, after the very generous remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and the remarks of the Premier.
I served in the House of Commons with Stanley Knowles. He was my House Leader for six years in three parliaments. I was there when he had his stroke, and he continued on. He was a giant of a parliamentarian.
I know the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill wants to say some things today, as well. Here she comes, as a matter of fact; I'll let her speak for herself.
I try to capture the essence of a person. This morning when I heard of Stanley's death, I looked around my kitchen, and there was a book, Recipes From the Hill -- the favourite meals from the members of the House of Commons. We were asked to put our recipes -- our favourite meals -- in there. There are some pretty fancy recipes. What was Stanley's? Stanley's was: "I like a good cup of tea." And he described in great detail how to make a good cup of tea, because the member for Winnipeg North Centre knew detail.
Every afternoon about 3:30 he would have a cup of tea and an arrowroot biscuit with his secretary, and they'd talk about things. He'd then spend the rest of the day disciplining his young caucus, like myself and some of the other people, and teaching us the rules of parliament and how to respect parliament -- how to fight for things, but how to respect parliament. So when I think of Stanley, I think of a cup of tea and how we called him lean and humane, I think it was.
He got the Canada Pension Plan with the Liberal government of the day; medicare -- he and Tommy -- with the Liberal government of the day. He fought for every increase in the old age pension after the war. He took J.S. Woodsworth's seat in 1942. That was the year I was born, and I still had the privilege to
When you think about it, a cup of tea and the Canada Pension Plan, medicare, old age pension, veterans' pensions -- that's a great career, and we should all remember and pay tribute to Stanley Knowles.
G. Brewin: I promise I won't say a lot, although I can.
Stanley Knowles came to my parents' house in 1942 to stay for one session to help the Mann family make up a shortfall in their budget -- I know about things like that -- and he stayed 38 years. He was a part of my family upbringing
[ Page 4036 ]
and my growing up. He liked a cup of tea, and if I could add to that, he might well have wanted to have a recipe about making porridge, because that was the other thing I learned a lot about around our breakfast table as we ate our porridge and our boiled eggs, and talked politics and listened to the news. That was breakfast at the Mann household for many, many, many years.
Stanley was a workaholic. He went to work on the bus, in the early days, from the west end of Ottawa to downtown. He left at 8:30 in the morning and got home at 11 o'clock at night, and he did that six days a week. In those days airplanes didn't fly MPs back and forth quite so readily as they do now, so it was the train. He would come, as all MPs did, and stay for quite a long while.
[2:15]
There are so many attributes to Stanley, but one of the important parts, I think, is the legacy that he leaves to our country, to social democracy -- a legacy that was born from his own very humble beginnings in Los Angeles and from his own decision, a lone decision, to come to Canada and settle in Winnipeg in his late teens, and then moving from there into the ministry and the social gospel movement across the west of Canada. Tommy Douglas was part of that, and so were many other famous Canadians, some of whom stayed in the church and others who moved into the more secular side of our social democracy and our Canadian society. But his legacy is very much social democracy, as other members have mentioned here.We will remember him for that, but also for his interest and devotion to Parliament, to the traditions of Parliament and to the importance of Parliament as a form of discourse for solving and working through the issues of the day for a society. He was asked to be the Speaker back in 1957 and turned it down, because it would be hard on his social democratic voice to be in that position, as I know the Speaker knows well in our day.
He would have been 89 in a week. He lived a long and full life, and he gave much to this country. We will indeed miss him, but we celebrate that life.
The Speaker: Thank you, members on both sides, very much.
Hon. J. Cashore: In my capacity as Minister of Labour, I wish to introduce a distinguished guest from Cuba: a labour representative, Mr. Sergio Laradegoitia. He is accompanied by Jim Lamb of CUPE, a national representative, and a translator, Jim Raeder. Sergio is visiting various MLAs and talking about labour relations here in British Columbia. Would the House please make him welcome.
J. Weisgerber: It is my pleasure today to introduce a friend and a constituent, Mr. Dale Phillips, who is a successful businessman from Chetwynd. He is president of the recently chartered Rotary Club in Chetwynd, and he's the son of Don "Leather Lungs" Phillips, who represented my constituency very ably and very vocally for many years in this chamber. I hope everyone here will give a very warm welcome to a fine individual, Mr. Dale Phillips.
Hon. U. Dosanjh: Today in the House I want to introduce two families who are here to support the need to change the law regarding high-speed chases involving emergency vehicles: Inga and Bruce Thompson and their son Bjorn, the parents and brother of Erik Thompson; and Carol and Gordon Bartusek, the parents of Crystal Bartusek. Will the House please join me in welcoming them.
J. Wilson: Seated in the gallery today are some very special students: Dawn Clements, Kimberley Patrick, Mikol Golob, Jessie James and Morgan Moxley. They have travelled to Victoria all the way from Nazko Valley Elementary School in my riding of Cariboo North. These grade 7 students are accompanied by their teacher Dan Kishkan and his assistant, Mrs. Tracey Moxley. I ask the House to give them a hearty welcome.
R. Kasper: Today visiting us in the gallery and the precincts are students and teachers from the Sooke Christian School. May the House please make them welcome.
Also, I'd like the House to join me in congratulating a staffperson from the legislative comptroller's office, Maureen Olson, the manager of accounting operations, who looks after all members' interests very well. On Saturday she had a baby girl, 7 pounds 1 ounce, called Kristen Adele Olson.
C. Clark: My mother has begged me not to introduce her today, but for once I won't do what I'm told. I'll ask the House to please make my mother Mavis Clark welcome today.
Hon. P. Ramsey: Joining us in the gallery today is Dr. Bernie Sheehan. Dr. Sheehan has had a distinguished career in universities in this province and in other provinces in our country. Currently he serves as president of the Technical University of British Columbia. I'd ask all members to make him welcome on this good day for post-secondary education in British Columbia.
E. Gillespie: Joining us today we have 55 grades 11 and 12 students from Georges P. Vanier Secondary School in Courtenay, accompanied by their teacher Mr. G. Horn. Would the House please join me in making them welcome.
Hon. C. Evans: For my friend Jo Brown and her husband Tom, it's been 17 years since they took a trip without their children. I find it most amazing that Jo would decide to take this experience and actually visit us at question period. Jo is a member of the Columbia Basin Trust and a citizen whose activities are prerequisites to keeping southeastern B.C. in one piece. Would the House please make her welcome.
MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1997
Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997.Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 34, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1997. The government is very concerned about innocent third parties who have suffered serious injury or death as a result of high-speed pursuits.
These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act will increase protection to the public by giving the province the authority to establish standard regulations for both municipal police and RCMP regarding high-speed pursuits. The regulations will provide guidelines as to when police may engage in high-speed
[ Page 4037 ]
pursuits, when such pursuits should be terminated and the use of emergency equipment during pursuits. In that regard, we are consulting with chiefs of police to craft these regulations.
Clearly there are many situations wherein a high-speed pursuit is not justified, specifically when the danger to the public outweighs the gravity of the offence. These amendments will minimize the occurrence of high-speed pursuits in the province and will provide a balance between law enforcement and protection of the public.
Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ACT
Hon. P. Ramsey: This act establishes the Technical University of British Columbia as a degree-granting institution to provide improved post-secondary access in the Fraser Valley, and to provide the knowledge and skills that all British Columbians need to succeed in the global economy.
The act sets out the purposes of the university and its governance structure. The purposes of the university, as set out in this legislation, include: to offer certificate, diploma and degree programs at the undergraduate and graduate levels in applied technology and related professional fields; to conduct applied research and development; to provide continuing education that responds to the needs of the applied technologists and related professional fields; to collaborate and cooperate with other post-secondary institutions, business and labour with respect to education and applied research and development; and to create strong links with business and labour and to develop programs that are relevant to and at the forefront of industrial and professional initiative.
The act provides for a corporate governance model to enable the university to respond quickly to changing industry and community needs. It includes a board of governors, a president, who is chief executive officer of the university, and a university council. The board of governors and the president will have the duties and powers of the board of governors and the senate under the University Act. The president will consult with the university council on specified academic matters. The act also establishes program advisory committees for each program area, which will make recommendations to the head of the program area. Included in this legislation are consequential amendments to eight other acts.
Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT
C. Hansen: It's now early June, and thousands of B.C. students have hit the streets looking for work. However, the job stats that were released on Friday are not very encouraging. StatsCan said that in the past year, under the leadership of this Premier, youth unemployment has increased from 14.1 percent to just under 16 percent. But this didn't stop the Premier from hosting a glitzy press conference on Friday to announce 100 subsidized jobs at ICBC. We see that that announcement has more to do with public relations hype than fundamentally addressing the problem of youth unemployment.How can the Premier justify wasting valuable dollars on glitzy media events, when there are over 50,000 young British Columbians seeking work?
Hon. G. Clark: I say shame on that member for criticizing ICBC.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Standing up in this House and attacking 100 good jobs for students at ICBC, to promote safety and awareness, is simply cheap politics.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Can we have order members, please, so that we might hear the answer.
Hon. G. Clark: We have A Guarantee for Youth in this province, which is the most ambitious job creation program for young people that B.C. has ever seen. We've increased funding for Student Summer Works, and I hope members opposite will support that. We've increased funding for environmental youth teams -- some $10 million to invest -- to hire young people, to train them, and to work and invest in the environment.
We've challenged our Crown corporations to be good corporate citizens and create over 2,000 jobs. ICBC -- and I was proud to be there -- is doing their part by hiring young people to promote safety and to prevent accidents. By the way, if hon. members don't already know, young people have more accidents than everybody else. In fact, 20 percent of young people have accidents in the first year in which they have a licence. They're doing their part
On Saturday, I announced the youth business and entrepreneurship training program to help young people start their own businesses. We have a comprehensive program for youth employment. No province in Canada can match what this government has done in promoting youth and employment.
Interjections.
The Speaker: May I just advise members that I do not require assistance in enforcing the rules of order, and remind them also that if a question is open-ended
Interjection.
The Speaker: Member for Vancouver-Little Mountain, I would suggest that you don't make those comments.
C. Hansen: The Premier says that I'm attacking the 100 youth that got jobs at ICBC. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I'm attacking this government's record of creating an
[ Page 4038 ]
environment where there are 7,000 more unemployed youth in this province today than when he anointed himself Minister Responsible for Youth in this province. And I'm attacking the fact that this Premier, as Minister Responsible for Youth, is more concerned about public relations hype than he is about addressing the fundamental problem of youth unemployment.
I would like to ask the Premier how he can claim that his record as Minister Responsible for Youth is anything but a dismal failure, when we have 7,000 more young British Columbians unemployed today than there were a year ago.
[2:30]
Hon. G. Clark: The average level of employment amongst B.C. youth was up 5,400 jobs during January to May of 1997, while it was down 58,800 jobs in the rest of the country. We're outperforming the rest of the country in terms of youth employment, and that's a direct result of government policies.I have no hesitation in saying that youth unemployment is too high in British Columbia. We're doing better than anywhere else in Canada, but not good enough. We have to do more. That's why our government engaged in the significant job creation program that we have. Instead of complaining about it, those members opposite should be supporting this government, which has the most ambitious youth job creation program in B.C.'s history.
C. Hansen: This Premier needs some update in the stats that he's using, because this province now has one of the worst employment records in Canada. There are 18,000 fewer jobs in this province than six months ago. I would like to ask the Premier what he is doing to address the fundamental causes of the increase in youth unemployment in this province, besides holding glitzy press conferences.
Interjections.
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, it's pathetic. Listen to the members opposite
Our Crown corporations are being good corporate citizens. Every ministry in government has been challenged to work on youth employment. We have environmental youth teams; we have Summer Works. And yes, we need to do more. We intend to do more. And I'd ask members opposite, instead of complaining about it, to work with the government for a change, to promote young people and what they have to offer in this province.
B. Penner: This government certainly has been successful in creating jobs -- in Alberta. Alberta's unemployment rate is now at 5.8 percent, while our youth unemployment rate in B.C. is at 16 percent. That's shameful. There are over 50,000 young people in B.C. who are unemployed. This government promised help during the last election but since then has delivered nothing but hype. According to documents received by B.C. Liberals under the Freedom of Information Act, this government has spent $1.5 million on the communications budget
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, order! Let's hear the question.
B. Penner: This government has spent $1.5 million since June 1996 on a communications strategy for the Premier's Guarantee for Youth program. Can the Premier tell the House how he can justify spending $1.5 million on a glitzy ad campaign, while there are 50,000 young people in British Columbia looking for work this summer?
Hon. G. Clark: At the second Premier's Youth Forum -- we called it A Voice for Youth -- we had representatives from all across British Columbia. There may even have been a Liberal MLA or two there. They were invited, obviously, to talk about how government could be more responsive to the needs of our young people. The single biggest request we had from young people was that they didn't have the information they needed to access
Interjection.
Hon. G. Clark: That's right. In order to get access to the programs -- environmental youth team programs, the Summer Works program, the You-BET or youth business and entrepreneurship training program -- we have to make sure they are accessible to British Columbia. We have a 1-800 number. We have a web site designed by young people for young people so that they can have access to it. And that's where the money is going -- to make sure that this very ambitious program that this government has pioneered in this country is accessible to young people and to youth in this province. Again, hon. member, if you talked to your colleagues, you would know that it's important that our young people have access to information so that they can access these excellent programs.
B. Penner: I hardly think that information needs to have the Premier's picture on virtually every page. I've reviewed a copy of the report prepared after the Premier's Youth Forum, and I believe that on more than half the pages there are either quotes or pictures of the Premier in that publicly-paid-for document.
We have a breakdown
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members, please -- on both sides.
B. Penner: B.C. Liberals have obtained a breakdown of the $1.5 million multimedia information campaign waged by the Premier's Office. Three-quarters of a million dollars was spent on ad placements, more than $300,000 went to ad production and a further $180,000 went to creative development and youth focus-group research.
Can the Premier tell us if the young people in those focus groups were being asked what jobs they were looking for,
[ Page 4039 ]
or if they were asked to help the Premier boost his image and his profile by spending taxpayers' dollars on a glitzy media advertising campaign?
Hon. G. Clark: Hon. Speaker, I don't apologize for one minute for listening, for a change, to young people. I don't apologize for the Guarantee for Youth. I don't apologize for the Premier's Youth Forum. For the first time in the history of this province, young people have access to the Premier and to cabinet ministers. We're going to keep doing this each and every year, because our young people are our future. They need the opportunities we had, and we're going to work throughout government to make sure they have those opportunities and access to government information.
PLACEMENT OF NATIVE FOSTER CHILD
(MURPHY CASE)
The Child and Family Review Board issued a gag order last week against the Murphys. It states: "It should be a matter of honour and integrity among parties that they put the interests of the child over their selfish concerns or interests." Mr. Speaker, it seems the Murphys were the only ones who have put the interests of the child first in this case.
Does the minister agree that when parents are forced to take matters into their own hands, they should be stifled with a gag order?
Hon. P. Priddy: The Child and Family Review Board, I would remind the member, is not under the auspices of this ministry -- just to make sure that is clear.
I don't think we're talking about gagging or stifling people; we are talking, from the perspective of this ministry, about what is in the best interest of the child.
The Child and Family Review Board is still continuing their investigation. We have given the Child and Family Review Board all of the information we had, including the name of the aboriginal social agency in Saskatchewan, Saskatchewan police records, Saskatchewan social services records and our independent assessment. They asked for more information, which we then went back and provided for them. I think we need to wait until the Child and Family Review Board has finished their report and commented.
M. Coell: The Murphys have jumped through legal and bureaucratic hoops for the simple goal of securing a safe home for their foster daughter. The Child and Family Review Board has now stated that those steps they took are inappropriate and that a heavy hand is required in response.
Will the minister admit that if it weren't for the Murphys' questioning of the ministry's decisions, this little girl would probably -- and could potentially -- be in a dangerous situation in Saskatchewan?
B.C. TRANSIT EMPLOYEE ABSENTEEISM
D. Symons: The auditor general's report on B.C. Transit released last week says that Transit spends over $8 million a year to cover bus driver absenteeism. However, through freedom of information, B.C. Liberals have obtained a copy of this year's Transit estimates briefing notes on absenteeism. In it B.C. Transit pegs absenteeism as costing $15 million annually.Can the minister responsible for B.C. Transit tell the House why B.C. Transit forecasts that absenteeism is costing almost 100 percent more each year than the auditor general's figures show?
Hon. J. MacPhail: The auditor general started his review almost two years ago, and the hon. member is correct: since then it has risen. You're absolutely right: it has gone up. It is now at a record rate of overall absenteeism. Including WCB and long-term disability, it's at a rate of an average of 37 days per year. It's totally unacceptable -- absolutely.
The CEO of the Transit corporation has put in a very tough absenteeism management plan. I would hope that this Liberal opposition, when they get pressure to go against that absenteeism management plan, will stand firm the same way we are and uphold that plan.
The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.
B. McKinnon: I ask leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. McKinnon: I would like the House to welcome my niece Colleen Chizeck, who lives in Victoria and who has decided to come and watch question period. Welcome, Colleen.
[2:45]
The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
Hon. D. Miller: Prior to us getting into the questions that arise in estimates, I would like to make some brief statements relative to the operation of the ministry.
First of all, I would like to start by paying respects to two long-term employees of the ministry who passed away earlier this year. So often in this place, in this House, we tend to get
[ Page 4040 ]
disconnected with the thousands of men and women who work for the provincial government and have worked for the government for years and years and done an outstanding job in the field.
One of those individuals, Dave Johnson, served the provincial government for 35 years managing the Charlie Lake office near Fort St. John. Mr. Johnson played a central role in shaping the petroleum and natural gas industry in British Columbia. The industry was in its infancy when Dave joined the then Ministry of Mines in 1961. During his tenure, the industry expanded from a modest beginning of a few hundred wells in the Fort St. John area to over 10,000 wells drilled, mostly in northeast B.C. Because of the size of the province and the remoteness of drilling locations, Mr. Johnson exercised his duties with considerable independence and responsibility. Under his guidance, the industry established an excellent track record for safety and environmental protection. Mr. Johnson was known by both the industry and the community for his ability to combine technical excellence with fairness and firmness. Dave was deeply respected and valued by his colleagues in the ministry, as well as by the oil and gas industry and other agencies. He will be sadly missed by all who know him, and I do pay my respects to his family.
And to Tony Milligan. To many of us in government and many others in the mining and consultant industries, Mr. Milligan was the grandfather of reclamation in British Columbia. In the early 1970s reclamation was just beginning, and Tony and his crew at Kaiser Resources led the way in the practical application of reclamation technology, proving to all of us that large-scale open-pit mining could be reclaimed to a very high standard. This pioneering work was undoubtedly responsible for the continued expansion of the mining industry in British Columbia. Tony and the crew at Kaiser also won the annual mine reclamation award for four of the first seven years it was presented. Tony was well respected by his colleagues in the ministry, as well as by the mining industry and other agencies. I know that ministry staff have many wonderful stories and fond memories from the time spent working with him. There are few individuals who by their consistent honesty and integrity can easily move from industry to government, use the same approach and philosophy, and be as successful as Tony. Our deepest condolences, as I said, to both the Johnson and the Milligan families.
Turning now to the estimates. The voted appropriations, as I have indicated
It does allow us to carry out our mandate, and I want to pay some tribute to the staff who have had to deal with reductions and still carry out the mandate of the ministry. I'd also like to point out that on the revenue side, the ministry collects $400 million in revenues from the mineral and the petroleum and natural gas sectors, and this does not include corporation income tax, property tax and other fees.
The ministry carries out its mandate by developing sectoral trade opportunities; fostering international and domestic private sector investment; facilitating and coordinating strategic public sector capital investments; working with the public sector in its economic development responsibilities; ensuring that the province's energy and mineral resources are managed for the benefit of British Columbians and that the Crown receives its fair share of the revenues generated by petroleum and mining activities in the province; and encouraging the revitalization of traditional industries.
We also work with the Crown corporations secretariat and various Crown corporations to create an environment conducive to the province's economic and social development. There are six Crowns in my portfolio: the B.C. Ferry Corporation, the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority, the B.C. Railway Group of Companies, the B.C. Lottery Corporation, the B.C. Buildings Corporation, Victoria Line Ltd. -- which is on the way out -- and the B.C. Community Financial Services Corporation. The Crown corporations, the ones I've mentioned, through their unique mandates and approaches are also working hard to sustain economic development and business growth in the province. For instance, they are providing both longer-term and summer employment and training opportunities for young people through the Crown youth employment initiative -- which was criticized earlier today in question period -- which comes under, as the Premier indicated, the broader umbrella of the Guarantee for Youth.
During this debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment, I will discuss the work of the Crown corporations, boards and commissions that are in my portfolio. I also have the Information, Science and Technology Agency in my portfolio, a very critical part of the growing economic sector in our province. Other boards and commission included are: the B.C. Gaming Commission, the B.C. Racing Commission, the Asia Pacific Foundation, the Job Protection Commission, the International Financial Centre, the Science Council of B.C., the Mediation and Arbitration Board and the Mineral Tax Review Board. This is a pretty big portfolio
A measure of the Ministry of Employment and Investment's success in implementing its mandate is the number of jobs created and protected each year. In fact, with the sequence of questions in question period, it's interesting to note that while no one is ever satisfied -- and I will certainly never be satisfied as long as there is an unemployment rate
I think we require massive efforts to keep pace. It's clear, at least on a statistical basis, that our efforts at job creation have been very, very good. Is it enough? No, it's not. Do we have more plans to try to stimulate the economy and create more jobs? Yes, we do. But we'll no doubt get into that here and in other forums.
So as I've indicated, there are more than 200,000 new jobs. We've seen a decline in the public sector, and I think some
[ Page 4041 ]
people say that's good. Clearly we have to be efficient as a government. We are working through job protection. We have an enormous problem in the northwest part of the province as we speak. That's a situation of a company formerly known as Repap, now known as Skeena Cellulose Inc. That company essentially failed the market test as a Canadian company, was forced to sell by its creditors and, as all too often is the case, government was called upon to provide support to try to mitigate the impact on communities and workers. We are engaged in that in a significant way, but perhaps we can discuss that again in estimates.
We played a leading role with respect to the restructuring of Canadian Airlines -- 12,000 direct and indirect jobs in British Columbia. We thought that was very, very important. The Premier took a leading role in that. It looks as though that company has gone through that very critical period and is on the way up. We worked very hard in my ministry, in the Job Protection Commission and with the Premier's assistance, to develop a restructuring plan for Evans Forest Products, the single employer in the town of Golden, and that has proven to be successful. So there are some success stories.
There are obviously some economic problem areas in the province, but to a large degree, both on the job creation side and in working with the private sector when they do run into difficulties, I think we have done a commendable job. In fact, the Job Protection Commission, since its inception in '91, has handled more than 860 inquiries and 375 projects/cases and has saved about 11,000 jobs. So that's a very constructive role that they're playing.
I'll leave it at that for now. There are other more discrete parts of the ministry. I assume we're going to take this in some sort of staged process, starting with the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So with that, I'll take my seat and look forward with interest to the questions being asked.
C. Hansen: I too want to join the minister in paying tribute to individuals in the ministry who have served this province so ably. Certainly the minister spoke very eloquently about the two individuals who passed away in the past year, and I would like to add my respects and my support for his comments in that regard.
I've had the pleasure in the last year of working with many of the officials in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I must say that I find I am in awe of many of those individuals, who I think are serving this province very, very well. The interactions that I've had with officials in the ministry have always been a pleasure.
As we proceed with these estimates, I'm very anxious that we use the time of officials as efficiently as possible. I know that this is a complex ministry, especially when we get into the Crown corporations. There are certainly many branches in this ministry; there are three deputy ministers that report to this minister. As we go through this process, I'm very anxious to ensure that the time of those officials is used as effectively as possible. Therefore I hope that we will have a good sense of cooperation on both sides of the House, so that we can ensure that officials are called on in a timely manner when we need their expertise and their backup information. Certainly we will do everything we on this side of the House can to facilitate that.
Part of that cooperation was that we had organized a briefing last week with several officials of the ministry at the assistant deputy minister level. I must say it was very brief. It was an introduction to many of the subject areas. We started it out by admitting, too, that we would probably come away with more questions than answers, which was true. There were several documents that were indicated as being helpful for us as background information, in that having those documents would result in questions for which we could probably read the answers ourselves rather than delaying these estimates for hour on hour on hour while we asked the minister the same questions. Specifically, there were documents that were the business plans of the four primary branches of the ministry. I understand that those business plans could be made available. Just in opening, my question to the minister is: might we be able to expect copies of those documents before we get too far into these estimates?
[3:00]
Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the opening remarks from my critic with respect to the speedy passage of estimates.Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Oh -- a misinterpretation. I understand that the documents the member referred to are being sent. You say they haven't been received yet; they're in the process of being sent. And we'll certainly double-check that. It's our desire to make sure you have them.
C. Hansen: These estimates, as we know, come up on very short notice, and as a result
Part of my reason for raising this is that we do hope to proceed with an orderly process of examining various aspects of this ministry. We want to start with the overall general operations of the ministry, which includes those four branches. As soon as we have access to those documents, we'll be able to then determine how quickly we can get through this particular stage of the estimates. But I would beg the indulgence of the minister that if the documents
The minister mentioned in his opening remarks that there was a decline of 24 percent in the funding for the ministry itself. I am anxious to learn how that affects the ministry's mandate as we knew it last year. Certainly I don't think it's reasonable to expect the ministry to be accomplishing everything that it was accomplishing in past years on a significantly larger budget.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, certainly a budget reduction of that magnitude is not without its challenges. I really want to again acknowledge the work of the people in the ministry, in terms of rising to that. I've been on both sides, you know. As an employee where layoffs occurred, it's not very nice. I've also discovered that it's not very nice to be in charge of an organization where layoffs occur. It's a very difficult time. It's difficult to maintain staff morale and to keep people focused on the job at hand. I think it's even more difficult, quite frankly,
[ Page 4042 ]
in the public sector, because there are those who tend to dismiss public sector workers as somehow simply at the public trough and who don't really show much regard for the individuals -- the real flesh-and-blood individuals -- who are impacted by reductions of the magnitude that this government brought in in this fiscal year.
Notwithstanding that, we have done some work in the divisions. Perhaps I can give some highlights for the minister -- or for the member, the wannabe minister. No disrespect. The science, technology and capital division was eliminated. That portion of the division has been transferred to the Information, Science and Technology Agency, ISTA, to provide a single-window approach to science and technology issues within government. The division's capital budget group -- eight FTEs and $660,000 -- has been transferred to the Ministry of Finance and Corporate Relations. The division's remaining functions -- capital policy, public-private partnerships, infrastructure and program management -- have been transferred to the ministry's new economic development division, formerly policy.
Two ADM-level positions in the ministry were eliminated as a result of these changes: the position of special adviser to the Premier on science and technology and related support staff, as well as the ADM position for the former science, technology and capital division. The former policy division was reduced by half, both budget and FTEs. That is now reconstituted, along with the additional functions noted above, as the economic development division. The division has a budget of $13 million and 58 FTEs.
The B.C. Trade and Investment Office's base budget and FTE complement is reduced by approximately one-third. To achieve those cuts, the BCTIO will be streamlining service delivery internationally, transferring some marketing initiatives to the Ministry of Agriculture, the federal government and Forest Renewal B.C. Sector trade development and investment work in known, identifiable potential growth areas where B.C. demonstrates a comparative advantage -- in other words, becoming more focused, where you can get the most, as they say, bang for your buck
APEC received an additional $2 million, bringing the total APEC funding for '97-98 to $3.4 million. We also received an additional ten FTEs for '97-98 to assist with the delivery of APEC.
Energy and minerals division. Again, there were some pretty tough cuts. The geological survey branch budget was reduced by 46 percent. That is a very valuable part of the energy and minerals division in terms of the kind of geotechnical work that's done and then made available to the private sector. Generally, each year that work is displayed at the Cordilleran Roundup, and that leads to quite a staking rush by the private sector. We have done some work there to try to assist in managing the budget reduction.
The remaining areas of the energy and minerals division deal with such issues as health, safety and issuance of title. The enforcement of operational standards were kept intact to sustain resource development and the flow of revenue to the Crown. We will be realizing efficiency savings of some 13 percent without any major restructuring.
Communications division. We're down two FTEs from last year. General administrative efficiency savings of 27 percent have been realized in this division. While the issues management workload for communications has increased significantly, with the addition of the B.C. Gaming Commission, the B.C. Racing Commission, the B.C. Lottery Corporation and the Information, Science and Technology Agency, the division did not receive any additional resources.
Revenue and management services division. A corresponding budget in FTE reductions -- nine FTEs -- has been made to reflect staffing reductions elsewhere in the ministry. General administrative efficiency savings of 32 percent have been realized. The ministry's consolidation at 1810 Blanshard has allowed the ministry to realize further staffing and rent savings of $1 million annually. Cuts to the resource revenue branch were minimized to protect revenue collection capabilities.
Obviously, I'm running over the highlights of a number of divisions in the ministry that have incurred some significant budget reductions and staff reductions. To give an illustration of how we are coping with that, we're trying to become more effective with efficiency savings -- more focused.
To date, I don't think there has been any irreparable damage in terms of the ministry's function. In fact, given the issues that we deal with generally, I think that we're continuing to provide very effective leadership -- particularly in the area of potential expansion of our economy -- in a number of significant areas, some of which I can't talk about at this point because they're confidential between private sector companies and the government. Overall, I think we're functioning reasonably well in the face of some pretty deep cuts.
J. Smallwood: I seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
J. Smallwood: I'd like to introduce 50 grade 5 students from Cedar Hills Elementary, accompanied by parents and their teacher. I hope that you're having a very good trip here in Victoria. I hope you enjoy the stimulating debate led by our Minister of Employment and Investment. Would the House make the students welcome.
C. Hansen: I want to turn our attention to job strategy. I wonder if the minister could advise the committee of the elements that make up job strategy.
Hon. D. Miller: Let me try to hit some of the issues that I think are important and things that we are trying to focus on as government, in terms of building our economy.
I mentioned the challenge of population. In other words, the population of British Columbia is growing at a much faster rate than the population of other provinces in Canada. I talked about the fact that our working population -- in other words, the people who are out looking for work -- has increased by 15 percent in the province and by just under 7 percent in the rest of Canada. We've always known that we face this particular challenge. While we know that people coming into our province -- just by their arrival, their spending power and the investments that they make -- contribute to the growth of our economy, that alone is not sufficient. We, like other Canadian provinces -- not all of them, but some of them -- are also very large geographically. The cost of building new highways, of building capacity, is very, very high.
Some of the elements that are fundamental in an economic strategy for British Columbia are, first of all, the stable fiscal foundation. Governments and opposition always quarrel about these issues. You'll have your turn to be critics,
[ Page 4043 ]
but notwithstanding your criticism, part of our fundamental approach is to develop a stable fiscal climate, and that means balancing the budget. We are on track to do that, and I'll leave any further detailed discussion on that to the Minister of Finance. If we were not to do that, the operating deficits that accumulate would simply accumulate as debt. Then we would not be digging ourselves out of a hole.
The second part of our strategy is to look at the population of the province. As we see, British Columbia is still heavily reliant on some commodity products. There is nothing wrong with that, by the way. There is nothing wrong with being lumber manufacturers. There is something wrong if you say that we're going to stop there, and we're not going to go farther up the chain. But there is nothing wrong with being manufacturers of lumber or pulp, or being in the primary industries like mining, because they do bring a lot of wealth back into the province. We export those commodities; we sell them in the world markets. The money we make comes back into the province -- hopefully, back into reinvestment, creating new opportunities.
As we shift our economy to one that's based more on knowledge-based skills, we think it's important that the population, particularly young people, has the opportunity to get the kinds of skills that are in demand in this new economy. The best example is the knowledge-based sector -- the technology companies. We have some of the world's best technology companies here in British Columbia. Hopefully, we'll get into that when we discuss that part of the ministry. But we have a skill shortage. In other words, there are companies in that field that say that they could hire more people, but they can't find people with the right qualifications.
Earlier today and prior to these estimates, my colleague the Minister of Education tabled a bill on a new technical university. That has been in the planning stages for some time as a fundamental component -- an educational institution that is capable of transferring the kinds of skills that are in demand in that sector to students, as do the very good institutions that we have now -- for example, BCIT and the community college network. The members will be familiar with the Skills Now program that we brought in when I was the minister a couple of years ago.
[3:15]
Again, the focus is on training, on making sure that British Columbians have the opportunity to get the right skills. That is broad-based. It goes from K to 12 -- right through the college-university sector. It includes 20 skills centres, interactive conference centres with boards of business people and workers who can identify their skill shortages and have that kind of training available in their own communities. There is a general emphasis on training and skills development as an essential ingredient -- particularly, but not exclusively, in terms of the growth of the knowledge-based or high-tech sector.I should also add, going back to the issue of commodities, that the expansion of that sector -- in other words, the fastest-growing part of the forest sector -- is the value-added part, where we're getting into tertiary manufacturing of forest products. Again, we've supported that because we realize more and more that technology will be the prime ingredient that is applied to create these new opportunities. In that respect, we have funded the development of a centre of excellence at the University of British Columbia as a component of the new forest sciences centre at UBC. That centre of excellence, which really will be comparable to, say, the Rosenheim institute in Germany, will provide people who attend with the kinds of skills that are required if you're going to grow the value-added side of the forest industry. These are, in other words, the particular skills based on marketing, on manufacturing design and flow -- making sure you have efficient operations on uses of wood -- and on all the kinds of particular specialties that are required if you're going to expand the value-added sector.
That, by the way, is not just at UBC. It's linked into our community colleges and now even into our high schools, where for the first time in our history we are developing forest science and applied science programs at the high school level -- linked in, again, to our colleges and universities. We are investing in people, I guess, if I could sum up all that long description.
Thirdly, investing in infrastructure. I talked about our vast geography; I talked about our population growth. These are indeed a real challenge. With the Premier, I had the pleasure this morning of opening the new ferry terminal at Duke Point, just south of Nanaimo, and I think I'll use that for illustrative purposes. The terminal and the eight-kilometre road that connects that terminal to the new Nanaimo Parkway cost us slightly less than $100 million. That's a very expensive project; $100 million is a lot of money.
Now, if you add up all the demands that infrastructure
That, by the way, is not a new idea. That notion of developing infrastructure and investing in infrastructure is as old as the hills. I mean, W.A.C. Bennett was very successful in building this province using that very same philosophy. That's part of another, third component of developing the economy of this province. Again, it has to be affordable, and I know there has been considerable debate about the question of debt.
Perhaps we've not been -- I don't know -- straightforward enough in terms of trying to let people know that debt is real. Debt could be the new schools that are now being built in some communities now. Debt could be the new highway I talked about, which we opened this morning, or the new ferry terminal. All those are debt, but they are investments in British Columbia that allow an expansion of the economy.
The trick, I think, is to make sure that your debt is "affordable." In other words, what's the size of your debt relative to the size of your economy? That's a question I don't think there is a precise answer to. It's interesting to note that at the federal level, I think the debt relative to Canada's GDP is something like 70 percent. Somebody shake their head if I'm wrong, but I think it's somewhere in that neighbourhood. It's interesting to note that the debt that British Columbians have, relative to the size of the British Colombia economy, is about 20 percent. I think that is in fact the lowest debt-to-GDP ratio of any Canadian province. I think that's true.
So our debt -- while you must keep your eye on it and make sure it continues to be affordable, and that debt has been
[ Page 4044 ]
incurred primarily through the investment in new highways and all the things I talked about -- is affordable. In the short term, it provides a great number of jobs. People are employed constructing new schools, building new highways, new ferry terminals, etc. Those are short-term jobs for the duration of those contracts, but over the longer term, they are investments in our economic future.
There is more. Looking at private sector opportunities, I did mention earlier that we have become partners in a number of initiatives in the province, as a government, through my ministry. A couple of those may be of some interest. There are two new mines under development now: the Huckleberry mine in northern British Columbia and the Kemess mine as well. They, along with Mount Polley, which we're not involved with, are bringing about $650 million in private sector investment into our province. In terms of direct jobs, they are producing around the 1,500 range, if I recall, and they will provide jobs on an ongoing annual basis and provide economic benefits in terms of spinoff jobs and the taxes paid at the local level, at the provincial level and, yes, at the federal level.
We have recently concluded an agreement, which I think the Liberal member for Richmond has strongly supported, with an aircraft component manufacturing company, Avcorp. It is a commercial arrangement between our government and this private sector company that will see it move to a new location, and we'll see it add about 250 new jobs. We've made a commercial transaction with that company. In other words, we've put the taxpayers' money into that expansion.
We've also added a unique component, and that is $5.5 million of funding through the Ministry of Education, which will flow through the institutions so that the new employees who are required by this specialized company can get the kind of training that's required to make the company an ongoing success. So you can see by those several examples the kind of participation that we're prepared to enter into with the private sector to create new jobs and new opportunities in the province.
There are many more of those kinds of proposals that have come forward to government. Again, the member appreciates that you can't simply talk to every one. It would be irresponsible in a couple of ways. One is that you tend to
We are also pursuing strategic initiatives. The Premier is very, very focused on the jobs and timber accord -- in other words, working with the private sector on the theory that the resources of this province do belong to the public and trying to set some goals for employment in the forestry sector, for an additional 20,000 jobs.
Some other, not smaller
We've created a number of new apprenticeship opportunities in the film and live theatre sector, again on the premise that if you're going to have people come to British Columbia -- whether it's to film or to stage live productions or whatever it might be -- they've got to know that the kind of skilled people they need to be successful are available here in our province. We've done that, really, right across the piece -- in the airline sector, in film, in live theatre and in the tourism sector.
We've seen a phenomenal increase in the film sector. In my view, we have seen and will continue to see a significant increase in the tourism side. We are working with the fisheries sector now, as well. The Premier has provided outstanding leadership in terms of standing up for British Columbia's position with respect to the fishery -- a very significant industry and one that we think has more potential than it has realized to date.
The Chair: Hon. minister, your time has elapsed on this topic.
Hon. D. Miller: Oh, my time is up.
C. Hansen: I enjoyed that presentation by the minister. I think there was some useful information that was brought forward as a result of it. I want to summarize, if I can, the 15-minute presentation that the minister made.
We started out talking about the job strategy and what the elements of a job strategy are. If I followed the minister carefully, which I tried to do, essentially it breaks down into four categories, the first being the stable fiscal foundation, the second being the knowledge base, the third being infrastructure development and the fourth being strategic initiatives. I'm just wondering: is that a fair way of summarizing what the elements of a job strategy are?
Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, it's not bad. I don't object to that summation. I just say there are other components that we are working on. But perhaps those might unfold as we get through the discrete divisions in the ministry, because there's obviously, trying to sum up all of this into a nutshell
C. Hansen: We had some discussions about job strategy last year during the estimates process. One of the things that I think has come out since is a document entitled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," February 5, 1997. I was just wondering if the minister felt that this really was, in essence, a document that was driving the policy development process in his ministry.
Hon. D. Miller: I tried to just outline at length some of the policy work that's driving the ministry.
C. Hansen: Part of it is that over the last year we have been looking for a document called a job strategy. We were quite relieved to get this, although it was not a public document. It is a document that we obtained through freedom of information. I was wondering if the minister could tell us: is this a document that has in fact been developed by his ministry?
Hon. D. Miller: I'd have to take a look at it; I do see a lot of paper. I mean, I did outline the primary elements. The member tried to sum them up in his question, and I've confirmed that.
[ Page 4045 ]
So maybe we should deal with and talk about those primary elements, if there are some differences or some questions relative to that.
C. Hansen: It's not my intent to get into a broad, long philosophical debate about the primary elements of a job strategy. Rather, the process that we have before us is one of the accountability of the ministry and the minister for the spending that will take place during this fiscal year. So that's my intention -- rather than on the broad philosophical debate, to try to zero in on spending and spending intentions.
With regard to this "B.C. Jobs Strategy" that's here -- and I may come back to sections of it from time to time during these estimates -- I want to ask the minister where we're at with the development of something called a job strategy work plan.
[3:30]
Hon. D. Miller: There's lots of ongoing work with respect to work plans, etc. I did indicate that there are some initiatives in front of government that we're not, at this point, prepared to talk about. So I really can't give the member an absolute answer with respect to the development of a paper or a process. My job is to get out there and try to make things happen, and we're engaged in that every day.C. Hansen: The purpose of my questions is really that in a ministry, within those objectives and the broad job strategy as the minister outlined, there obviously have to be some targets that are being worked towards. It's one thing to develop a jobs strategy that is based on the minister's presentation as he gave it to us earlier this afternoon. But is this a strategy that the ministry has developed and that is being executed?
Hon. D. Miller: As I said, really, we're engaged in implementation of the strategy or the elements that I outlined at the outset on a daily basis, with all kinds of sectors. I talked about the forest jobs and timber accord, which is obviously a very active file. When we get into the mining sector, I can talk about some of the issues that we're talking about with the Mining Association of B.C. to create new jobs in British Columbia. They're ongoing through the Science Council and the ISTA, working with that sector to continue to see that the growth rate, which right now is around 12 percent, not only continues but increases, to add more jobs and opportunities. So we're engaged in that on a daily basis. I don't spend too much of my time looking at paper, you know -- process.
C. Hansen: Before I leave the subject of paper and the process, this document that I have is dated February 5, 1997; it's titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy: Themes and Next Steps." Could the minister tell me if his ministry was involved in developing that document?
Hon. D. Miller: I'd have to see the document. I should say I don't spend a lot of my time reading about process. My job on a daily basis is to get out there and try and create more jobs and work with the private sector and others. I think we've realized some success in that regard.
C. Hansen: In the year that I have had this responsibility as Employment and Investment critic, as I mentioned earlier, I have really tried to determine what a job strategy is. I've heard the minister enunciate it last year, and I've heard him enunciate it more precisely today -- and articulately. I appreciate that. But I would assume that something called a B.C. job strategy -- and I think last year we were promised detail, with achievable goals -- would be something that would culminate in an action plan, in a document in the ministry, that the ministry would then use as a guide for ongoing policy development.
We now have something that was written in February, which we have only obtained recently, called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I guess I find it very surprising that the minister isn't aware of the existence of this document. I would gladly send him a copy of it, but I only have one at the moment. But I can certainly supply it to the minister, because even though he indicates that he doesn't spend a lot of time reading these documents, this is one that maybe he should spend some time on, because certainly it attempts to set out policy direction for job creation in this province. My understanding is that this was pretty central to the mandate and responsibility of his ministry.
Interjection.
C. Hansen: Actually, my colleague has offered to get this copied for you. It may be useful, because we can certainly come back to it from time to time throughout these debates.
With this job strategy as the minister has outlined, I wonder if he could tell us if there are specific targets. When we have strategies in government, it's useful to be able to measure whether or not we have achieved success in the implementation of these strategies. As the minister outlined to us earlier, could he tell us what specific targets he hopes to achieve in implementing this strategy? How will we be able to measure whether or not that strategy has been successful?
Hon. D. Miller: There have been some targets outlined, but not many. For the Guarantee for Youth, the forest job strategy and Tourism B.C. the targets are -- just running through those: 12,000 for youth, 21,000 in forestry by 2001 and 23,000 in tourism by the year 2000.
C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could tell us: in these numbers, these objectives that have been developed for these various areas he's just outlined, how will we be able to measure whether or not those job numbers have been achieved?
Hon. D. Miller: Where specific job targets have been announced, then it's clear that the member has something one can look at. The conventional sources will determine whether or not those targets have been realized or exceeded. Some of those are a few years out, but
That's not true in every sector, I don't think. I talked about the knowledge-based sector, which is growing at 12 percent annually. Now, it's relatively small -- it's only about 2 percent of GDP -- but clearly there's significant potential for growth in that sector. So sometimes, in some areas, it makes sense to make targets; in others
[ Page 4046 ]
I think -- I could be wrong on the year; I'm not absolutely certain. But I've met with the mining industry on a number of occasions and asked whether they'd be interested in formalizing some working relationship in terms of achieving those targets. We're still in discussions on those questions.
The main thing is that you've got to put employment as a focus of your administration, and clearly the Premier has done that. The Premier has talked about jobs, jobs, jobs and has done more than talk about it. He's engaged in discussions with some sectors that clearly will lead to increased jobs -- the youth sector, which he's taken on as his own, and the forest sector. The numbers seem to support British Columbia's position in terms of job creation relative to the rest of Canada. So you have to make it a focus of your administration; you have to keep driving it. And I think that things tend to fall in line, if you like, in terms of the focus of government, which is job creation.
So that's our agenda -- that's one of our agendas -- and obviously an important one, given the dynamics, the growing population base that we have to be continually focused on. I'm convinced that other things will come along that even we haven't thought about that will enhance the opportunity to create new jobs in our province.
C. Hansen: I'd like to come back to the jobs strategy for a minute, but I don't want to leave this issue of how we measure success in these areas. Clearly, if 1,000 jobs are created as the result of a government program, but the result is that there are 1,000 individuals who are not employed who would have otherwise been employed
My concern is
Hon. D. Miller: I can't be explicit with respect to forestry, and it may be a question that the Forests critic may wish to ask of the minister in estimates. In other words, I believe the question really is: what's the base? That's quantified statistically by a number of organizations. I think StatsCan is probably the one that's used most often. Certainly it's given rise to more questions on the employment or unemployment rate in this House, although I sometimes look at StatsCan numbers and wonder how they can move so quickly in a short period of time. But we're all left to use those numbers to some degree as a base. So I would say that whatever statistical measurements are afoot, that represents the base. Presumably, whenever the time span indicated in terms of job targets particularly is reached, you look at that statistical base and ask: "Are we better off or worse off than when we started?" I guess that's potentially a debate for the future. But the base is defined -- I can't define it in absolute terms, but there are statistical indicators there.
C. Hansen: I think we are looking for a measure that is genuinely accepted as being objective in determining whether or not these programs are achieving success -- whether or not the government's initiatives on the job creation front generally are achieving success.
My colleague the member for Delta South kindly got us an extra copy of this document called "B.C. Jobs Strategy," which he's made available to the minister. Now that the minister has it in front of him, could he advise the House as to the involvement of his ministry in developing this strategy?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm sure that we had some input into this.
C. Hansen: Could the minister be more specific in terms of how the ministry officials or the minister himself were involved?
Hon. D. Miller: No, I can't detail that -- but, you know, the normal way ministries are involved.
C. Hansen: I thought we would have moved on from this by now. But I find it very intriguing that we have a document, which is titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," that is fundamental, I would think, to the mandate of the ministry and to the work that this minister is responsible to this House for, yet it seems that he has not read it and that he's not sure how the ministry has been involved in developing this document. Could the minister perhaps give us some more specific detail as to whether or not, for example, his deputy minister would have been involved in the development of this document?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm sure that's the case, but again I say that
[3:45]
C. Hansen: As the minister just said, he's not an administrator; he's a minister and he's responsible for policy development. When he outlined to this House earlier what he saw as the elements of a jobs strategy, he talked about administrative functions. He talked about the implementation of programs. He talked about the development of infrastructure projects. He talked about strategic initiatives, such as jobs and timber accords. I see those as administrative functions; they're not policy functions.Everything he has outlined to us in terms of his interpretation of a jobs strategy has everything to do with microeconomics -- how the government is going to micromanage sectors in the economy and specific job creation, where you've got 20 jobs created here, 100 jobs created there. But what I see
[ Page 4047 ]
as policy development is where the minister gets involved in developing broad economic policies in this province that are going to result in the creation of jobs, not the micromanagement of individual sectors or individual companies or individual Crown corporations.
You know, this thing titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy" is the closest thing I have seen come out of this government in terms of a jobs policy. I just find it astounding that the minister says he's not an administrator, he's responsible for policy, yet here we have a policy document on jobs that the minister doesn't appear to have any knowledge of. Again, I wonder if the minister can be more specific in terms of the involvement of his ministry in the development of this jobs policy.
Hon. D. Miller: I've tried to answer the question. I'm not certain about micromanagement. I know there are some fundamental differences between our sides. I do know that there is more of a tendency to take the more extreme position, ideologically and economically, that I've heard expressed on the other side. In other words, it's a version of what they used to call -- maybe they don't anymore -- the trickle-down theory. Most of the people at the bottom have rejected that one, for obvious reasons. In other words, let's give a major tax cut to business and get out of the way, and somehow the world will unfold as we would like it to. If micromanaging is working with Canadian Airlines to save 12,000 jobs in B.C., then we're guilty. If micromanaging is working with the job protection commissioner to save 700 direct jobs in Golden and that community, then we're guilty. If micromanagement is working with the forest industry of British Columbia -- because we, the people of British Columbia, own the resources -- by saying, "We want more jobs," and by putting a job focus and job target
I think there is maybe even a coming together internationally with respect to the role of government in terms of developing the economy. It's certainly not to stand back and, as I say, just simply deliver big tax cuts and hope that capital will do the right thing; rather, it's working with the private sector, working more intensively in areas where you have control of resources -- like the forest sector -- to expand your economy and create more jobs and more opportunities. It seems to make a heck of a lot of sense to me. This strategy appears to be paying off to some degree in British Columbia. It's one that we ought to continue. I know that members opposite disagree, and that's fair enough. That's why they're in another political party and why they're critics.
As to how many staff people in my ministry spent how many hours sitting with someone else from some other ministry
C. Hansen: The purpose of my question was not to determine how many individuals spent how many hours developing this job creation strategy. The purpose of my question was to find out whether anybody in his ministry was involved in developing this job creation strategy. Or did it come out of thin air? Maybe it came from somewhere else completely; if so, that's very important information for the taxpayers in this province. Here we have the closest thing to a jobs policy, which I would think the minister would be standing up and being very proud of, because it's the first thing we have seen on paper that is anything relating to a jobs strategy in this province. I would have thought he would have been trumpeting the attributes of his party and his government for having come up with something on paper that the public can read and relate to.
Hon. Chair, the purpose of my question is really to find out if anybody
Hon. D. Miller: I believe so.
C. Hansen: Now we're making some progress. Could the minister advise us who was involved, at what level? Are they officials within the economic policy branch? Is it the deputy minister level? Perhaps he could tell us at what level officials were involved.
Hon. D. Miller: Madam Chair, I'm sure that just a brief moment ago the member said he wasn't interested in that level of detail, and now he's asking for it. Somehow, I knew he wanted to go there. Look, we don't have any accounting here in terms of
C. Hansen: I believe this is very relevant to the estimates of the ministry. There is nothing that should be more central to the objective of the ministry than something called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I will leave this subject for now, hon. Chair, but I would ask the minister, if he could, to first read the document and, secondly, determine for us the extent to which his ministry was involved in developing the document. I will come back to these questions before we leave these estimates.
The reason that I believe this is important is because we need to know who's driving the jobs agenda for this government. We need to know that the words that are in this document
So, hon. Chair, if the minister, over the spare time that he has in the next day or so, could find that
Hon. D. Miller: Again, with all due respect, I do think that what's important is that the government has a strategy, that there be a reasonable level of public confidence that that exists, and that the government is engaged in trying to realize that.
At the end of the day, in politics
[ Page 4048 ]
opposition's help, sometimes not. Notwithstanding that, governments are elected or defeated according to the wishes of the public, and that tests wonderfully in a parliamentary democracy -- and, in a democracy, it always comes; it's never delayed. So, really, we have a great deal of work to do. We think that there are some serious issues in this province. Clearly, with the kind of population growth, the challenges that that presents
C. Hansen: This is an important document, I believe. Again, if I come back to it, if the minister can get some more information on it, so that we can pursue it before the course is run on these estimate debates
The minister talked about the fact that this jobs strategy was working -- whether or not it's the jobs strategy that he enunciated verbally, or whether it's this written jobs strategy. He pointed to the fact that 200,000 jobs have been created in British Columbia. I think the minister's statistics are out of date, because there has been a very dramatic change in the employment outlook in this province and a very dramatic change in the trends that we have seen in terms of job creation. What we have seen in the last six months is a decrease of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia. The minister and the governing party are very quick to stand up and brag about 200,000 jobs having been created -- 40,000 jobs having been created in 1996 -- but the fact of the matter is that the latest trends are not encouraging.
During question period today we had statistics that we brought forward that show that there are 7,000 fewer young British Columbians employed today than a year ago. Again, as I mentioned earlier, we see 18,000 fewer people employed in British Columbia than six months ago.
I would like to ask the minister: given that we have seen this change in the numbers that have been coming out of Statistics Canada, which the minister acknowledged earlier is the base upon which we should work -- the empirical numbers on which we should base our judgment of whether or not this government is doing a successful job or not in the area of job creation
Hon. D. Miller: Just a couple of points. One is that, regardless of the statistics
I also said earlier in one of my remarks that I was a bit perplexed by some of the StatsCan numbers. They seemed, quite frankly -- and about six months ago there were some articles written relative to that question -- to be jumping all over the place. So while I'm not questioning them, because I can't -- I'm not going to try to entertain a major questioning of StatsCan numbers -- it does remind me of a humorous story. It's not humorous if you're unemployed, but it's about statistics and how they're garnered and what they mean.
[4:00]
I was meeting with the deputy mayor of Taipei, who was in Victoria last year, and indeed weI don't say this to try to be humorous, but rather to try and illustrate the point that there has been and will continue to be, I think, as long as we keep statistics, a debate about participation rates. In other words, how many people are looking for work? That's where I see the startling jump in numbers that StatsCan is reporting. In one month they report a huge increase in the number of people apparently in the workforce looking for work, and in a subsequent month that can decline by a fairly dramatic amount. That has puzzled me.
I haven't got to the bottom of it, but I guess what I would argue is that you also look at the number of people employed, to the degree that that is something that can be measured in a more definitive way than the number of people looking for work or who would like to have a job
We have seen some reasonably good numbers. The employment level in May of this year is up 26,000 persons
[ Page 4049 ]
from a year ago. So 26,000 more people are working today than were working a year ago. While the unemployment rate did decline slightly -- in the latest rollout of StatsCan numbers, we went from 9.1 to 8.8 percent -- we've had, as I say, this significant challenge.
I'll go back and state again, on a percentage basis, that the growth of the working-age population in British Columbia has been 15 percent. The growth of the working-age population of the rest of Canada has been 6.8 percent. So it's clear, if you stand back and don't try to draw too many conclusions from statistics month over month, but rather, look at trends, that not just ourselves but western Canada has been the economic leader in both expansion of the economy -- GDP -- and the creation of new jobs in Canada to a startling degree.
As well -- and again, I think, being particularly sensitive to the issue of youth unemployment
So while our youth unemployment rate, at 16.7 percent, is up 0.1 percent from the previous month, there have been more people, obviously, looking for work. The youth unemployment rate in B.C. in May was below the 18.3 percent rate recorded in the rest of Canada. To the degree that you have to look at your own circumstances in a relative sense, there is some reasonably good news in British Columbia. The average level of employment amongst B.C. youth was up 5,400 jobs during the period of January to May '97, compared to the same period a year ago. So about 5,500 more people in that age cohort were working, as compared to a year ago.
You can run statistics all over the map, I guess; all of us do it, and all of us quote those ones that seem to put ourselves in the most favourable light. Having been in opposition, I recall quoting those that put the government in the most unfavourable light. Yes, I admit to my hon. colleague that I did. But there is a balance that is required in terms of understanding that question.
I'll close on this note. We've made a concerted effort with respect to employment, and particularly youth employment. I think there's a challenge in our country that has not been taken up by the private sector. I start to see little signs of it here and there. I see some of the banks occasionally issue a little statement; there was a program announced yesterday or today, I think, involving the banks in some entrepreneurship. I just want to make this point: it's not good enough. Government should lead by example, but I think there is also a responsibility in the private sector to be engaged in a focused strategy regarding youth employment.
I know that when I talk to business leaders, there is some recognition of that, but it's not really manifested in any significant focus by the private sector to say: "This is a problem; we've got a role to play here. Here's something specific, other than a general statement that we're concerned about it."
G. Campbell: I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
G. Campbell: In the chamber today we have 20 students from the Fraser Academy in Vancouver, in my constituency. I'm sure they're enjoying this discussion with regard to their economic future and the jobs that will be available to them. I'd like the House to make them welcome.
C. Hansen: Just to follow up on the comments that were made by the minister in terms of youth jobs, we have in several cases commented on the cause of youth unemployment. I was surprised that the minister didn't have a better understanding as to what is causing it. It is being caused by the inflexibility that we have in our workforce.
You have small companies around this province that are struggling to survive. They're struggling in an environment that is becoming increasingly competitive. When you've got government policies -- and these policies aren't germane to this ministry; I think they're primarily germane to the Ministry of Labour -- that really make it very, very difficult for companies to create jobs for young British Columbians, that's not something the minister should be pointing at the business community about and saying that somehow they have let down young people. In fact, they should be looking at the policies that have been developed by this government over the last four years if they want to find out the cause of structural unemployment -- increased unemployment among young British Columbians.
But let me come back to the point of statistics. Obviously I don't think we want to get bogged down in questions of whose statistics are right, but I did want to make the point that statistics are a relative thing. It's true: you can't compare our method of gathering unemployment numbers in British Columbia or in Canada to that of Taiwan or the city of Taipei. Instead, I think we have to look at the system that we have.
The minister talked about the discussions of how stats are collected in Canada. They have generally been consistent for many, many years. So when we start talking about an unemployment rate today vis-�-vis five years ago, or unemployment statistics today as compared to a year ago, when we were just finishing a provincial election campaign, those are relevant, because we are talking about statistics that have been gathered in the same way. I don't think it's fair for the minister to dismiss labour force statistics as somehow invalid because of what's happening in Taipei.
I know that's not what he said, but I just want to come back to the point that they are valid tools for us to use in measuring whether or not this government has been successful in the area of job creation. I contend that they have not been. Again, when he talks about the fact that in the last year there have been 26,000 new jobs created, that's a little different tune than in December, when this minister and this government were talking about 40,000 jobs created in 1996. The reason that those numbers don't jibe is that in the last six months, we have seen a dramatic change in job creation in this province. We have seen the loss of 18,000 jobs in British Columbia. I believe that is an indictment of the strategies that this government is following when it comes to job creation.
My question to the minister is: is the government planning any fundamental change in policy direction vis-�-vis job creation as the result of the trends that we have seen, not for the last month but for the last six months? This is not good news for British Columbians. I think the province is looking for a fundamental change of direction. I'm wondering if the minister could comment on whether or not any of these job strategies will be revisited, in view of the trends in the last six months.
Hon. D. Miller: No. In fact, if anything, we need to become more focused in terms of the jobs strategy and on delivery and implementation.
[ Page 4050 ]
I appreciate the member's argument. I guess what I was trying to say was that in any statistical battle, those on one side of the debate will take the statistics they think support their position and use them with vehemence, and those on the other side of the debate will take those that they think make them look good and use them with equal vehemence. That's generally what we call question period, which may be entertaining only to ourselves. I've never heard anybody beyond these walls actually comment on it too much. That is, to some degree, politics.
I hope the member would understand what I am trying to say -- again, with no disrespect. We are, after all, politicians, and what we say
Really, you can look at statistics, and to the extent that they indicate change, they tell you something. Do they tell you everything? No, I don't think so. Have we done B.C. statistically in an objective sense -- and I would say even a combined B.C.-Alberta sense -- in terms of the number of persons employed or new jobs created in British Columbia, relative to the rest of Canada? I think the numbers are there, and I don't think they're contested.
Should you rest on your laurels and say: "Things are fine, and we don't have to worry"? No, absolutely not. Should governments develop specific policies and focus in terms of job creation? And we've done that. We're at one year in this administration. We'll ultimately be judged by our performance over what is a reasonable term of office, as we've just witnessed at the federal level.
Again, it was interesting to note in the federal election that we recently held that there were some who tried to make a focus or an issue of jobs and job creation. In some parts of the country, that was a bigger issue than in other parts. Interestingly enough, in that election it was at the federal level that all of the parties were accusing each other of having failed abysmally with respect to the issue of job creation. I guess the butt of that, or the prime party that was being attacked, was the federal Liberal Party. They made it an issue when they first got elected and said they were going to do some things, and those things haven't materialized.
I want to go back, just very briefly -- I know the member's views on the rigidity of the system, and how that acts as a barrier to the creation of jobs for youth -- and put this in more straightforward language. I think the member has commented in the past on things like the Employment Standards Act and minimum wage -- those kinds of things that are generally, if you want to put this in kind of a fiscal argument
[4:15]
On the other side of that, of course, are British Columbians who weren't covered by employment standards. For example, I know some immigrant workers were doing garment work in their homes without the benefit of even a single piece of legislation that provided them with some degree of support with respect to hours of work, basic fairness in wages -- those kinds of things. I don't think the member would argue sincerely against coverage for those kinds of people.We can't exclude youth in our country; we can't isolate youth in terms of legislation. Therefore there is no specific exemption for young people from the Employment Standards Act. I know I have talked to many young people who think that making seven bucks an hour is not the way to earn a heck of a lot of money to help finance their education. Nonetheless, they realize that a lot of them are entry-level jobs. I'm sure the member wouldn't argue that we should scrap minimum wage. I know the member wouldn't do that. In fact, he may want to confirm that he wouldn't.
I just want to close on one final note. I talked about the private sector. While parts of our economy and sectors of our economy have had their specific struggles -- witness the forest industry now because of the severe decline in the commodity price of pulp, which has had a dramatic effect, not just here, but in every jurisdiction where that's manufactured -- there are some sectors that have done very well. I was trying to make a simple point that if we have a sector -- a discrete, recognizable sector -- of our economy who are performing in an outstanding way and who are clearly not suffering because they're not able to get a return on their investment, then is it not reasonable
Would it not be reasonable, for example, for an industry, a sector
In fact, the conventional wisdom from the right-of-centre parties is that government should just get out of the way. I think the private sector has a responsibility in our society to play a part. And with youth unemployment running at 18 percent in Canada -- and in B.C., it's 16 percent -- I'd like to see some of those initiatives. We challenged the private sector last year; they didn't perform. The Premier challenged them last year to create 3,000 private sector jobs; they didn't do it. They said: "We didn't have time to consult." Well, they've had lots of time to think about it now, and we'll work with anybody who's got some ideas in terms of how they might contribute, because I do think it's a broader responsibility that we all have.
C. Hansen: It's interesting. There are lots of things the minister raised in what was a fairly philosophical statement that I would love to respond to at length. But I think if we get into that long philosophical discussion on every point, we'll be here for a long time, which I'm sure the minister is not anxious for.
Certainly nobody on this side of the House has ever advocated getting rid of the minimum wage. No one has ever advocated getting rid of employment standards legislation. What we have advocated is looking at the root cause of unemployment among youth, so that we can allow the private sector to create the kind of jobs that are necessary. Because we are not going to solve the problem of youth unemployment in this province by government going around creating 100 jobs
[ Page 4051 ]
here and 100 jobs there. The fact of the matter is, if we're going to find jobs for the 50,500 young British Columbians who are seeking work today, there has to be something more fundamental than announcement after announcement after announcement.
Earlier the minister talked about B.C. and Alberta being two provinces that have so much economic potential, and yet we don't see B.C. being part of that economic drive. We don't see B.C. being able to capitalize on the potential and the opportunity that is there. I think the other thing the minister talked about -- the comparison to other provinces
But anyway, let me come back to some more specifics and perhaps some more mundane questions regarding the ministry. We've talked at length about the jobs strategy -- whether it is enunciated by the minister or written. We're not sure where it came from. That certainly is half of the minister's responsibility and the ministry's responsibility. Could the minister please outline for us what he sees as the investment strategy, as the other half of his ministry's mandate?
Hon. D. Miller: Again, briefly, just to go back, or finish up, at least, with respect to the sort of statistics
The other thing, of course, is that, because of our unique position and a variety of circumstances, we really, essentially, avoided the last recession. The recession that hounded and just wreaked terrible havoc on provinces like Ontario didn't hit in British Columbia. The kind of decline in employment that took place in those provinces didn't happen here. We've had continuous growth. I can't remember the exact numbers for each and every year, but we've had continuous growth this year. Last year was, again, something that struck and took everybody by surprise. All the economic forecasters were on record predicting certain growth rates which didn't materialize. If there's any comfort being in a crowd, I guess that's it. But all the numbers that appear now, it seems to me, are projecting a return to what is a normal state. I've got a quote here from somebody, some banker. Ha! They're always pretty reliable.
So we'll have to wait and see where this leads us. And we've also had, as I've indicated, given the predominance of forest products in terms of our economy
The member asked a question, and in fact I've gone and talked so much that I forgot the question. So perhaps the member could rephrase it.
C. Hansen: Before I rephrase the question, maybe I'll just comment briefly on the minister's comments.
I told the minister: "Do not rest on old statistics." You know, if you talk about job growth in years gone by, that is not the record that we have for job creation in this province in the last six months. And I'm not the forecaster of doom and gloom; I see enormous potential for this province. But I am deeply concerned when we see the kind of drop in employment numbers in this province that we have seen in the last eight months. And I believe that that is an indictment of the policies that have been pursued by this government. He might point to certain sectors that are bullish. But overall, there is no reason to claim that this economy is reaching its potential today, when you start to look at our record in GDP growth. You know, a lot of people say: "Well our economy has been growing, but we've had this great influx of immigrants from other parts of Canada and from other parts of the world." And while we had GDP growth in this province every year, there has been a decline in the GDP per capita.
You know, if we've got new people coming to this province, that should, in itself, result in job creation and should, in itself, result in economic growth. But in fact what we've seen is a decline in GDP per capita. What we have seen is not job growth proportionate to the number of new people coming into this province. We have actually seen a decline in jobs. You talk about comparisons between B.C. and Alberta. We see a net outflow from British Columbia to Alberta of individuals who see more opportunities in that province because of the policies being pursued there.
But to come back to the question I asked before. We've talked about employment strategies. The minister outlined his interpretation of employment strategies, and I pointed out this document -- we're not sure where it came from -- called "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I've asked the minister
Hon. D. Miller: Again, I'll supply a bit more information. I don't get hung up on this, but the growth in the working-age population in this province over the last five years is 15 percent. The growth in the working-age population in the rest of Canada is just under 7 percent. B.C. has grown, and we've
[ Page 4052 ]
had to accommodate twice as many entrants into the workforce as any other province in Canada. Even with that, our job creation record is far and away better than any other province over that period of time.
The member is trying to make an argument that in the last few short months, things have declined. When my party initially came to office in 1991, the unemployment rate was 10 percent. It's now at 8.8 percent, and it has declined every single year. Go back to 1987, and it was 12 percent.
C. Hansen: And what's happening in the U.S.?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, now the member wants to compare us to the U.S., and I'd be delighted to get into a debate about that. We could talk about social medicine, and we could talk about the social safety net. We could talk about the armies of the poor who populate the streets of the major American cities. We could talk about that, and if that's the member's vision for British Columbia, I'd be happy to debate that member anywhere, anytime, on that point. That seems to me like saying: "Let's pull the plug here and all go down together."
That's not a strategy for job creation. I simply want to point to the fact
The B.C. Trade and Investment Office. I did talk generally about looking at opportunity wherever it might arise, both with respect to new investment in the province and working with existing sectors. The B.C. Trade and Investment Office has a number of functions that we think are critical in terms of a jobs agenda: to strengthen and diversity B.C.'s employment base; looking at the designing and delivery of sectoral strategies -- I talked, for example, about the Avcorp deal that was reached a short while ago; pursuing value-added opportunities; supporting trade and investment opportunities; industrial adjustment; and trying to understand, in fact, the key sectors of our economy.
[4:30]
We have been involved in several specific projects. I'm looking, for example, at the investment we made, while the Premier held my job, in the Ballard fuel cell technology. That was a good investment of the taxpayers' money in British Columbia, and we can see now that Mercedes-Benz and others are joining in that investment. One of the strategies is to look at that Ballard fuel cell and the potential for Vancouver as a manufacturing centre for that.Another function is to package and promote B.C.'s emerging new media and animation software to Japanese markets. That's why, in the trade missions that have taken place and in others to come, we generally try to focus on a particular sector that has some growth opportunity that exists in our province, which could either stand to benefit from increased exports of the technology developed here or could stand to have some offshore investment to expand that capacity. Certainly our emerging expertise in that sector of media and animation software has significant potential in the Japanese market.
We have been working to secure three major contracts in Asian markets for the B.C. coalition of wireless telecom firms in the area of distance learning and rural telephony. We have signed a recent MOU with the government of Malaysia, which is a country of a thousand islands, I think they said, depending if the tide is high or low, and it includes the issues around communications with respect to basic communications for the citizens. Communications in terms of the educational infrastructure are a huge challenge, and we've got the kind of technology here that can be of some assistance.
Others functions are to double B.C.-based environmental solutions business by partnering and promoting B.C. suppliers to U.S., Asian and Latin American markets; to double B.C.-based supply to the cruise ship industry; and to double the value-added wood housing components sales to the Japanese market.
If time permits, I hope to make another trade mission in the fall of this year to look with a particular focus on some areas -- for example, Canada Comfort Direct, where we have potential for more growth. That's not to confine it to that; that's just one example. There are lots of strategies. It would take far too long for me to go through all these elements, and I hope I've given the member some response to the question he asked. If I'm completely off base, well, perhaps he could start again.
C. Hansen: My next question was going to be what kind of targets we are setting for these things, and the minister started to outline targets of doubling in certain areas. Could he advise us as to what kind of time line he's looking at in achieving these goals?
Hon. D. Miller: You establish time lines that, really, are manageable. I mean, they're consistent with the objectives of the government. Governments hope to achieve
But reasonably, within the mandate of the government, we hope to realize the kind of targets we've set. We talked about the specific job targets earlier, and the areas that I've just outlined in my previous answer are objectives that we hope to see some material improvement in over the term of the government.
C. Hansen: In terms of investment strategy, the minister mentioned two elements to this, one being new investment that's coming into the province and the other being industrial investment. He gave some examples of that. Would it be fair for the ministry, in establishing their standard as to whether their policies have been successful, to look at the net inflow of investment to the province as a standard as to whether their policies have been successful?
Hon. D. Miller: Given a reasonable allowance for the vagaries of some our existing industries -- particularly the forest sector, because that's where we've seen, in my view
[ Page 4053 ]
C. Hansen: If you look at some of the numbers that have been generated by Investment Canada -- and their mandate is to monitor major new investment that's coming into Canada
During that period of time, those projects, when you start looking at them from the point of view of provinces to which those investments were being directed
Hon. D. Miller: I think there are some reasons, but I should say at the outset that I'm not satisfied with the level of investment in British Columbia. I think it should be more; it should be higher. You can see, by having this kind of focus on jobs and the economy, that one of our objectives is to increase that.
But we do tend to be
As you see, the revenues for British Columbia in the oil and gas sector have exceeded our forecasts, or we think have a reasonable chance of exceeding our forecasts, because there's been a bit of a rush, particularly in the gas sector. That same thing is true of Alberta, which is much bigger than us as a province with oil and gas. So you've seen Alberta enjoy quite a boom because of those primary resources. It remains to be seen -- if you like, in terms of changing the fundamental underpinnings of the Alberta economy -- where they might emerge, although the resource sector should be reasonably good over time.
It's also interesting to note that the Alberta government, in the last short while, has written off in excess of $2 billion that they gave out to the private sector. I think the number is $2.35 billion -- something like that if I can recall it correctly -- that the Alberta citizens have written off. It's somewhat ironic that it's about that amount which the Alberta government cut out of the budget in services to people over the last number of years. But I don't stand here as a critic of the Alberta government; I'm just trying to point out some obvious things.
In fact, the Alberta Minister of Transportation and myself met recently, a few weeks ago. We're both working on a strategy for the northern parts of our provinces. We think we've got some serious potential to increase economic activity up in the north, in the Peace regions of both of our provinces and indeed right across the northern parts of the province. So we do work well together. But I'm just trying to make that observation in terms of an overview of the economies of both provinces. We do share a lot of things.
You can get a helluva goose -- pardon me -- out of a commodity price like oil or gas, which tends to go up. That can bring a lot of money in. But what happens over time?
C. Hansen: The other area I want to touch on, before we move on, is industrial investment. Certainly we have seen in some of the latest numbers that came out that British Columbia is falling short of the national average for investment in new plant and equipment. I have a real concern that this does not bode well for future economic growth in the province, because obviously investment in plant and equipment today is something that is going to be what drives long-term jobs for the future. I understand that we are significantly below the national average when it comes to new investment in plant and equipment. I was wondering if the minister could tell us if there's been any work done, in the part of his ministry, to examine why that is the case and what may be necessary to turn it around.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, just some comment on the measuring stick. I am advised that federally those thresholds are fairly high and in fact may not capture the kind of investment that is taking place. I haven't got a number that I can give right here. I'll see if I can get something -- if not today, then at some further point in the estimates.
I did go back and say
Internationally, there are some challenges in terms of competitiveness, because of new production in other parts of the world. We are continuing to see a shift in the economic base of this province from a fundamental reliance on those commodities to the growth of sectors like the knowledge-based industries, which, I think, are the new economy. They're the new export industries, in my view. We're seeing lots of investment there, but it's not the huge amounts of investment that you normally associate with our province.
I guess I tend to get a little concerned about just one statistical measuring stick being used to judge where we are. But I don't hesitate in saying that I would like to see a higher level of investment in our province. We've got some big projects. In fact, we're pretty hot when it comes to mine development now -- three mines under development: one opening this summer, one in the fall and one the year after.
[4:45]
In sitting down with the mining sector, it's clear that there's a view, at least, that the investment climate has not been -- according to the mining industry -- what they would like to see. We're working on that, and we've been working together to the degree that we now have[ Page 4054 ]
seems to me that, again, it's not just government. It's important that people in the private sector try to be as positive as possible, because I think people listen to them, as well, when it comes to attracting investment dollars into our province.
I'd say that things are moving in a positive direction. We'll be able to tell, really, over the term. You judge governments as to whether or not the strategies that we've deployed are successful.
C. Hansen: Certainly I'm aware of the investment thresholds from Investment Canada. That's why I qualified my comments when I raised that point that we're talking about major investment. I think, generally, if you look overall
We see examples of companies that are looking to expand and to move outside of British Columbia, whether it be to Washington or to Alberta. I believe that it's incumbent upon us, on this side of the House, to raise these concerns and to ask the minister to look at these as warning signs that the future may not be as rosy as a result of the policies that have been pursued in this province in the last six years. If we want to see a return to a dynamic province that is attracting investment, where companies are investing in new plants and equipment, where you've got companies that are expanding in British Columbia instead of moving out of British Columbia, I believe there has to be a fundamental re-evaluation of the policy directions that have been pursued. The minister may want to respond to that before I go on to some of the specifics of the business immigration program.
A man who is a professional in the economic development field told me that there are three fundamental elements to economic development. One is job protection, and we have a job protection commissioner who does a very good job. The minister commented earlier on the successful work that Doug Kerley is doing. The two other elements are job attraction -- investment attraction -- and job expansion. Those are the areas where I think we see some dark clouds that fundamentally have to be addressed in this province. Otherwise, we are not going to have the jobs that I believe this province is capable of producing in the future for young British Columbians.
As I say, maybe it's not fair for me to go on to business immigration at this point. If the minister wishes to respond, I'll give him that opportunity.
Okay, I'll go on to business immigration programs. Would the minister advise us of where we are now with the B.C. fund that has been set up under the business immigration program?
Hon. D. Miller: I'll try to be comprehensive and talk about both the program that we had -- and have -- and the federal changes to the fund. The business immigration unit was transferred to my ministry from the Ministry of Finance. That would have seen a reduction from 14 FTEs down to two. That was reviewed, and a decision was made to restore nine FTEs -- that includes the two, so nine in total. Because of downsizing, the unit is no longer involved in vetting or monitoring the activities of immigrant investor funds under the immigrant investor program, which I'll touch on in a moment. We have maintained the counselling function. The unit will be introducing a schedule of fees. In other words, we are trying to get some cost recovery going.
With regard to the federal changes, the member may be aware that it's not a happy state of affairs, in that there is nothing to preclude other provinces -- particularly Quebec -- from offering attractive incentives which we are not prepared to try to match. In fact, they buy the required investment down to a pretty low level. We're simply not going to get into that game here in British Columbia. We collected 5.9 percent of the investments and 54 percent of the investors, so you can see that they like to live in British Columbia. I think there is actually a benefit over time in that. People sometimes like to be close to their investments -- not always.
Again, I don't want to denigrate any other province. Things have not been rosy in Quebec. There is uncertainty; there is no question about it. Those are the kinds of things that have an impact on the investor climate, even with a pretty hefty incentive. The financing scheme offered in Quebec allows the investor to invest as little as $97,000, notwithstanding the federal requirement of $350,000.
I think I've given the member some response. I hope I've touched on the question he asked. If I haven't, maybe he might want to ask some more.
C. Hansen: Actually, my question was very specific to the B.C. fund that was set up about a year and a half ago. I'll come back to that in a second, if there are notes that he might want to pull out on that.
To comment briefly on the business immigration program in general, I know that we share the minister's concern about the way that program has evolved at the national level. The way the business immigration program is headed is a significant departure from the intentions that were originally embedded in that program when it was established. I certainly share the minister's concern about the difference in the way Quebec has approached that program. I do not believe that the direction that has gone in is in their best interest, never mind in the best interest of Canada.
Having said that, there is certainly
If we attract only 5.9 percent of the initial investment dollars that are coming to Canada under the business immigration program
I would like to ask the minister: what is being done to encourage these investors
[ Page 4055 ]
reside in British Columbia, what is being done by this government to reach out to them and welcome them to British Columbia? As you say, investors like to invest closer to home. Do we have a program whereby we identify these individuals and reach out and show to them where their investment capital can be used to create jobs for British Columbians?
Hon. D. Miller: No, we don't -- I'm just trying to check and verify that. With respect to the 54 percent who reside in British Columbia but may have an investment in another province, we don't have an ongoing effort to try to reach those people. We are trying to ensure that the units we sell have integrity. For example, the $350,000 threshold
I agree with the member. It seems to me that over time the degree to which people like to have those investments fairly close to home -- or they see opportunities that they didn't see while they were in some other country -- produces a positive result. I can't quantify, though. We don't have a particularly focused program of trying to go and communicate with those people on an ongoing basis. It may be an idea that's worth pursuing to some degree. I hadn't previously thought about it; in fact, I could ask my people. But you can see the kind of dilemma we were faced with in terms of the size of the staff that we had and wanting to deploy that in a focused way.
There may be some opportunity to do that kind of follow-up. It's certainly something I'll discuss with my staff to see whether or not there are any particular reasons why we can't do that or shouldn't do that, or whether we don't think it's going to produce much of a result. I'll follow that up.
C. Hansen: Certainly, if somebody has been able to gather statistics that point to 54 percent of these individuals landing in British Columbia
One of the things that I have heard frequently in dealing with new Canadians who come to Canada to start companies, whether it's through the entrepreneurial program or through the business program, is that they find Canada a very different place to do business in from what they're used to -- depending on where in the world they're from, obviously. Those who come from southeast Asia find our way of doing business quite different and, in many cases, frustrating.
There is definitely a role for government to play in reaching out to these individuals and saying: "This is where the opportunities are in British Columbia, and this is how government
I would like to come back specifically to the B.C. investment fund. The minister made reference earlier to the units that have been sold and the integrity of those units. Could the minister tell us how many units have been sold to date of the 100 that were targeted?
Hon. D. Miller: I won't say sold, but signed up -- 35.
C. Hansen: I know that when this fund was first introduced a year and a half ago, there was somebody at one of those banks the minister likes to talk about who made a prediction that it would sell out very quickly -- I think in 48 hours. Obviously that has not been the case. I'm wondering if the minister or the ministry has done any work in looking at why that fund has not achieved the objectives that were anticipated.
Hon. D. Miller: I did previously mention the marketing side of things, and we're trying to do a better job there. But on balance it's pretty hard to compete with Quebec, where -- what did I say earlier? -- the minimum investment required is $89,000, even though the rules say $350,000. So if you had
[5:00]
C. Hansen: Do I gather from the minister's comments that this fund is still actively being marketed?Hon. D. Miller: Yes. There's normally a June 30 deadline. There is some potential, we believe, for an extension of that. I won't try to quantify that in terms of time, so we'll wait and see. But normally it's June 30.
[R. Kasper in the chair.]
C. Hansen: I understand that the implementation of the new federal rules has been delayed to the end of the year. Does the minister anticipate that this fund would be extended until that time?
Hon. D. Miller: That's true. Again, the federal government offered us Quebec's rules, really, and every other province said no. So we'll see with respect to the extension. Hopefully, with the right kind of marketing and focus we can sell as many of those units as we possibly can.
C. Hansen: Could the minister outline for us what the marketing costs are for this program? I gather that there has not been very much growth in the number of units sold under this fund. Are the marketing costs on a commission basis solely, or are there fixed costs that are accumulating the longer this fund is being marketed?
Hon. D. Miller: They're on a commission basis. There are agents in Taiwan and Hong Kong, and the bank is through the CIBC. I think, in some cases, there may be a sharing of the commission between the bank and the agents.
C. Hansen: I know the minister used the number $350,000 earlier, but I think it's closer to a little over $100,000. Let me do my math here. We've got 35 units at $350,000 each, which is going to result in a little over $10 million, if I'm right. I'm sure the member for Delta South is much more proficient at that than I am.
F. Gingell: I would say it was $11.25 million.
[ Page 4056 ]
C. Hansen: It's $11 million and something, the hon. member tells me.
Could the minister advise us how those moneys will be invested on behalf of the investors who have purchased these units?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not at liberty to give out any specific examples -- for example, companies -- but there was renewed focus on the marketing side in terms of trying to attract investors. In that respect, a list was developed; in other words, part of that was blind. It was just, "Invest, and here's the price you pay," as opposed to actually having some list of potential investments. The marketing people do have some target investments; they do have a list, a mix of both public and private. It appears to have generated some interest, and I guess we really have to wait and see whether or not that in itself, given some of the competition, will result in the complete sale of all available units.
C. Hansen: I know that one of the concerns expressed to me is that the list of potential investments is vague to the point of creating some apprehension on the part of potential buyers of these units. I appreciate the minister's response when he says he can't talk about specific companies where these investments may be directed. But could he tell us how these decisions will be made on how this money will be invested and who will be making these decisions?
Hon. D. Miller: As I indicated, really it's achieving a balance of some target investments that might be attractive to the individuals and a mix of public and private. We're not trying to target the investment side, particularly, as much as to provide a range of opportunities for the investors, working with the banks. Again, it's difficult to compete on the public side, given what Quebec has offered.
C. Hansen: I think we've put Quebec behind us now; we're talking about the $12 million that has been raised to date in this fund. Some of these individuals who purchased units in this fund did so a year and a half ago, and they do not yet know where their money is going to be invested.
I would suggest to you that there are two directions it could go in under the parameters of this fund. One is, for example, that it could go into a public infrastructure program, where the government is looking to use investors' money to build infrastructure in this province at potentially a very low rate of return. The other alternative is to go into a high-tech company, which may have higher risks but may have a much higher potential for return. My question to the minister is: how are the decisions going to be made as to where this $12 million is going to be invested on behalf of these 35 investors?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I did indicate a balance of both public and private investments -- again, without detailing what they might be. There are some public ones in there.
C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us as to how this decision will be made? Is it a decision that will be made by the minister, or is it a decision that will be made by Treasury Board? Or is there perhaps some outside body that is making decisions on behalf of these 35 investors?
Hon. D. Miller: In the case of Crown, for example, it would be a decision of the board.
C. Hansen: Could the minister elaborate on that? You lost me there a bit. Could you explain?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, the fund is private. Maybe I misinterpreted the member's question. You seem to be going in the direction of using the fund or investors' investments to complement, for example, public sector investments.
There are two things here. One is the private sector board that makes decisions about where investments are made. The second is the public body that might be the target of some investments, and it would seem
I was answering the question with respect to who makes the decision for the public body. Let's argue, for example, it's B.C. Ferries. Let's, in theory, say that there could be investment in the development of fast ferries. Well, it would be the board of directors of B.C. Ferries that would make the decision with respect to that investment. I hope I've clarified the answer for the member.
F. Gingell: The question was related to who's making the decision about the investments that the fund makes. I appreciate that they'll only invest in a joint venture with B.C. Ferries or with the B.C. Transportation Financing Authority or with B.C. Hydro if Hydro, the Transportation Financing Authority or Ferries is looking for a private sector partner. But it's whether the management and decision-making of that mutual fund is within government or outside government.
Hon. D. Miller: I did answer that; I did say that there was a board of directors for the fund. The fund managers make the investment decisions. Government doesn't make the decisions about where to invest the funds.
C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us who's on the board of directors of the fund?
Hon. D. Miller: Two officials in my ministry.
C. Hansen: I guess I come back to the comments that were made by the minister. He said it's not made by government; it's made by the board. But in fact the board is solely comprised of public officials from his ministry. The minister is shaking his head. I'll give him a chance to elaborate.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, in this respect, there are other
C. Hansen: In this discussion, I think we've hit on some of the issues that are of concern to potential investors in this fund. I think there are those that have looked at the fund and asked themselves: "Where is the investment going to be?" How are their dollars going to be used, aside from this cloak of security under a government umbrella, which, unfortunately, is the direction that immigration funds are going nationally -- taking all the risk out of it and moving these funds under a government umbrella? Certainly that's a debate that we could have as to whether that's good or bad, given what's happened in the history of investment funds in Canada. Certainly I think that just to bring a fund under the umbrella of government is not in itself a good enough reason for investors to look at it as a potential vehicle for their money.
[ Page 4057 ]
Just one last point on this -- or perhaps one last point, but to change direction slightly: given that this fund is going to close at some point in the next seven months, could the minister advise us as to what the future is for the business immigration program in this province?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I did indicate in a previous answer that we are looking at issues like cost recovery. We'll have to wait and see how the business plan that we put forward works out in the balance of the year.
What are these funds that we're talking about? We're talking about people who have got the wherewithal to make an investment at a level dictated by the federal government, in order to come and live in Canada. Everybody has gotten into the game, but in my view, some people have gotten into the game to the extent that it's abused in terms of not only taking away risk but providing incentives that are pretty darn good -- a minimum investment of $89,000. One might have to question whether or not you would see some leadership at the federal level with respect to the variety of approaches taken by provincial governments in this regard.
Looking at the quantum, we don't think that this is a cornerstone of investment in British Columbia, by any means. We have far more significant opportunities going simply as a result of the kind of work we do in the ministry or the business relationships that exist between British Columbians and others in offshore countries.
[5:15]
It's clear what's become of the program. On balance, I think it's more reasonable for us to continue to stay in it but not to get into -- and I don't think the member was suggesting this -- the game being played by some other provinces. In the face of the game being played by some other provinces, you can talk about strategies all you want -- about the mix of investment opportunities, etc., or marketing, and trying to get better marketing -- but people taking care of their money tend to look for where they can get the most for the least. Looking at other provinces, if it's clear they can do better than in B.CWe want to run a good, clean program; we want to have investments that don't completely take the risk out, but are attractive, if you like, to these entrepreneurs. We'll continue to do that; we'll try to continue to be cost-efficient with respect to running the program. We have seen a reduction in staff, and we'll see how our cost recovery initiatives work out. Obviously, like any other program, it's subject to assessment from time to time to see if we're getting value for money.
C. Hansen: My understanding of the changes in the federal program is that the threshold amounts increase, that under the new program that's being brought in, the only funds that can exist in Canada -- outside of Quebec -- are government-sponsored funds. We've talked about the fund that's in existence now, that was to expire on June 30 and, as the minister indicated, is likely to be extended. We also see that the implementation of the federal program has been delayed, as well, from June 30 to the end of this year.
My question to the minister is: given that the B.C. fund is scheduled to expire, will the government be establishing a new fund to which business immigrants can subscribe?
Hon. D. Miller: No. I did indicate earlier that we're trying to get an extension of the time period in which to sell
C. Hansen: I gather that the time period we're talking about is being extended to the end of the year. Does the minister see this fund continuing under the new program, once the new program has been brought into force by the federal government?
Hon. D. Miller: Presumably, but obviously, as the member said, there has been a delay on the federal side. No doubt tomorrow
C. Hansen: Under the current B.C. fund, the amounts that are required for investment are $350,000, but the thresholds for British Columbia are going to go up to $450,000. Does the minister see that being incorporated into the existing fund?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it may be, but's not going to change some of the fundamentals that we've been talking about, which are the differences between provinces.
C. Hansen: Let me leave it on this note. I would suggest to the minister that given the way the B.C. fund is set up, I think it would be impossible to switch from a $350,000 unit to a $450,000 unit within that fund as it currently exists. So if there's going to be continued participation on the part of British Columbia in the business investment program, we're going to need a totally new instrument by which to do that. I'm just wondering if that's what is foreseen.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I did indicate that we've not made any final decisions with respect to the future. We'll wait for the result and see if we can get the extension.
C. Hansen: I want to move on to another subject for now.
I want to talk about the natural resource community fund. There is $86,000 designated for expenditures in this current fiscal year, and I wonder if the minister could advise us as to how that $86,000 will be spent.
Hon. D. Miller: Sorry for the delay.
The ministry does not have any expenditures. There may be some planning funds in there; I don't have a breakdown. There is no disbursement with respect to an application in this fiscal year to date.
C. Hansen: What we've seen in this fund for the last couple of years is that basically the revenues from resource revenues flow into this fund every year. What we have seen in the last couple of years is that there has been no allowance for expenditures from this fund as there has been in years gone by. I wonder if the minister could tell us: is that an indication of the fact that the ministry feels there are no longer communities in this province that are going through the kinds of economic crises we have seen in years gone by?
Hon. D. Miller: No, not at all. I think that those, depending on the communities
[ Page 4058 ]
-- or virtually eliminate all but a handful of employees -- and consequent declines from the decision by B.C. Packers last year to close the fish plant in Masset; and Stewart, because of the decline, a number of years ago, in the volume of log exports out of the three North Kalum forest licences, and because of the decline in employment on the mining side.
Stewart is an absolutely resource-dependent community; if mining goes up, and is close by, then they go up. So there are communities, and there are probably others in B.C. I don't have a complete list of those that may be facing economic difficulties. But there are other funds available that can be accessed. In the community of Masset, for example, out of the agreement with the federal government over the downsizing of defence bases, there was a $5 million agreement between the province and the federal government. And that $5 million was primarily earmarked for the community of Masset. So they have access. And there is an individual from Western Diversification who actually lives in the community now.
There have been a number of studies that one might normally anticipate. Funding requests would have come forward to the natural resource community fund, but they've been funded from these other funds that are available. Similarly, Forest Renewal has provided significant support in communities going through economic difficulties. So while there are other avenues available, or other options -- and they come first -- at the end of the day, if there aren't any, and we have sufficient resources in the fund, we'll try to make that available to assist.
C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us as to how many applications have come in from communities for assistance from this fund?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm advised about three or four last year. There are no applications currently in front of the
C. Hansen: Could the minister advise us as to how the ministry publicizes the existence of this fund? How are communities made aware of the fact that this fund exists?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, there's no specific publicity or advertising around it. I think it's fairly well known around British Columbia that the fund exists. There's been some
C. Hansen: I haven't got the numbers in front of me at the moment, but there have been
Hon. D. Miller: No, it's still active. But, again, I think the member might rightly be castigating us if we'd actually spent that $70 million. I'm just simply trying to point out that there was a fund established to try to assist in circumstances where no other options were available. The fact that it's maybe not utilized very much could be an interpretation that most communities are doing reasonably well, and those that are not have been able to access -- as with the two I indicated -- some different sources of funding. So in some ways, I guess, let me reverse it and say that maybe it's because things are going fairly well in this province.
C. Hansen: I think that there are a lot of communities in this province that would beg to differ; that from community to community there are some real tragedies and some real hardship that is taking place. If this fund was more well-known around the province by local officials, mayors and economic development officers, it would probably be seen as an opportunity to allow them to deal with some of the real crises that they have been faced with.
I want to ask the minister, specifically, about the town of Gold River, and whether or not he sees the economic challenges that that community has gone through in the last couple of years as being something that would fit into the parameters of this fund.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, the member has tweaked my memory, actually. That CBC interview, I recall, was done about Gold River. I think Mr. Evans was trying to make the case that we were too parsimonious with the natural resource community fund -- shouldn't we be throwing some money out the door? Really, I'll go back and say that there's been a number of initiatives undertaken by government. Some of those, I think, have been outstanding in terms of recognizing the difficulties faced by those three communities out there on the west coast of Vancouver Island and partitioning wood, making that wood available to the industries that exist in those communities, forest renewal
[5:30]
C. Hansen: I want to shift my questions to the area of public-private partnerships, if I may. I know my colleague from West Vancouver-Capilano has some issues that he'd like to raise under that.[ Page 4059 ]
But before we get to those specific questions, I'd like to ask about the trade and convention centre and the process for determining a successful proponent for the construction of the trade and convention centre. Is there anything in this year's estimates, other than the evaluation process? Are there any funds in the estimates that would go towards the actual construction costs of the trade and convention centre?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, there's nothing on the capital side; nor would it be required.
C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could tell us if there are any parameters that have been established for the provincial government's participation in the capital funding of the trade and convention centre. I appreciate the fact that there is one proponent -- that that proposal is being evaluated at this time. I'm wondering what the public's involvement in that will be.
My reason for raising this -- which I think is extremely important -- is that this is our only time in the next 12 months to ask the minister about this. I'm hoping that he does not hide behind the confidentiality of a process, because that process, if it follows through on the schedule that it currently has, will be wrapped up, and we'll be locked into a certain program by the time that we have the chance to visit this issue again. So I'm hoping that we can have some light shed on what the minister sees as the provincial government's participation in this project.
Hon. D. Miller: Yeah, I certainly hope so. Really, we are in the evaluative stage at this point. I think if I could describe the government's position, in terms of financial commitment, I would say: "As little as possible." I say that in a positive sense. As with all of the proposed P3s -- the private sector-public sector partnerships -- it seems to me that the original intent there was to try to minimize the government's contribution, to transfer risk to the private sector and to indeed enter into a partnership. So we're in the evaluative stage, and I can't say much more than that at this point.
There has been some mild element of controversy, I guess, with respect to the initial process that was devised -- the three proponents, the subsequent loss of two of them, the floating of an alternative proposal outside of the process -- but we're in the process of evaluating that. I would anticipate that there would be ample opportunity for some kind of broader public discussion about the trade and convention centre.
My sense is that there seems to be a pretty strong feeling -- in the Vancouver area, at least -- that it's fairly desirable to have it. That's my own view. I see fairly significant potential for increased tourism in that sector. I think Vancouver is, indeed, an international city and is seen as such around the world. If you're going to attract the kind of investment that the convention business brings, then you've got to have the facilities. My view is that the more that cost can be borne by the private sector and others and the less by the taxpayers of British Columbia, the better. So you don't want to start out by saying, as we may do in some other projects
Let me separate that from the Lions Gate Bridge proposal. I was reading that even members of the Liberal caucus can get into the occasional scrap with municipal politicians. I thought I'd invented it, particularly when I was engaged in some and was being castigated by opponents on the opposite side for being insensitive. Unlike a straight engineering project
But in a trade and convention centre, it seems to me that you're looking at an entirely different creature. It really is something that provides a huge scope in terms of creativity and in terms of making arrangements -- other deals with other elements of the private sector who may stand to gain in one way or another from the development of a trade and convention centre. So government putting a dollar figure up front didn't seem the best way to go.
Once we've made our evaluation, we obviously have to get into a decision stage. It's not just us. That's in concert with the city of Vancouver, and I would anticipate, given the track record of the city of Vancouver
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: We'll get into that one. And I must say I am looking forward to that as well, but
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I am actually. It should be the highlight of these estimates.
So we'll await the
C. Hansen: The minister mentioned that in certain kinds of P3s, it may be appropriate to invest certain amounts of capital. He was talking about bridges and things like that. Is the direct investment of capital by the province of British Columbia a possibility in the case of the trade and convention centre, or has that been explicitly ruled out?
Hon. D. Miller: I think we're probably getting into a conversation that is simply not a reasonable one to have in view of the issues before us.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: No, I'm not giving anything away on behalf of the government, nor should members of the opposition be asking me to -- if you appreciate my take on that. So let's just leave it at that.
C. Hansen: I want to make it quite clear: we're certainly not proposing that, and I guess it's a question as to whether or not any elements of government involvement in the trade and convention centre have been in fact ruled out. Could the minister advise us if there have been any parameters put on the proponents which -- granted there's only one proponent now -- say that the government will not be involved in, for
[ Page 4060 ]
example, direct capital investment or will not be involved in government guaranteed loans? Could the minister advise us? Is this just a totally open-ended process whereby the proponents can come back with a wish list to government? Or, in fact, have there been guidelines put on it?
Hon. D. Miller: There was a request for proposal -- an RFP -- a fairly detailed document that went out and is available. We'd be happy to send you a copy of it. Government contributing in any form was not expressly limited, restricted or prohibited in the RFP. So I think, again, in terms of prudence
So, again, I'm not going to really talk too much about it. We view this very seriously. It's the view of government that there ought to be and can be and, in fact, will be an addition to the trade and convention capacity in Vancouver. I don't think anyone looking at Vancouver could draw any other conclusion than that it is highly desirable. The issue at stake is: how do we proceed? We're in a stage right now, in terms of evaluation, that really prohibits us from saying very much at all about that.
C. Hansen: I guess what is important is the evaluation process. The minister talked about the RFP and the invitation for competitive bids, but we only have one proponent now. I agree with the minister's objective of minimizing the cost to taxpayers on this project -- in fact, preferably eliminating the cost to taxpayers on this project. I'm wondering, now that there is only one proponent: how does the government propose to determine what is an acceptable level of public support, of taxpayer support? Whether it's by direct subsidy, loan guarantee or some tax mechanism that may be used -- for example, as we've seen in the hotel tax with regard to Tourism Vancouver -- how is the minister going to determine what is an acceptable level of taxpayer involvement in this project?
Hon. D. Miller: We'll subject the proposal to a fairly intensive evaluation. As I said, it's not just us. Is it Tourism Vancouver or the city of Vancouver
The one thing I could say, though, is that the notion of a hotel room tax is both a reasonable one and one that would, in my view, make a heck of a lot of sense in terms of the kind of cash flow or revenue stream that it could generate. It's clear that in other jurisdictions that has been used. To the extent that there is a benefit back to the industry, it's reasonable to look at a hotel room tax as one means of generating some revenue to offset the capital cost. But we're not at a decision, so I'd prefer to just kind of be a little discreet until we get further advanced.
C. Hansen: Will the minister make a commitment that all aspects of an arrangement for the construction of a trade and convention centre
Hon. D. Miller: Certainly that would be the case in any event. You don't need a commitment from me. I mean, this is a high-profile project. It involves not just the provincial government but the city of Vancouver as well. There are plenty of issues around land use that are the purview of the city of Vancouver -- zoning and those kinds of issues. So, really, this is going to be public.
Really, I think there's a desire not just from people from Vancouver. In my view, it's clear that the economic benefits of additional trade and convention centres based in Vancouver have a benefit that can spill out into the rest of the province. There are people who have talked about doing some work in terms of trying to reach out to other parts of the province. If Vancouver grows, you see out of that a natural evolution sometimes -- the tourist sector, the cruise ship industry.
So it will be public. I don't think the member or the opposition has anything to be concerned about with respect to any of the elements of what ultimately constitutes a decision.
[5:45]
C. Hansen: The minister made reference earlier to another proposal that has been floating around for the renovation, if that's the right word, of B.C. Place Stadium. I understand the reasons why that proposal, having been developed just recently, is not part of the evaluation process. I certainly respect the decision of the project evaluators or project managers -- I'm not sure what you call them -- to not allow a new participant to come in at this stage. I'm wondering if the minister sees a role for that proposal. Is that going to become part of the decision as to which proposal may be given the blessing of the province in the end?Hon. D. Miller: It was a bit difficult, actually. You know, you start a proposal -- or a process, I should say, an RFP. You get certain parties coming forward -- in the case of the trade and convention centre, three parties -- saying: "Yes, we have a very strong interest." You then do your evaluation; you do more work. You announce the second stage of that, and all three people show up. At the news conference or press conference -- which I attended with the Premier in February -- when we said, "Now we're going into stage two," there were three models, as I recall, in the room. A short time later somebody, out of the blue, says: "No, no. We've got this other idea."
So the member appreciates that if you're going to have a process, it has to have integrity. If it doesn't, then why should anybody even bother to spend a nickel doing the kind of work that's required to develop the plans for a centre of this magnitude? So we're duly bound to give due diligence to the proposal that has been received, to evaluate that and to try to make some judgments with respect to cost and those kinds of questions. We'll do that. Of necessity, it prohibits or really prevents, in terms of integrity, saying at the same time: "Yeah, we're going to look at something else that, as far as I'm aware, doesn't have any level of detail beyond the conceptual stage." So I think we've got to see the process through. I don't see any
[ Page 4061 ]
other option for us. It certainly would raise questions for the one remaining proponent as to the integrity of the process and questions, I would think, around compensation.
I don't have anything formal on my desk in terms of this other proposal. There's some interesting side issues that it raises, in that it deals with a public asset that we already own and that's on the books for -- what's B.C. Place? -- you know, in excess of $100 million. So I don't know -- I'm not sure what I can do with that.
We've got to see this other one through. We'll do that as quickly as we can.
C. Hansen: In the RFP that went out for the trade and convention centre, is there any obligation that the province accept one of the proposals that came as a result of that RFP?
Hon. D. Miller: No, there's not.
C. Hansen: I don't want to give the minister the impression that we on this side support or do not support any one of these projects. But certainly I am intrigued with the proposal that's come forward for B.C. Place. Does the minister see any opportunity for an airing of that proposal? Granted there's not a lot of details on it, which is part of the reason I certainly would not want to say that one project has merits over another project. But if details were to be developed for that proposal, would the minister commit to giving it due consideration?
Hon. D. Miller: Just to repeat, I think I've got a real public obligation to the proponent that took the time, spent the money to develop their complete proposal and submitted it under the rules in the process that we developed in conjunction with the city of Vancouver. At this point in time I couldn't possibly contemplate anything else but seeing that process through, because otherwise it would not have legitimacy and integrity. I don't think that's a good position to be in. If the member has some ideas, perhaps we can have lunch some day and have a conversation about any ideas he might have with respect to these questions and others. But at this point I want to see the process through.
Anybody want to go for dinner here? In that case, there's an overwhelming desire that we break till 6:30. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Miller: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 p.m.-- hardly enough time to eat -- and thereafter sit until adjournment.
Motion approved.
The House recessed at 5:52 p.m.
The committee met at 2:51 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
(continued)
G. Wilson: One of the difficulties about being a single member in the Legislative Assembly is that it's very hard to get in to all of these estimates. If I ask questions that have been asked before -- even though I've tried to go through the Hansard -- I hope the minister will indulge me and just say, "Go read the Hansard," and I probably will.
I want to keep my comments very specific toward fisheries components. In particular, I'd like to talk about matters with respect to aquaculture. I hope you have the staff here to do that. I'm advised by the official opposition critic that the minister tells him he doesn't need any staff. That's great. I hope that means that we're going to get some questions.
I'd also like to try to tie some of the policy -- if I can use that -- that's now being directed with respect to finfish aquaculture, in particular, although I do want to talk a little bit about shellfish and tenures and how that's working
Let me start, then, with my first question. There has been some discussion and certainly media coverage -- I'm always reluctant to take at face value what I read in the press -- that the inquiry or commission results with respect to aquaculture, particularly in the Broughton Archipelago
I wonder if the minister shares the view that aquaculture is not, in fact, environmentally harmful, and whether or not he is prepared or able at this point to share with this committee what some of those findings might be with respect to how we would expect to see that industry proceed.
Hon. C. Evans: Hon. member, I don't have all the people here that might be necessary to answer more technical questions. If any technical questions come up and I don't know the answer, I'll just say, "Let's wait a while," and I'll get you the answer.
On the subject the member raises, however, the review panel has not tabled out its report yet, so of course I'm not
[ Page 4062 ]
Now, the last part of the member's question is asking me if I have opinions on the benignity, or lack thereof, of net-pen aquaculture. I have a great many concerns, as do the hon. member and many British Columbians. I am actually very pleased that we're having this discussion on the eve of the reporting out of what some have described as the most complete review extant anywhere on the planet. I hope that when it's reported out, all the mythology will fall away and we can actually deal with real information.
In terms of my visceral response, I met some representatives of the fish-farming industry last week. I meet with representatives of first nations, or the industry itself, or the environmental community almost on a weekly basis. And I try to do so with the Minister of Environment in order that as often as possible, we put forward a singular government view. I advised the industry that I think the largest economic environmental disaster in the history of North America was, and remains, the wiping out of western white pine genetic stock by our attempts to improve it by mixing it with European western white pine and turning white pine blister rust loose on Idaho, Washington, Oregon and British Columbia -- having a dollar value, I think, in excess of any oil spill or disaster of any other kind that anyone knows of. So coming to this ministry from that understanding has made it so that I have been most anxious to be assured that this generation of leadership -- you and I, the Chair and other members -- were not the decision-makers of record at a time when we did to the fisheries what earlier decision-makers did to western white pine. I am somewhat relieved, or put at my ease, that the nature of the scientific review will preclude that, because we will be in a position to know far more about the results of our activities then those earlier decision-makers were.
G. Wilson: I think we are at a very significant point in the history of the management of west coast salmon stocks. It's important, given the choices that are in front of us -- and there are a number
Hon. Chair, if you'll just indulge me for a moment, I'll lay this out for the minister, so he understands where I'm coming from on this. We're about to embark upon what could be the most exciting venture the west coast industry has seen in many decades. As the minister knows, I come from a background of commercial fishers -- been involved in my family for a long time -- and I have seen the stocks deplete; I have seen whole communities dwindle and die. We have seen an entrenchment of canning services, which used to be up and down the coast, into a handful of centres. A lot of communities that had a lifestyle based on fish -- and it wasn't just an economy; it was a whole lifestyle based on fish -- have gone. And we have a chance to stop that and to rebuild and to put back into a lot of those communities a lot of the lifeblood that kept them as viable and rather progressive communities.
The difficulty is that as we go ahead and embark on those programs, we have to recognize -- and I think we have on the one hand recognized -- that salmon are pelagic, and they therefore spend a good deal of their lifetime outside of our waters. And we're subject to the international fishery. That's the one problem. On the other hand, if we are going to develop a domestic-based net-pen culture, we are going to be putting into the marketplace a salmon of a size, weight and type that is uniform, that is year-round in its supply, that is tailor-made to those who want fresh salmon stocks, which are going to, at some point, I think, have a significant impact, in terms of volume on the market, on the price that we can get for commercially caught salmon.
[3:00]
That becomes a problem. Because we have to understand that the fresh-caught salmonIf we create a demand in the marketplace for these standardized, commercially raised, commercially bred fish, we are going to run the risk of reducing the value and price of wild salmon, because they will be less desirable because they'll be less uniform. I wonder if, in all of the discussion that went on
One of the things that I haven't heard from the government is that they recognize there is a potential threat to domestic production of farm-raised, net-pen salmon
Hon. C. Evans: British Columbia produces 4.3 percent of the world's supply of net-pen salmon. And backing up, the answer is yes, the government thinks about it and I think about it, and I think we all think about it all the time. It's the classic conundrum that our species has been dealing with since it created the machinery to eliminate people spinning wool. What if we don't let this machinery into our culture? Will we then be able to protect our market share? Or will we simply see our market share replaced from elsewhere? People struggled with those issues in the Industrial Revolution; they struggled with those issues in the invention of the computer; they struggled with them in the invention of the diesel engine; and now we're struggling with them as biotechnology makes it possible to farm species which previously were unfarmable.
If you produce 4.3 percent of the world market, and between them, two other nations produce something like 70 percent, it would seem to me that the lesson of the Arab-Israeli
[ Page 4063 ]
war and the oil embargo is that unless you manage to get those other nations all in a room and to agree to changes to drive up the world price
The hon. member is correct: the price of wild salmon has been falling rapidly, more or less straight in line with the evolution of farm technology. And it's created huge stresses on the commercial industry. He is correct that it is difficult at this moment in history to deal with the fact that we the public are about to embark on using public money to rebuild stocks which then will sell into a market, where at present the value of those stocks may be less than the cost of their replenishment, all because of the ability to produce farmed protein around the world in ways that were never predicted before.
Unfortunately, hon. member, we can't answer that question in this room, because we cannot control the activities of the eastern seaboard, Europe or Central and South America. I am advised that we can walk away from the market without any impact whatsoever to the world price.
It is true that some restaurants in San Francisco would find it much more difficult to get that uniform product on the day they ordered it, but at a slightly higher price they can fly it in from Chile to Florida and across to California. We are presently doing well in the marketplace simply because we're able to truck what they fly, but we're also flying product all over the world.
We're flying product into Japan. I held one in my hand. We spent jet fuel to get it there and got it there at a competitive price. I asked the cooking instructor at the Osaka chef school if he -- if his clients, the chefs that he taught that became the chefs that worked in the sushi bars -- preferred the farmed or the wild product. After some considerable thought, he said: "Well, of course, we prefer the wild product but we can't afford it, so I actually make my living teaching my students how to make the farmed product taste like the wild product."
It sounded, hon. member, like a foregone conclusion -- a saturated marketplace which we either participate in or walk away from, but not one which we can control.
G. Wilson: I guess that brings up the next rather obvious question. Why would we entertain spending what will ultimately be millions and millions of dollars in protecting the habitat of wild stock and making sure that we have habitat maintained for eelgrass for spawning to keep herring stocks there, to keep all of the ecological balances in place to maintain wild stock, which are a very good-mannered fish in the sense that they come back to where they started? It makes it rather easy -- although I don't speak from personal experience, because I only use a hook, and I have a hard time
If we're going to make decisions with respect to the movement toward net-pen finfish culture, and if we're going to say that we will allow that market -- our ability to produce -- to be unrestricted, then one has to ask the question: why are we putting money into the rehabilitation of wild stock?
If that's to maintain a sport fishery, if it's to maintain an aboriginal fishery and if it's to maintain a river-stream fishery, then it's important for us to say that. But does it mean that we'll continue to have a seine fishery? I don't mean sane in a sensible way; I mean seine in the net gear. Anybody in the fishing industry at this time is questionable in terms of their sanity -- it's hard to make money.
But the seine fishery that we talk about, which was at one time very viable on the coast, is now highly threatened, because the volume of fish, the catch, the openings
Perhaps the minister could tell us if the government is considering that there is an optimum volume of farm fish caught in B.C. Or is it going to be an open-ended equation that will simply be driven by whatever the market can bear?
Hon. C. Evans: There was a bunch of questions in there, but I think the main question is: does the government think it can have a farm fishery compatible with the wild fishery? I think the member is attempting to ascertain, if we are consigning the market to the farmed product, why we are maintaining a wild fishery or even spending money on it.
I think the greatest argument for the farmed-fish industry in British Columbia is that it's reversing a trend that's been going on since the Depression at least: the centralization of processing. Before I was born, through the time of the Davis plan and greatly exacerbated now by the market trends and the Mifflin plan, the multitude of processing facilities up the mid-coast where the hon. member lives, on the west coast of Vancouver Island, even up Port Hardy way, at Klemtu and Bella Bella, in the Charlottes and so on
There isn't any way that British Columbia has been able to intervene to change that. I have been accused in the last year of attempting to maintain what the Vancouver Sun called a "social" fishery, simply for talking about it and for suggesting that that wasn't in the public interest.
The farmed-fish industry actually has the capacity and has in the last few years begun to reverse the trend. When you're catching at a terminal fishery at the Skeena or at the Fraser to put in a can, it doesn't really matter how fresh you process that fish -- how quickly you get it from your net into the processing facility. But when you're processing a farmed fish whose eventual dispensation is not a can or even a frozen market but is a chilled product which might be served somewhere as sushi or as a salmon fillet in a restaurant 24 hours later, you actually have to bleed the fish and cool it right away after you stress it. This has meant that jobs that had been consolidated in Vancouver for decades have begun to move back to Port Hardy, Port McNeill and points north in order to be within a few hours of the farm fishery.
In terms of this minister's bias, hon. member, it's the biggest argument that there is for me. I actually think that we have to give very serious consideration to biological risk but also to what the hon. member raises -- the subject of market risk. There would be no reason to take those huge risks, in my mind, if we were talking about whether we need job creation in Vancouver. But given that those jobs are in communities where people live and where the corporate sector, in terms of forestry, and the corporate sector, in terms of the fishery, have been walking away from those people, the farm fishery gives us a chance to put those jobs back into those communities. It's the biggest argument that I know of.
[3:15]
G. Wilson: I don't want to drift too far down that road in terms of the number of jobs that are created by fish farms.[ Page 4064 ]
They tend to be few in number, and the technology
Let me move one step further than that in this discussion, because it becomes important in terms of the policy of this minister and this ministry with respect to some of the issues that have been raised around aquaculture. This study -- which is now complete, presumably -- is going to deal with the siting of fish farms: where these fish farms can be permitted to be placed.
I'd like to hear the minister's view with respect to the Broughton Archipelago and the area that was established by the former Minister of Environment -- which I understand was under the administration of both Environment and Agriculture and Fisheries -- with respect to the red line that was drawn in the Broughton to prohibit fish farms being put into the inside section of the red line. Farms exist inside that red line today. I wonder if the minister respects that, whether he's waiting for the review to decide whether or not they should be forced to come outside of that line, or whether he looks to grandfather those farms? What are the issues in the minister's mind?
Hon. C. Evans: Okay, I'll answer the question so long as you say for the record that you get it that my decision is not government policy, we await the outcome of the review, and my opinion at this point is nothing but bias.
G. Wilson: I'm not quite sure what the minister just said. I'm assuming, then, that we're not going to make a decision until the review is out. I think that's more or less what the minister said.
Maybe on a more technical note, then, one of the reasons that the red line in the Broughton was drawn up is because there's a lot of sea life in there -- in particular, dolphin, porpoise and orcas. And fish farms are using what are called seal scarers. Hansard will show you that the Minister of Environment has said that the use of seal scarers is illegal; however, seal scarers are continually being used. They are sonar devices that are dropped into the water and which put out very high-pitched sound. As I'm sure the minister is aware, dolphins, porpoise and orcas use a sonar device to communicate and to navigate.
There are individuals living in that region and researching in that region who have better academic credentials than I do, and who say that the use of seal scarers is both ineffective with respect to repelling seals -- which is what that is supposed to do; i.e., the name "seal scarer" -- and extremely damaging to orca, porpoise and dolphin populations.
Can the minister tell us what the update is, how often these farms are inspected and whether or not, on finding seal scarers, the government is prepared to enforce some form of regulation?
Hon. C. Evans: The review is supposed to address this question like others. We are on the eve of finding out what government is prepared to do. First the review will be made public and be given to me and the Minister of Environment, and then the government will take some position. It just feels premature to me to ask what government is going to do about seal scarers within weeks of the review being completed. I'm poised here to tell you what I think about seals. But maybe I'll duck, just because you didn't ask. Why borrow trouble?
G. Wilson: I'm getting to seals; we're getting there. But I do sense a theme coming forward from the minister with respect to the answers to these questions. That theme tends to be geared towards this imminent report. I'm assuming, then, that the matter of labelling is another issue that was raised. The government was previously on the record -- mind you, it was some years ago -- that they would commit to require farmed fish to be labelled as farmed fish, whether they were sold in the marketplace or in restaurants, and that wild fish would be labelled as wild fish.
There are many who believe that they should have the right to know what it is that they are purchasing; if they go to a fishmonger or to the fish display case at a local Safeway, in fact the salmon they are buying should be labelled, and there should be a requirement to label it. Now, many people in the fish farming industry would argue that it's to their advantage to have it labelled, because they think they've got a superior product. So they say: "Yeah, we want it labelled." There are others in the industry that say, "No, that causes consumer confusion, because they don't know what farmed and wild is," and then why would they be labelled unless one is inferior and one is superior, and then as a result of that confusion people have a problem.
From my perspective, it's simply providing the consumer an informed choice as to what they want to eat. Wild stock, wild salmon -- as the minister is well aware -- have been fed a considerably different diet than ones that have been raised in a net-pen with a few thousand other fish, eating a pellet filled full of fish food and often antibiotics, which some people want to try to avoid. So can the minister give us any hint as to whether or not there is some legislation or regulations with respect to labelling in the near future?
Hon. C. Evans: No, I'm not going to give you any kind of a hint. I don't actually know if the government will have a position. I want the hon. member to kind of stretch his mind around the issue a little bit. We're not selling most of these fish to ourselves. To the extent that we are selling these fish into the common market of western North America or Japan, we're doing so in the context of the brave new world of the nineties.
Surely the hon. member wouldn't want me to allow the industry to exist, should we decide to allow it to exist
G. Wilson: Well, this government can't regulate what happens in the world marketplace, but it can regulate what
[ Page 4065 ]
happens in a domestic marketplace. What happens in the world marketplace is an issue that can be looked at with respect to international agreements on trade, which will be negotiated, in part, by this government, presumably with some federal component.
But with the marketing of domestic product, it seems to me that there are many, many British Columbians and there are many commercial fishers who want the domestic product distinguished. By the same token as you would say that this is a salmon, people who are marketing it are going to tell you whether or not it is a sockeye, a coho or whatever -- or a pink, most of which is in the cans. The thing is that we're now talking about the domestic marketplace and people who wish to avoid eating a fish that is raised in a net-pen and is heavily fed on antibiotics and fish food. This is an artificially fed product.
Furthermore, with a net-pen-raised salmon, which is marketed in British Columbia as salmon, there's a good chance that it is an Atlantic salmon. Now, Atlantic salmon are not indigenous to British Columbia. In fact, they're not even the same species of fish. Somebody who's buying one ought to have the right to know that they're not buying a Pacific, fresh-caught wild salmon; they're buying an Atlantic farm-raised, artificially fed fish. Doesn't the minister think that the consumer has the right to have that information?
Hon. C. Evans: The minister sort of thinks that they have the right to have that information, but I also think they have the responsibility to ask. I've asked in every restaurant and store I've ever purchased in, have got an answer and have made a personal decision based on the answer. The member is not suggesting, "Do they have a right to know?" but: "Do they have a right to know because I regulate and they get it up front without actually having the responsibility to ask?"
Firstly, I don't know if the provincial government even has the legal right, because labelling has historically been a federal jurisdiction. Secondly, I want him to keep in mind, in terms of this market issue, that we're only buying 15 percent of our own production. So the fact that we're going to raise these fish is a decision we're going to make without
Now, if you're asking me philosophical questions, like, "Do I have any objection to saying where the fish comes from?" and "Is it farm fish?" the answer to that would be no. I actually think the people who raise them are proud of it, and it's not like a secret.
G. Wilson: On the last point I would agree with the minister. I think most people in the industry think they've got a superior product. I don't think they would have a problem with labelling. But I think that there are those people who try to pass off farm fish as wild fish in the marketplace, and I think that's wrong. I don't think merchants should be able to sell an Atlantic farm-raised salmon as a Pacific coho. There are a lot of people out there who can't tell the difference. When the head's off, the tail's off, and it's sitting there on a block of ice, they couldn't
It seems to me that there is an obligation, and if that obligation isn't being met by retailers, the government -- and certainly we've done it in the past -- has to put in marketing regulations, in the same way that we like to regulate what's inside that fish, what that fish has last consumed and how frequently it has last consumed antibiotics, which are fed to these fish in order to prevent disease. Now, prior to going to market, there are regulations -- or were regulations, and I'm assuming these regulations are still in effect -- that say you can't move a fish to market if in fact it has just gone through that disease treatment. And yet there are fish that are dying in huge numbers because of furunculosis or from other diseases because of warming, because there's a problem associated with something in the nets. As a result, fish are taken out, moved very swiftly and taken to market.
I'd like the minister to tell us where the inspection process comes in to tell us when those fish last had that feed of antibiotics. Are those regulations now being regulated? How often are they checked, and where does that data go? To what data bank do we look to see whether or not in fact those regulations and rules are being adhered to?
[3:30]
Hon. C. Evans: In answer to the question, "Do we inspect the fish?" a provincial veterinarian answerable to myself decides which medicines are legal for use and lists them. The DFO is the inspecting agency that goes into processing facilities in British Columbia and periodically inspects the fish.In answer to your question, "How often does that happen?" I don't know.
What happens if it's sold overseas? Eighty percent of the fish are sold into the United States at one entry point or another. The USDA regularly inspects the input product and has never raised the issue of antibiotics in the meat.
G. Wilson: I appreciate the minister's response. The DFO issue is an important issue. It's obviously one outside of the mandate of this minister, but perhaps we can flag it.
One of the arguments that I want to get to -- and I'm going to try to wrap up fairly shortly -- with respect to this new agreement we have with the federal government on the commercial fishery, is the need in that agreement to recognize that federal officers have an obligation and a responsibility not just to the wild stock but also to what is going on in domestic production of salmon.
I'll tell you why that's an important issue. What happens to the effluent in the processing plants for the most part, in most of those areas, is that they have permits that will allow them to discharge it back out into the chuck, and they do. The offal that is left over has to be disposed of somewhere. They are not supposed to be disposing of that back into the chuck; they're supposed to be putting it into the landfill, and in some areas they are. There's some new research underway as to whether or not we actually have a viable product that might be used for fertilizer or something like that, and there's some good work underway there.
The problem is that if you've got disease, if we don't adequately regulate what's in the blood of the fish that are bled off and pushed out into the chuck, if we don't regulate what's in the offal
[ Page 4066 ]
-- simply dump it, and it gets put into the chuck and goes through the food cycle, we have potential problems here, big time. It's very hard to regulate it, very hard to even monitor it, because how do you know what's diseased down there?
I went on an inspection not so long ago. There were a whole bunch of fish that were lying at the bottom of the net. I said to the young woman who was there on the side: "These fish are sick." She said: "Oh no, they're not." I said: "Look, they're almost dead." She said: "No, no, no. Those are slow swimmers. Sometimes you've got fast swimmers and slow swimmers. Those are slow swimmers." I said: "Yeah? Well, why do they like to do it upside down?"
The problem with it is that these things die and they get chucked. I understand the plight of the farmer. It's hard. But we have to be very, very careful, because once that disease gets out into the chuck, it's very hard to monitor where it goes.
So I just raise that. That's one area where this ministry can work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in this new agreement, to make sure that those inspections are carried on. If the minister might agree to that or certainly to carry on some dialogue around that, I'd like to move on to shellfish culture and then get into a couple of other aspects of my questions.
Hon. C. Evans: I think we should move on our own. In the interest of the dialogue -- because the hon. member is getting it pretty easy here; he's got a whole bunch of criticism on the record and no position -- how about you helping me? Give me some advice. In a couple of weeks I've got be part of making a decision. Would you like a regulated industry, no industry or the status quo?
G. Wilson: There are members of the minister's staff who know my position, because they've been dealing with me on this since 1985, when I was on the regional district on the Sunshine Coast.
We need a regulated industry, to be sure. We have to recognize that that industry is going to be able to rise to a maximum volume of production annually, and it should be licensed to do so. The licence should be tied to the volume produced provincially. We need to seriously investigate moving fish farms out of the water onto land and start to look at on-land aquaculture, so we can start to look at modified species production in order to keep protein supply for what is going to become an increasing demand globally.
That means we can get out of dealing with these high-priced, high-quality species of salmon and start to farm less exotic species. Salmon are high-priced, exotic species. We're talking about protein feed for Third World nations, which is what some farmers are involved in. We've got to realize that we're catching more fish -- the feed fish that are coming out of the lower supplies -- to feed net-pen salmon than we are putting actual protein into the market. I see people shaking their heads and saying: "No, that isn't the case." Then I'd like to see some statistics documented with respect to the volume of feed fish. It's like people saying there's no relation
Secondly, we have to recognize that there has to be an annual volume. We need to license fish farms towards that volume so that the most successful farms can succeed and we get the less successful out of the industry, because that's where the problems will come from.
Thirdly, we have to recognize that the siting of those farms has to be very specific and cannot be at the mouths of salmon streams, cannot be in areas where there is a high degree of other mammals and activity, especially orca and dolphin populations. That's really important.
Just to go on the record, when you site a fish farm, you have to have a fallow site available, so that you have a rotational site. Then any problems we have with respect to habitat underneath because of fallout of feed, fecal matter or other kinds of things can be taken care of through flushing, because you have somewhere to move that pen and allow for fallow sites. I think we have to build fallow sites into whatever licensing regulations you want to put in place. If you can't find one, you can't put it there. That's an important consideration. So I'm on the record, absolutely.
Let me ask you about shellfish. Do the minister and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans take the attitude that oysters are an indigenous species to British Columbia?
Hon. C. Evans: No.
G. Wilson: I agree with the minister. They're not indigenous; in fact, they were imported onto the coast. Having said that, does the minister believe that oyster licences or leases ought to be provided for as part of an indigenous right?
Perhaps I could be more clear, hon. Chair, with your indulgence. First nations who are arguing for shellfish access are mostly talking about clam beds, which are clearly indigenous, and clearly there are some inherent rights to it. However, there are also arguments being made with respect to oyster grounds where there's a considerable amount of wild oyster spat. They are also talking now about the opportunity to have first right of refusal on longline oyster culture as a part of their inherent and indigenous right. Given that the oyster was never indigenous to this part of the world -- the minister just acknowledged they aren't, and I agree with him -- the next question is: should they be treated as part of that indigenous shellfish culture for first nations access?
Hon. C. Evans: I think it's an esoteric line of questioning. There were oysters here before. The oysters that are here now aren't indigenous, because they aren't the ones that were here before. The first nations people may very well be talking about some kind of oyster that was here before. Besides, I don't think it will be up to the hon. member and me to solve the problem.
As the hon. member knows, because he was at a meeting we had about it in his constituency, I have been trying to manage these issues as if who gets to catch the last one isn't the point. But how can we encourage the growth of a sustainable industry that suits the people who live closest to the income that's being generated?
I'd rather approach these matters in that kind of way than split hairs about whether one kind of oyster was here, which kind of people were here at the time and what the law says. Why not just try to make it work for the people who actually live out there?
G. Wilson: I agree. I'm not trying to be clever in my questioning. We've got a problem. The problem deals
[ Page 4067 ]
deal of money into it
The problem is that when you come to renew that lease now, those leases are not being renewed, because they're being held up as a part of first nations treaty negotiations. I'm saying: "Hang on a second, here." If we're talking about clam beds, I can understand it -- geoducks, sea urchins and all kinds of areas that were traditionally part of that system, that culture. But oysters weren't one of them.
So I think we have a problem, because there are farmers who now are finding their businesses threatened because they can't get movement on renewal of leases. I understand that it is not this minister who's holding them up, but it is this minister whose ministry regulates that industry and could go a long way to trying to break the blockage, so these leases can be renewed, and these people who have invested their money into the growing of oysters can get on with the business of doing what they intended to do in the first place, and that is to make some money by putting these to market.
Hon. C. Evans: I didn't discern a question, actually. If there was one, I didn't hear it.
G. Wilson: My question, more directly is: will the minister accept to work with the Minister of Lands now to facilitate the renewal of these leases, so that these oyster farmers can get on with the business of oyster farming and not be held up by the broader-based negotiations around the inherent right to shellfish, because oysters weren't one of them?
Hon. C. Evans: The answer to the first question would be yes. The answer to the coloration tacked onto the end would be no. Yes, I'm interested in working with the Minister of Lands to make the thing work. No, I don't have any interest in commenting on the part about first nations.
Hon. member, the motivation for the dominant culture in British Columbia to settle treaties is to create certainty. Until we do that, there's bound to be some uncertainty in the mining industry, the logging industry, the development industry, highways industry, oyster industry, salmon industry -- even in governance, hon. member. And it will be ever thus. Yes, I'd like to help solve the problem, and we will. But no, we will not generate certainty for oysters or anything else until finally we're done with the treaty process and all those jurisdictional questions go away.
[3:45]
G. Wilson: Well, I guess all I can say is good luck in trying to solve the problem, because that is the problem: who has jurisdiction over the oysters? So if you're not going to solve it until the treaties are done, these guys are going to be waiting awhile. Anyhow, I appreciate the fact that the minister is going to make an effort; that's good.I had just one last question to wrap up this series. It has to do, more specifically, with the agreement that exists between the federal government and the province -- the signed memorandum. I want to talk specifically about habitat and in particular the rehabilitation of streams and eelgrass beds on the coast.
There are many salmonid enhancement organizations right now. There are community volunteers actively working to try to get work underway to make sure that mouths of streams are rehabilitated and eelgrass beds are replenished. They seem to have been, up until now, stymied by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans personnel in terms of getting inspections, approvals, permits and so on to get the work done. Can the minister give me some indication as to whether or not there is going to be some kind of fast-tracking of some of these programs in this new agreement, so that the community volunteers actively working on stream management rehabilitation can actually get to the work that they have to do and no longer be frustrated by what probably are legitimate concerns of DFO staff, who simply can't get there to do the inspections and therefore give the green light on what work needs to be done?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I want to thank the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast for putting some questions on aquaculture and the shellfish industry to the minister. I just have a few questions dealing with the agricultural section of the ministry, and then we'll go back to fish. I just want to ask the minister, first of all: is the feeder association loan guarantee program still in operation?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: What is the projected cost of that program? I assume it's just loan guarantees, so there's not a real cash cost per se unless there are claims. Maybe the minister could describe what the potential liability or the responsibility of the province would be on that program.
Hon. C. Evans: I'm not positive what the specific question was, but if the hon. member wants to know what the ceiling is, the program is allowed to function to a total of $39 million, of which $26.5 million has been drawn down in borrowing. The guarantees are issued under section 56 of the Financial Administration Act. The hon. member and other members might be interested to know that there is a $650,000 provisional account, intended to cover any claims against the program. But as is so often the case with agricultural loans, no one has actually made any claims.
J. van Dongen: But the purpose of this program is simply to provide some assurance to lenders who are putting up dollars for feeder cattle that are fed in British Columbia for slaughter in British Columbia. Is that the basic purpose of the program?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I want to also ask a few questions about the whole area of organic food production -- certification, that kind of thing. The first question is: what is the staffing within the ministry in terms of providing some support for organic food producers?
Hon. C. Evans: That looks like two people.
J. van Dongen: I received a letter of concern from the North Okanagan Organic Association, complaining that there had been a reduction in staffing. Just to clarify, were there previously four people involved? What's the change in terms of people available for organic food producers?
Hon. C. Evans: I met with those folks twice, hon. member, and I think that the issue for them is quite real. They had
[ Page 4068 ]
developed a relationship with an employee who was knowledgable enough in the areas in which they are expanding in the North Okanagan. A relationship of trust had developed. Their industry was somewhat dependent on that individual. In the downsizing, that individual left government service. So they feel quite burned, because they have investments partially based on the fact that they thought they had a fallback with an individual. And, of course, it's my job to make sure that the hole left in our knowledge base by that individual is replaced by other people.
Then they made a proposal to me that since we had closed an agricultural office in the North Okanagan, we should give it to them for free to operate their association out of. I was not able to figure out how to make that work right away, and that made them a little unhappy, too.
J. van Dongen: I understand that the North Okanagan group is part of a number of smaller groups that are organized under a provincial umbrella and that do the certification.
Hon. C. Evans: That's correct, hon. member. We think there are 11 such associations under the provincial umbrella, and the provincial umbrella folks are the people who are negotiating with Ottawa for us to try to establish a national certification program and figure out how to cost it in a way that is acceptable to our producers.
J. van Dongen: It seems to me that there have been some Partners in Progress grants -- at least one or two, anyway -- that have been used in getting these associations going and maybe developing a certification program. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Evans: That's correct. We think it was $50,000 last year and $80,000 the year before.
J. van Dongen: I have a brochure from the North Okanagan Organic Association. I don't know if government funding was put directly in this brochure or not, but there was an item that bothers me a little bit, so I just want to mention it as a concern. Under a large heading it says: "Why purchase North Okanagan organic foods?" Under "Environment," it says: "Agrochemicals used by conventional farmers have been shown to pollute air, soil and water." I want to express that it concerns me when one segment of agriculture is slagging another segment. As I said, I don't know if that was done with government funds, but I just mention it to the minister so that in his discussions he can raise that with them. I wonder if the minister would have any further comment on that.
Hon. C. Evans: I'll be sure to tell them that for sure they can't use our office for anything until they clean up their brochure. If you'll pass it over here, I'll look at the bottom to see if it says: "Paid for by the British Columbia government." In a subjective way, I'll give the member my commitment that the next time I talk to them I will pass on his message and remind them that in order for agriculture to have any power in society in this day and age, they have to act with solidarity, and that making other people unhappy in promotion of their own industry is not useful.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that response by the minister.
I want to go briefly to Buy B.C., which I'm sure the minister will be pleased to do. I'm looking at a page in our binder, which was provided by the ministry. I wonder if the minister could just highlight what the change has been in terms of funding. As I recall, Buy B.C. was a five-year program and was completed in 1996-97, if I'm not mistaken. There has been a fairly significant reduction in funding, but the program has been continued. Could the minister just highlight the changes with the various breakdowns and what the program is intended to do now, as opposed to in the previous five years?
Hon. C. Evans: We essentially cut the Buy B.C. program in half, although there is some access to Partners funding. So in essence, it will probably come in at a little bit better than half.
J. van Dongen: When the minister talks about some access to Partners funding, I notice at the bottom there's a note that says: "Buy B.C. market grants are now accessed through the Partners in Progress program." From that, am I to understand that for anybody that's applying for a program to do some joint advertising or joint market research or something, the delivery channel is through Partners in Progress?
Hon. C. Evans: That's correct.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister tell us what the plan is for Buy B.C.? Is it basically a one-year thing now, or will it be reviewed again a year from now? I think the program has been fairly successful. I think there's certainly some ownership and trademark value in the logo and the materials. I'm just wondering what the plan is for that.
Hon. C. Evans: Originally it was a five-year program, and it was sunsetted to end last year. We cut it in half and put it into the ministry's base budget. So it is now essentially an ongoing program function of the ministry, with no date in the future at which it ought to disappear.
In terms of the member's question about the plan, I would just like to say that I agree with him. It is very well received not just by agriculture but also by the retail and service sectors, and it is our intention to make it better rather than to make it go away.
[4:00]
J. van Dongen: On the sheet that was handed out, could the minister clarify the difference between STOB 40 advertising and STOB 40 contracts?Hon. C. Evans: Advertising is actually time on television or on radio, or ads in newspapers or magazines. It is paying for product to be viewed, aired or seen. Contracts are paying for people to think it up, to work with the client group to help them with their displays or to figure out how to tell the story, or with the advertising agency that thinks up the ad, the playing of which is then paid for in the advertising budget.
J. van Dongen: Just so I'm clear, are these two columns dealing with contracts with other partners in the program, or are they dealing with actual advertising and work being done by the government itself in terms of, say, promoting the program? There's a distinction between the ministry promoting the program -- promoting "buy local" and this sort of thing from the ministry -- as opposed to partnering with one of the marketers and actually doing something specific for a commodity, for example. I wonder which it is in terms of these two columns.
Hon. C. Evans: The partnered projects are under STOB 82, the grants column which is just to the left of advertising,
[ Page 4069 ]
I think, if we're looking at the same sheet. Then the STOB 40 advertising is actually in-house ministry, without other partners.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that answer. So STOB 20 contracts would also be in-house work?
Hon. C. Evans: Yep.
J. van Dongen: I just want to clarify STOB 82 grants. Despite the fact that there's a zero shown on this sheet, did the minister indicate earlier that there will be a little bit of money on joint projects?
Hon. C. Evans: We think that the Partners in Progress funding may provide around $300,000 in the '97-98 column, but we are unable to verify that, so I'd like you to write it down with a question mark after it. If you want a more specific number, I'll get it for you.
J. van Dongen: Would it be correct to assume that the $300,000 or a portion thereof would depend on the level of interest in the Partners in Progress program?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Well, that leads me into Partners in Progress -- a few questions to the minister. Has there been any change in the design of that program from last year?
Hon. C. Evans: The Partners in Progress program is divided into Partners in Development and Partners in Action. Partners in Development has changed from 75 percent down to 65 percent of eligible project costs. Partners in Action has changed from 50 percent down to 35 percent.
[S. Orcherton in the chair.]
J. van Dongen: Is that intended to help stretch out the total dollars somewhat? Has there been a reduction in the total dollars?
Hon. C. Evans: The funding envelope remained the same, but we put the Partners part of Buy B.C. into it, so it is spread further, which is basically the same thing as having reduced the amount of money available for the projects. Also, it is our objective to increase self-sufficiency in industry and in the projects that they engage in. So reducing the percentage paid for by the province is sort of going in the direction of the universal vision for the ministry.
J. van Dongen: I'm curious whether the minister has any information that would set out the percentage of applications to Partners in Progress that are turned down. Would the minister have that information?
Hon. C. Evans: We'd be pleased to get that information.
J. van Dongen: Apparently there was a value-for-money audit done on this program -- or it was in the process of being done. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the status of that is, if it's finished.
Hon. C. Evans: We don't know of any such audit. Judging by the body language of the people in the audience, neither do they. We wonder if the hon. member is thinking not of the Partners program but of Buy B.C., because we did issue such a contract for Buy B.C.
J. van Dongen: Probably the simplest way is to pass over a letter that the minister sent me. It makes reference to it. So I'll just pass it over, and we can pursue that. I'm interested to see what the evaluation was. Apparently it was being done by the office of the comptroller general.
My colleague from Penticton has a few questions on the wine industry.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise us of the total acreage of premium grapes now under cultivation in the Okanagan, please?
Hon. C. Evans: We will supply the member with that information.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise: how many staff members in his ministry are dedicated to the grape and wine industry of British Columbia?
Hon. C. Evans: Three.
R. Thorpe: With respect to funding under the grape and wine assistance program, I believe it was called, could the minister advise how much is in the budget this year for the industry?
Hon. C. Evans: It's $200,000.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise if that $200,000 -- I believe it's paid to the B.C. Wine Institute, if I'm correct -- goes for particular programs? Or are there still areas of marketing, technology, technology development, etc.?
Hon. C. Evans: The $200,000 is spent with the first priority being replant. If there is money not spent on replant, then it's on market development and technology.
R. Thorpe: Could the minister advise how much will be spent or is envisioned to be spent on replant this year?
Hon. C. Evans: We haven't received the submission about that breakdown from the B.C. Wine Institute yet. When we receive it from them, we will share it with the member.
R. Thorpe: Does the money flow only when business plans come and you know their programs? Or has the money already flowed for the fiscal year?
Hon. C. Evans: No, it has not gone -- flowed, as the member says. It won't until we receive an accounting form for last year and a business plan for next year.
R. Thorpe: Are there any time lines that the ministry expects to hear from the industry, or are there time lines imposed by the ministry, on when the industry must submit its business plans?
Hon. C. Evans: We encourage the industry to submit their business plans as close to the beginning of the fiscal year as possible. I would remind this industry, as well as every
[ Page 4070 ]
other industry, that in about the tenth or eleventh month of a given fiscal year almost every government in the history of the province has gone around scraping back whatever they could find. So it usually is a good idea for every sector to figure out a way to do their budgets in the early part of the year rather than in the latter.
[4:15]
R. Thorpe: Even though this industry, I understand, has been clawed back, from a $500,000 commitment per year to $200,000, I believe that the minister is suggesting that they should get their plan in earlier or they could be clawed back again. That's just a statement; that's not a question.With respect, one of the things that the ministry, I believe, played a major role in the development of wine tour signage throughout the Okanagan, which, quite frankly, has been very beneficial to the industry. Can the minister confirm
Hon. C. Evans: I can't confirm that. However, I will say to the hon. member that it is my understanding that the billing procedure by the Ministry of Transportation has created a great deal of trauma around, at least, rural British Columbia. I was under the impression that there was a review. I encourage the hon. member to raise that question with the Minister of Transportation, because I, at least, would like that review to recognize some questions of scale. If you own a Holiday Inn, it may be a little bit easier to pay $200 for a sign than if you own a bed-and-breakfast.
R. Thorpe: Thanks to the minister. I appreciate his comments and the support of the ministry. I'm sure that the industry would look forward to that representation at the appropriate tables, where sometimes some of us don't get to go -- as a matter of fact, we never get to go. So I'm sure the industry would look forward to the minister registering those comments at the appropriate table.
It's my understanding that the ministry is suggesting to the industry that they alter the composition of their board, with respect to the B.C. Wine Institute. Could the minister make any comment on that, please?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. I just appointed two additional people to the board. The Wine Institute is bringing forward or has sent three more names for appointment, two or three of whom will be appointed in the coming weeks and months, I believe, for a total of
R. Thorpe: So you'll have eight or nine members, as I understood. Most boards try to have odd numbers, I think, just in case they have to have a vote, but that may not be the case here.
Can the minister advise on why it was deemed necessary to change the composition of the board?
Hon. C. Evans: The board was changed to add an additional farm winery and to attempt to fill some holes in makeup. It has been the subject of ongoing dialogue between myself or my office and representatives of the board. We hope that what we will wind up with is a board with some understanding not only of growing specialty product on a small acreage but of the large companies and the people who make wine, the people who sell it and maybe the people who serve it in the restaurant sector. In other words, what we're trying to wind up with in the end are representatives with the broadest possible expertise.
I want to comment on the question of the audit of the Partners program some pages back in Hansard. My letter of September '96 to the member for Abbotsford said that there was an audit in process. In fact, that audit was submitted in October of '96. It's a ten-page report. We will supply a copy to the member for Abbotsford, and I'll send back his note.
R. Thorpe: I'm not sure what the minister meant when he used the word "makeup." Perhaps he can elaborate on that. But what I think is important to get onto the record, and to see if the minister agrees or disagrees, is the fact that, yes, the industry has to be represented from the grape growers for all types of wineries, small and large; but it's also important -- because I believe all those sectors have been represented on the board to date; I could be wrong, but I think they have -- to make sure that the industry feels that it has been part of a consultative process, not that it is being forced to do things.
People from the growers through to the wineries have their homes, their bank debts -- all kinds of things -- on the line. Hopefully, we're not looking at putting people on this board who (1) do not have quality of expertise, and (2) aren't real stakeholders and don't have a whole bunch to lose -- don't have their life's savings or their family's savings on the line.
I would just like some comments on that, please.
Hon. C. Evans: The board started out with one representative of the farming community -- just farm wineries -- two from estate wineries, two from major wineries and two growers. We increased the representatives of the farm wineries to two, and there is a proposal at the present time to add another person with expertise external to the industry in planning and marketing.
Now, I want to comment about when the hon. member said to me: "These people have got their lives on the line and we wouldn't think of appointing somebody from outside the industry, would we?" Obviously, from what I just read, in the main the answer is no. But should we? I have no trouble with it at all. I have lots of experience with boards that benefit a great deal from having some complete outsider without any vested interest whatsoever at the table, along with people who perhaps have a greater personal identification with whatever the issue is that the board is looking at. I think it is even a truism in the private sector that in the creation of a board of directors, you try not to get people who have a lifetime in the industry that the corporation is mostly looking at, because if you have 100 per cent internal people, you tend to suffer from a lack of new ideas.
So no, I wouldn't have any trouble whatsoever. And I think the hon. member knows that in agriculture there are lots of boards on which people from a completely different commodity group -- or even people who used to work in grocery stores, or people who've never worked in grocery stores but worked in banks, for heaven's sake -- have come along and sat down and talked about eggs. So I don't have any trouble with it.
R. Thorpe: Perhaps I didn't make myself as clear as I would have liked to. I also don't have a problem with people bringing in certain expertise for certain situations provided that it's done in full consultation with and with the full support
[ Page 4071 ]
of the industry, and people are not imposed on an industry or a sector. If I didn't speak that properly, then that's what I would say. And I would trust that the minister would support that concept, too -- consultation and full support of the industry so we can all grow together.
Hon. C. Evans: Well, I think consultation is really important, and we don't usually make these changes without some kind of dialogue. But I've never known a case where the makeup of a board could be done by consensus, on account of it just
V. Anderson: I'd like to change the direction of the discussion for a few minutes and move into the area of multiculturalism.
As the minister is aware, under the Multiculturalism Act each of the ministries has responsibility for a multicultural program as part of the overall program of the government. The last multicultural report we have is from 1994-95, and I'm wondering if the minister can bring us up to date on the multicultural program in development in the ministry at this time.
[4:30]
Hon. C. Evans: I am holding in my hand the 1997-98 Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food multiculturalism action plan, and I could sit here another five minutes and talk to the staff, read it and then report upon it. So how about if I just say we'll make a copy and share it with the hon. member. And then he can ask me any questions he wishes about the contents of the report.V. Anderson: One question I would ask the minister perhaps at this point
Three years ago, roughly, the ministry did have the assistant deputy and some of its staff members take training in the Hastings Institute and Kingswood programs in order that they could do multicultural awareness programs within their ministry. Could the minister tell me if there have been staff changes within that period of time? And if there have been staff changes, have the other persons who have now come on had the opportunity for that training and the opportunity, then, to give leadership within the ministry?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there have been lots of staff changes since those times. I do not know whether the people who have replaced the people who took the workshop have had the workshop that the hon. member refers to.
V. Anderson: I look forward to getting the information from the minister and following up with him. But I do think it's important. So often when programs come in, in the first rush we make all the undertakings and then after a while, we forget that they're part of what we are, and we do a report
I was impressed in the 1994-95 report of the Ministry of Agriculture -- the ministry we're visiting now -- that the assistant deputy ministers had taken the training at the Hastings Institute and therefore were able to give the leadership within their own community. I was impressed that this was one of the few ministries at the time that seemed to have done a very serious job in this regard. So I just hope that this is continuing, and I look forward to being assured by the minister that it is, and I will follow up on the report as he presents it to me.
Hon. C. Evans: Well, I think it's really good that the hon. member is raising these questions. Obviously, if he raises them next year, I'll be more inclined to be better prepared. I agree with him that if you don't raise the questions, often the people don't do it.
Here's a list of the programs in the last year related to the multicultural initiative. All senior managers -- including the person who replaced the ADM who took the last one -- received a valuing diversity and service delivery course. We produced bird-netting brochures from the horticultural staff in English and Punjabi; "B.C. Blueberry News" in Punjabi; a Mandarin Chinese edition of "Pesticide Safety and Pest Management for Commercial Vegetable Growers"; Portuguese and Punjabi fact sheets on the commodity groups that those ethnic groups tend to work in. The PRASPS initiative in the Peace was translated into Dutch, German, Mandarin Chinese and Korean. The pesticide applicators course has been delivered in Punjabi for the blueberry industry. The farm management branch has made
On this question of first nations, we are attempting to deliver the agricultural part of the ministry with some sensitivity towards first nations. We have developed a first nations farm management training program. But I think it is on the Fisheries side that the first nations community needs to be better represented in everything that we do. We have tended in the past to have a really narrow mandate within the Fisheries component of MAFF. We didn't tend to operate much in interaction with the commercial fleet or first nations food fisheries, and we tended to look more at farm fish and oysters and that sort of thing, and at some licensing responsibilities. I think we are aware of our need as a ministry to begin to figure out how to deliver our programs and our mandate with some sensitivity to how people live in Bella Bella and who actually lives there -- using that as an example. So why don't you come back next year and ask us if we've made progress? I'll see what I can get done.
V. Anderson: You mentioned the first nations with agriculture. A few years ago I had the opportunity to travel with the First Citizens Fund. We went to many of the bands and reserves throughout the province, and one of the things we discovered was that they were very anxious to get involved in agriculture -- ranching or farming or just a variety of agriculture
One of the things I'm aware of from Saskatchewan is the vocational agricultural program that is run through the University of Saskatchewan, where young farmers can get the expertise and the knowledge during the winter to do their work and programs during the summer. It ties them into the networking of accounting and farming and seeds and development. It seems to me that there's a whole area there in agriculture
[ Page 4072 ]
-- many branches of it -- where the ministry could be very effective. Does the ministry have a program? I know that at one point, two years ago, they were talking about having first nations liaison officers. Were those appointed? What is the mandate of those persons, and are these some of the areas in which they could work?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, there is a first nations or aboriginal liaison officer who works out of the Okanagan.
V. Anderson: I'm glad they work in the Okanagan, but I think there's more to B.C. than just the Okanagan, although the Okanagan people might not agree with that, of course.
I would hope that there might be more input and more interaction in the area of agriculture among the first nations people. I think a lot of their youth could have opportunities there. They could take advantage of the training and educational opportunities available to them, if someone was to give them some encouragement and steer them into the area of agriculture. They can get good scholarships and financial help, but often it takes somebody to help them do that. I would hope that in the agricultural section there would be real opportunity to work with the first nations people in developing agriculture, in the same way the minister has talked about working with the aboriginal people with regard to fisheries. They are the original fishers on this coast, and I'm not sure they've had the opportunity to have that input in the ministry.
Has there been a great deal of input from the aboriginal community into the fishery policy of the government, from their point of view? You talk about working with them, but how much have we listened? How much input has come into the fishery policy from the aboriginal community, and can it be identified as such?
Hon. C. Evans: The neat thing about the provincial government's involvement in fishery is that it isn't
I believe that for the first time in history
I don't believe there was ever before an agreement that there would be
[4:45]
V. Anderson: I appreciate that, and I'm delighted that I'm made aware of those things that are coming. It's important that we have that on the record.When it comes to the area of food, one of the realities -- if you go any place in Vancouver or to any of the many multicultural dinners that I go to -- is the whole variety of ethnic food that is available to us in so many different places and in so many new restaurants. There is such an interest in sharing, and if you go into the produce stores right across the city
What is being done in the area of food promotion and development? Looking at the varieties of foods that were exotic to us at one time, were not very common and we wouldn't know how to cook them and didn't have recipes for them
Hon. C. Evans: The ministry has tried to work at this particular issue from both sides. We have sent British Columbia food processors overseas to Japan, Hong Kong and Korea, to learn from the suppliers of food that people in British Columbia are buying from other countries how to replicate their overseas processing facilities so that we can process the food here. Meanwhile, we are also engaging those very same ethnic restaurateurs that the member is talking about in the Buy B.C. program so that they are engaged in acquiring produce in British Columbia that is available here, wherever possible, and then promoting that to their customer group.
I want to put in a plug for the agricultural land reserve, especially in terms of the feeding of the Vancouver speciality food market. I visited some really tiny farms in the Burnaby area which are growing speciality foods almost solely for ethnic markets, and are making a good living. They are only able to do so because about 30 years ago the land they are presently on was frozen, so the factory expansion didn't take place. I was told by the operators of those farms that in the previous 30 years nobody made much money there. The agricultural land reserve was pretty much seen as an offence and in the way -- a problem. But now the fact that there is soil surrounded by a marketplace -- a million and a half people who want to buy the stuff they can grow -- it's actually beginning to work for the very first time. I think it's a tremendous opportunity. Tied to the availability of land in the lower mainland and the length of the growing season, that new market ought to create opportunities that we never dreamed of when we created the land reserve in the first place.
V. Anderson: I appreciate the comments of the minister, because I think it's important that we see our multiculture in the broadest perspective -- not just how we understand each other, with our customs, traditions and languages, but that we also understand the different values, traditions and economic realities that others have brought that we can share. We support that and encourage it. So I thank the minister, and I will look forward to getting a copy of the new plan.
F. Gingell: I was very pleased to hear that the Minister of Agriculture visited sunny Delta earlier this year. If I had known he was coming I would have been pleased to have welcomed him, but that was not to be.
I understand that during that visit the minister took the opportunity and made himself available to have a discussion about the Roberts Bank backup land -- the land that was expropriated from Delta farmers some 30 years ago and that has been the subject of much discussion, much negotiation
[ Page 4073 ]
and many, many questions from the member for Delta South over the last six years. I was wondering if the minister has any news he would like to share or anything he can tell the committee about the government's position on this issue.
Hon. C. Evans: I have no news to share, but I will say something about the government's position on the issue. I believe that the present system of land tenure doesn't work, and I will work as hard as I can to find a more suitable tenure arrangement for the backup lands.
F. Gingell: I am really pleased to hear that the minister does make the commitment to look at alternatives to the current situation. I'd like to take this opportunity, if I may, to offer the minister counsel. I'd be happy to meet with him and discuss the issue.
It is an issue that has taken up a great deal of time for people in the farming community of Delta South, and they have not been backward to me -- as they've not been to you -- in making their concerns and feelings about the issue known. I think there are some sensible solutions that look after the interests of the original farmers and their heirs who are still farming that land -- whose position may be somewhat different from the remaining land.
I've been encouraged over the last two or three years
Hon. C. Evans: I would agree with you that there is some urgency, and I would appreciate your counsel. So I accept
J. van Dongen: I'm going to get back to the issue of fisheries. I do so somewhat gingerly because of all the activity in the fishing sector and negotiations with the federal government and the United States in terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, and a fair degree of speculation, I think, in the media about how fisheries may be organized. So I just want to get back to it.
I trust that the minister had a fair bit of discussion with the member for Powell River-Sunshine Coast with regard to aquaculture and the shellfish sector.
I want to start out by asking the minister if he has a good set of numbers in terms of an estimate of the impact on the economy of the whole fishing sector or industry. I'm thinking particularly of the impact, the landed value, of aquaculture on the commercial fishery -- I think there's a fairly clear figure available for that -- and the impact on the sport fishing sector. I ask the question because there've been some numbers floated around in the media, and there's been some debate about what the accurate numbers are in terms of the impact on the whole fishing sector. So perhaps we could start out with that.
Hon. C. Evans: I can give you the numbers, but I'm not going to help with the debate at all. Between '93 and '95 the numbers suggest that the wholesale value of the commercial harvest was $400 million a year. Figures suggest that the gross total of expenditures in recreational fishing is $1.2 billion annually.
I don't think, however, that the numbers that I just read out -- which, by the way, come from the public document "The B.C. Fisheries Strategy" -- answer the questions the hon. member is raising, or address the debate. There are different arguments about the correct way to compute the numbers for a commercial industry and the numbers for a sport industry, in some way that you can compare them. There are also people who want to go through the same exercise for the farmed-fish industry, and there are people who want to go through the same exercise even for the food fishery of first nations people. Quite frankly, in my less pleasant moments, I think: "A pox on all their houses." I don't think that it ought to be a debate answerable by who spends the most amount of money, or something like that.
[5:00]
When the new institutions -- like the ministers' advisory committee that the federal and provincial ministers are about to put in place -- are established and functioning, I think some kind of research will have to be undertaken that allows us to answer these questions with some kind of comparable figures. I would just caution that the objective of such an exercise must not be to say one fishery is more important to us than another fishery, because that makes for lousy public policy.J. van Dongen: Certainly it wasn't my intent to pit one sector, such as the commercial sector, against sport or aquaculture. I asked the question from the perspective of the total impact of the sector within the economy. I ask the question simply because there have been questions about the level of provincial involvement in that industry, given the scale of it. One individual said that the impact on the total economy in British Columbia is less than 1 percent, and somebody else said it's 3 to 5 percent. So I think it would be useful to attempt to get some better sense of what the impact on the economy is, in total. I did have the numbers that the minister cited.
In terms of the actual operations of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, could the minister confirm that -- historically and to this point in time -- the activities have centred mainly around the commercial sector and the aquaculture sector? Am I correct in my understanding that the ministry mainly deals with licensing issues for aquaculture, and quality control?
Hon. C. Evans: The answer to your last question is yes.
J. van Dongen: Has there been any attempt to this point to including the sport fishing sector in the activities of the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries in any concrete way?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we have appointed an MLA, Evelyn Gillespie, to be the government spokesperson or agent to help the sport sector speak with one voice to government. Historically, it's been a bit fractured -- some to my ministry, some to the Ministry of Environment and some to the Ministry of Small Business -- because all those ministries are engaged in dialogue. And the sport folks have said to us: "Hey, you know, we don't really know where we fit in here, so give us somebody
[ Page 4074 ]
to talk to." All of those three ministers are attempting to use Evelyn Gillespie as an adviser to us so that we can begin to focus our thinking about the sport industry.
I think that historically both the provincial and the federal governments have tended to treat that industry with a bit of arrogance. The federal government would change the catch limits without any discussion and after they had issued their brochures for the year. Then the provincial government would criticize the federal government, and the next year we'd change the fees on the same timetable. So the need for figuring out a different way to relate to the sport industry is at least obvious by virtue of our historical errors.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the role for the member from Comox, she's acting as an adviser to the three ministers involved. But as I understand it, she will also be working with the industry to do some sort of strategic plan. Is that correct?
Hon. C. Evans: You're right. The member from Comox is leading the provincial team that is negotiating a plan with the industry as to where the industry wishes to go in relationship to government.
J. van Dongen: That would be a wide-open thing in terms of how the industry could respond to the government. They could talk about the kind of support they want; they could talk about which ministry they want to be in. Is it basically a wide-open, free-ranging discussion with a report with recommendations to government?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, actually. The member is correct. It is pretty open-ended, although I hope that because both government and the industry are working on it together it will be more focused than simply broad-based recommendations. I hope that they're working towards an understanding as they're producing the plan. In this case the sport sector includes not only those people who have great big lodges and attract visitors, say, from Europe, but those folks with very small operations -- a boat in Port Alberni making a few dollars in the industry -- and the recreational sector, like those conservation groups who are not at any level into this as a business but are simply interested in being able to catch and look after fish. So the sport sector itself has to go through a whole process of definition and finding allies and figuring out what they have in common.
J. van Dongen: Just to confirm with the minister, will this committee or this process end up submitting a written report, and will there be a deadline on the report?
Hon. C. Evans: The process is beginning now. The report is due back to the ministers at the end of October, and you will see it after the ministers see it. It will be up to the ministers to decide whether it's in a form and makes recommendations that we would like to share with you. It's not like it's being written for the broadest public dissemination; it is our hope that we can share it with everybody after we get it.
J. van Dongen: Have the various stakeholders in the sport fishing sector bought into the process, and are they working with the chair on it?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that, and I do hope that the report is made public, because if the process works well it will have a useful result. I'm certainly hopeful that whatever results from the process, one of the things is the recognition of the sport fishing sector as a revenue-generating commercial sector along with the commercial fishery and the aquaculture industry.
Now, on aquaculture. I know this may have been canvassed by a previous member. I just want to ask the minister what is intended in terms of the process. Would the minister just set out for me the process in terms of the environmental review? We've gone through a whole lot of the review; there's a technical report that's finished. Perhaps the minister could just tell me the status of the review and what the steps are from here on in.
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. C. Evans: The public part of the review is finished, the technical review is finished, and the recommendations and the final report are presently being written by the EA office. We expect it by the first of next month for consideration by the ministers and the general public.
J. van Dongen: It seems to be fairly clear from recent events and recent discussions with the salmon farmers that there isn't going to be consensus. I wonder if the minister has any comment as to how the government deals with the fact that not everybody is going to agree, despite the technical reports that appear to indicate that salmon farming is compatible with good environmental management.
Hon. C. Evans: I don't think the EA review process was intended to build consensus; it was to answer issues of science about
J. van Dongen: That is probably as much as we can say about that subject. Certainly there will probably be some difficult decisions to be made. From my perspective, I think what's important in observing that industry is that we try to come to some finality. I realize that that never happens. There will continue to be ongoing discussion, and that is not inappropriate, either. But in terms of the industry itself, they've been under a moratorium for quite a few years now. They have done a good job and are anxious to get on with the process of trying to grow that industry and prove its performance within the economy.
I want to ask a few questions out of the annual report. On page 16, it talks about seafood industry development and about a diversification memorandum of understanding being signed with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. I wonder if the minister could describe that MOU, what it is intended to do and whether it is achieving those results.
[5:15]
Hon. C. Evans: The purpose of the MOU is to facilitate a regulatory and research regime between the province and the[ Page 4075 ]
federal government that encourages people to develop new fisheries that hadn't existed before. The MOU creates a relationship between the province and the federal government. Instead of saying, "Well, let's go fight over jurisdiction," we say: "What can we bring to the table to make it easier to diversify the industry?" By the end of this year alone, as a result of the MOU, we expect to have put four new fisheries on the water. The two most successful are Tanner crabs and the squid fishery, which most people have heard about already.
J. van Dongen: So the role of the ministry, and what the province brings to the process, is basically staff time and expertise on the production side and/or marketing side.
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, we have also put in a little bit of funding into kind of assisting people with research projects. But in the main, staff time and the attitude of entrepreneurialism
J. van Dongen: Further down the page, it talks about the ministry issuing aquaculture licences for four new species. I'm wondering what's involved in those licences. Is that strictly a licence for them to operate? Are there any sort of tenure implications for those licences?
Hon. C. Evans: The four species are: scallops, geoducks, abalone and sablefish. Yes, they all have to have a tenure. They have to have negotiated some form of tenure before they get a licence.
J. van Dongen: So they have to have a tenure in place, and that requirement is something separate and apart from these licences?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Now, are there new tenures available for these species? Or are there only existing tenures of a general nature available?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes. The moratorium presently applies only to salmon.
J. van Dongen: So the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks is cooperating and has issued new tenures for this type of production?
Hon. C. Evans: The last auction for tenures was in February, and 11 new tenures were established. The next auction is scheduled for November.
J. van Dongen: So if someone wants to get into one of these new species, do they actually have the option of identifying a site and then bidding on that site? Or do they basically have to rely on the people in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks to identify possible sites for this type of production?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, new tenures can be issued. But in the main, expansion is happening by virtue of diversification because the people who already have an existing tenure wish to try out other species on their tenure. It's the diversification that's driving the industry, not new entrants.
J. van Dongen: I note on page 18 that there's reference to a process being developed to auction shellfish tenures. Is that something unique to the shellfish industry? Or are we talking about the same process with respect to salmon farmers -- if they could get tenures -- shellfish and these other even more exotic species? Is it the same process all the time?
Hon. C. Evans: Well, there's a moratorium in place on salmon, so there is no new tenure being issued. If the moratorium were to be lifted, I'm not sure how the Ministry of Lands would issue the tenure. At present their preferred method of issuing tenure is by auction.
J. van Dongen: I guess my question is: when a tenure is auctioned, is it specific to a certain species, to a certain use? Or if someone has what we generally describe as a tenure on a specific piece of water and property, are they free to grow any species of fish or shellfish on that site?
Hon. C. Evans: Historically, the sites usually get either a salmon lease or a shellfish lease, and then they can operate. They can use the site for the product they think is most suitable to the site or to the marketplace.
J. van Dongen: On another subject, is the Fish Processing Strategic Task Force still in operation? And who is on it?
Hon. C. Evans: No, that group was put together to write a report, which was done in 1994. It doesn't exist anymore.
J. van Dongen: Am I correct in my understanding that the recommendations of the report were enacted and that there was some sort of industry process put in place in terms of dealing with pricing of fish and that sort of thing?
Hon. C. Evans: Yes, the recommendations are continuing to be implemented, and there are a couple of recommendations that are ongoing. The first is a sector council, where labour and management have ongoing dialogue rather than only at bargaining time, attempting to come up with issues they have in common and issues they can undertake to build the industry. The second is mediation, which is once again being engaged in as we speak.
J. van Dongen: So this sector council negotiates price. Is it a process that basically establishes a price for the whole of the industry as a result of this mediation or just for a certain group of fishermen dealing with certain large packers?
Hon. C. Evans: No, the sector council deals with other issues, like education and training and workforce development and stuff like that. It is not engaged in setting price.
J. van Dongen: Is there an agency representing fishermen engaged in negotiating price? I guess that's not
Hon. C. Evans: The Fisheries Council negotiates the price of fish with the Native Brotherhood and the union.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the B.C. fisheries secretariat -- and I know that's not directly part of this ministry, but I gather there's a "dotted line" relationship with the minister, something like that -- it was established in the summer of 1996. I'm wondering if the minister can make any comments about the
[ Page 4076 ]
future of that agency. As I understood it, it was established to negotiate, mainly with the federal government, a new arrangement between the province and the federal government. So I'm wondering if the minister could tell me whether there is any plan at this point in terms of the future of that agency.
Hon. C. Evans: Furious lobbying here -- people trying to get me to say on the record that they did a good job. But I'm not going to buckle under. Yes, you're right, that was the job: to negotiate with the federal government, primarily. Given that we accomplished something no one has ever done before, they must have done a pretty good job. The money runs out in July, so they will definitely have to go somewhere.
[5:30]
J. van Dongen: When I look at the Canada-British Columbia agreement on the management of the Pacific salmon fishery and when I look at the strategy document, it appears to me that there's as much work to be done in the future as has been done in the past year in terms of negotiations with the federal government. I'm wondering if that unit will be the people who carry on those negotiations.Hon. C. Evans: Firstly, I want to agree with the member that the work in the future seriously exceeds the work done in the past. The secretariat, as it winds up its activities, is right now working with this ministry and Environment to make a work plan for how we're going to live up to our parts of the obligations with the federal government. I can't actually say who's going to deliver which sections of it until we get that done and agreed to by the various ministries.
J. van Dongen: Just a general question on the strategy. It's a pretty comprehensive document that certainly sets out a lot of the history and all of the issues. I would have thought at this stage, after all the consultation that has taken place, that there would have been a bit more of a definite idea in terms of how the fishery would be organized or how the provincial government's role would be organized in that. I am referring, for example, to this business of whether we have it in one ministry or three ministries and whatever the agencies are that are involved. From media reports it sounds like there may have been some work done on that, and we'll hear about that in the fullness of time. This is a discussion paper. It's gone out; there's a deadline on it. What happens after all the public input comes together on this? Who is going to take the lead on that?
Hon. C. Evans: Well, the Premier will always take the lead on how our government organizes itself, and the minister responsible will deliver the initiative.
J. van Dongen: I certainly didn't expect the minister to pre-empt the Premier, but I wanted to give him the opportunity, anyway.
One specific question: how will the fisheries renewal advisory board -- which is established under this agreement, if I'm correct -- relate to the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal B.C.? My understanding is that the advisory board will be a stakeholder board which will be involved in negotiating issues in this agreement and making recommendations. How will that connect with the actual board of directors?
Hon. C. Evans: The member can be excused for being confused; it is pretty confusing. One is a federal-provincial agency attempting to coordinate all investment, provincial and federal, in the renewal of the fishery expenditures by DFO and the province. The board of directors of Fisheries Renewal is a provincial government initiative -- sadly, because it has no federal funding in it -- so it will deliver the $22 million that has been announced as its envelope. Someday, when the federal government wakes up and smells the coffee, they'll join Fisheries Renewal B.C., too, and we won't have the need for so many organizations.
J. van Dongen: So then at this point, assuming no federal involvement in Fisheries Renewal B.C., the advisory board will continue on permanently, for all intents and purposes. I thank you for that response.
I'm wondering if the ministry has available, or could make available to me, some detail on the information in the booklet here that refers to the increase in spending by the province on fish and fish habitat. It talks about an increase from $23 million a year to $103 million in 1996-97. I'm wondering if there's any detail, particularly on the makeup of the $103 million.
Hon. C. Evans: We don't have it either, and we'll get it to you.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the $7.7 million that's slated in this proposal for community initiatives, are those dollars actually committed at this point, or are they still subject to negotiation with the federal government? I know that the federal government was looking for matching dollars for its $7.7 million, and I know that the province wasn't interested in matching that directly. Maybe the minister could just update me as to what the status of that $7.7 million is -- the provincial portion of it.
Hon. C. Evans: This question, like some of the previous ones -- but this one more specifically than the rest of them, I think -- is dependent upon passing Bill 19, because we don't have such a thing as the fisheries renewal board. In answer to the hon. member's question: yes, it's real money; $7.7 million will actually get spent. It's not dependent on any federal contribution. We're actually going to do it. But I can't say that, because they haven't passed the law yet.
Interjection.
Hon. C. Evans: He's probably saying I'm not allowed to. So maybe we could just not ask those kinds of questions until we pass the law, or ask me those questions while we debate the law.
J. van Dongen: The minister is right. I try to be sensitive to issues that are in front of the Legislature, and that involves half of this stuff. So the minister had that organized rather well.
This strategy document talks about moving existing programs into a new coordinated program mechanism. Is that also part of Bill 19? If it is, the minister doesn't need to answer; if it isn't, maybe the minister could enlighten me as to what's being contemplated there.
Hon. C. Evans: It's an attempt to function better, federally and provincially. For example, we desire to stop replicating the environmental review by DFO and environmental review by Ministry of Environment when it has to do
[ Page 4077 ]
with fish. We desire to stop making people buy two different kinds of fishing licences. We desire to stop having federal regulators come out and look at the land from DFO's standpoint, and then the Ministry of Environment, the Ministry of Forests and the ministry of mines come out and interpret the provincial rules. So the federal and provincial coordination has to change and is the subject of ongoing negotiations, which will evolve over the next few years, I'm sure.
There is also the province's need to reduce duplication. And those are negotiations between ministries, where we have to figure out a way to have this ministry and the Ministry of Environment end this historical relationship that they've had as one of them being the proponent of making money and the other one being the proponent of saving the Earth. Then they would go fight it out, and there would be gladiators and winners and losers -- it's nonsense. So we're going to try to figure out a way to make it work at this level, too.
J. van Dongen: One of the concepts that the province has, in terms of the whole organization of the fishing industry, is to try to establish stakeholder involvement in a consultative process. To date, the example of that is the Skeena Watershed Committee, and recently there has been some breakdown in the operation of that committee. I wonder if the minister could tell us what the involvement of the ministry has been in that committee in Prince Rupert.
The Chair: Minister -- noting the hour.
Hon. C. Evans: Noting the hour
Along with the Ministry of Environment, this ministry has actually been at the table with the Skeena Watershed Committee all along. Following the breakdown, we have been working with the DFO and the stakeholders to try and come up with a fishing plan in the absence of a consensus process. And we expect a fishing plan to be released momentarily.
Now I don't really want to note the hour; I'd like to note all this amazing progress and the fact that we're done. So what do you say?
J. van Dongen: Yeah, I agree. I think I'm done. Maybe one or two questions, and then
The Chair: Think you can do it in five minutes?
Hon. C. Evans: Okay, go!
J. van Dongen: So the minister is optimistic that the Skeena Watershed Committee process is still working. There will be an announcement, and it will continue to work. Is the minister saying that the process is back on the rails? In other words, are the commercial fishermen back in as full partners working with the committee?
[5:45]
Hon. C. Evans: No, it's not back on the rails. The whole table is no longer functioning, but the province and the DFO are talking with each other. Then they're talking with conservation and native people, then they're talking with the commercial fleet, and then they're going back andJ. van Dongen: Just a quick question about
Hon. C. Evans: Mountain Springs Hatchery is not yet resolved. It remains in the you-have-to-figure-out-how-to-fix-this file, and I think about it all the time.
J. van Dongen: I think that concludes my questions of the minister.
Vote 11 approved.
Vote 12: ministry operations, $48,525,000 -- approved.
Vote 13: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission, $2,782,000 -- approved.
Vote 14: British Columbia Marketing Board, $781,000 -- approved.
Vote 15: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, $2,000,000 -- approved.
Hon. C. Evans: I'd like to move that we rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:48 p.m.