[ Page 4187 ]

The House resumed at 6:40 p.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In Committee A, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the main House, I call the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

The House in Committee of Supply B; G. Brewin in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

C. Hansen: Yesterday, when we were dealing with some of the issues around the economic development division, the B.C. Trade and Investment Office and other aspects of the ministry, I had pointed out that we were waiting for a copy of the business plans for those divisions. I mentioned at the time that I wanted to come back to several issues involving those particular divisions, partly because I didn't want to ask a whole bunch of questions that would be proven to be adequately covered.

I know there's always a question raised as to whether or not those kinds of documents produce more questions or less questions. I want to assure the minister that having the opportunity to read those documents last night certainly answered some of the questions that I had. As a result, this process will probably be quicker than it might have been otherwise. In addition, I think, it allows us to put some of our questions into a context of other things that the ministry is obviously working on. I think the questions could be much more relevant to the estimates that are before us.

I did raise the issue yesterday of a document entitled the "B.C. Jobs Strategy." I provided the minister with a copy of that document yesterday, and I want to start tonight by following up on that and asking the minister: what has been his ministry's involvement in the development of the strategy?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I think I did respond to that, but not in terms of naming every individual and the hours they've spent. Obviously, the ministry would be involved in the development of the strategy relative to the broader questions of the economy and employment.

C. Hansen: Could the minister tell us what the lead agency. . . ? I gather that his ministry may have had a role in the development of this. I guess what I was surprised to learn yesterday was that this in fact isn't a document produced by his ministry. I would have thought that when it came to jobs strategy, that would have been a document that would have come from the policy section within his ministry, given that it's the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I wonder if you could enlighten us on that.

[6:45]

C. Hansen: This is a document that we would like to ask some questions about, obviously. I think that it is our obligation to hold the government accountable for the objectives that are set out in that document. My question to the minister is: in terms of that kind of questioning, if we don't direct it to the Ministry of Employment and Investment, who do we direct it to? My sense is that the issues contained in here are appropriate questions for this ministry. Is that fair?

Hon. D. Miller: If the member has questions relative to industrial sectors, those kinds of issues, yes, certainly this is the forum to ask those questions.

C. Hansen: In this document they talk about the creation of an interministerial working group. There's also reference to cross-ministerial work on specific projects in this document. Could the minister advise us as to how this interministerial working group is comprised, who in fact chairs this committee or who plays lead on it?

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have the specific information relative to the identified names. Is that the member's question? Does he want to know the individuals in the respective ministries who are engaged in the task?

C. Hansen: I'd be interested in how this working group was established and not necessarily the names of the specific individuals. For example, is this at the public service level, is it at the ADM level, is it at the deputy minister level, is it a working group that involves ministers? I'd just like to get a better sense of what kind of a creature we're talking about when we're talking about an interministerial working group.

Hon. D. Miller: I'm having some difficulty following here. The government is engaged on a daily basis with issues. We undertake that work using staff of various ministries, from the deputy minister level down. There is a committee, as the member may be aware. If there are specific tasks that require involvement from more than one ministry, then people are assigned based on their position and their expertise. I'm not quite certain I understand where we're going here.

The main issue, it seems to me, is that the government is engaged in developing. . . . We have existing strategies for various sectors; we are engaged in the larger issue of a B.C. job strategy. That is important. I broadly outlined, at the outset of these estimates, the kind of fundamental issues that need to be addressed in any job strategy for B.C., so I'm not quite certain where we're going here.

C. Hansen: On page 3 of this particular document that I provided to the minister yesterday, it's fairly specific when it talks about the. . . . It says: "This comprises the first stage of the development and implementation of the jobs strategy. The first stage is intended to push development of projects that are planned. 

[ Page 4188 ]

The interministerial working group has met and discussed common themes." I'm trying to get an understanding from the minister as to what kind of interministerial working group we're talking about here.

Hon. D. Miller: I really think I've tried to answer. If the member has specific questions about who in the ministries are engaged, then I'll try to get those answers.

The primary issue is that the government is involved in the further development of a job strategy. We've identified some targets, for example, in the forest sector. We clearly have other sectors where government activity has led to increased economic activity and job creation. The knowledge-based, high-tech sector is one of those. We talked at length about the energy, mines and petroleum resource sectors. There are discrete sectors. We've talked very briefly about a kind of regional approach to that in terms of what we're planning for the north.

So a job strategy is not a single entity; it has to be overlaid with some primary elements -- we did discuss those in detail yesterday -- and individual work that must take place, depending on what the issue at hand is.

C. Hansen: I don't get the sense that we're making progress here. I certainly don't want to repeat the debate from yesterday afternoon. But there has been a real focus, I think, on the part of this government on the development of a job strategy. And as I outlined yesterday, I have over the past years tried to ascertain what constitutes the job strategy of this government.

In particular, as I discussed yesterday, a job strategy is something that is not just verbalized; it is not just something that everyone has a good feeling about. A job strategy is something that has to have some clear objectives, something that has to set out an action plan for completion, something that has some achievable components to it. I know we've gone into certain aspects of what the minister feels are components of this broad, vague jobs objective that the government has established, and certainly we've talked about and we'll talk more about things like the jobs and timber accord.

But in my search for a document that outlines what this government's strategy is when it comes to jobs, the closest thing that I have ever come to is a document titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," which, as I mentioned yesterday, has never been made public; it was a document that came to us through other routes. I was quite pleased to see it, because we finally had something on paper that has come from this government and sets out a B.C. job strategy.

I have some concerns about things that I think are lacking in this strategy that I would like to address. This minister indicated earlier tonight that it is in fact under these estimates that I should be raising these questions, and there are some very specific questions.

So for the Minister of Employment and Investment, I'm surprised that we don't have more information forthcoming as to how this job strategy is in fact going to be implemented -- how we are going to achieve what few objectives are set out in here. That's the context of my question when I ask about the makeup of an interministerial working group. Perhaps the minister could enlighten us.

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I did outline at some length in an opening statement yesterday the elements of an economic and job strategy. The member is aware that we have announced some specific or discrete elements of that with respect to the jobs and timber accord, which I mentioned, and the Guarantee for Youth, which I have touched on -- not in detail, because it's not under my portfolio. But I used that to illustrate the point that a job strategy is not something that is the exclusive purview of a single ministry. In fact, in our society many of these issues are interrelated, and the involvement of even social service ministries is important to provide a comprehensive strategy.

In areas where we thought it was appropriate, there are specific targets in terms of jobs established. In addition to the forestry and the youth that I mentioned, the Tourism B.C. target of 23,000 new jobs was also a target that was announced. I've gone on at length about some of the individual sectors in our economy and the work that we're doing to try to increase opportunities, expand economic opportunities, create more jobs.

We've spent the last two days discussing these questions -- in some cases in some detail -- and I suppose. . . . I'm not certain what more I can add there. If there are particular criticisms or questions of a more focused nature, then I will certainly try to get the answers here in the estimates.

C. Hansen: Maybe I can ask a very specific question of the minister. Is it the Minister of Employment and Investment who is driving the job strategy of this government?

Hon. D. Miller: The Premier is driving the job strategy of this government.

C. Hansen: In terms of this document, I guess my. . . . I asked earlier if the specifics in this document were appropriate for this estimates debate. The minister said they were. I do have some very specific questions, but when I got to my first specific question, we didn't get very far on it in terms of what the makeup of this interministerial working group is. As I mentioned earlier, this is certainly a document that we would like to get some more explanation of. So I'm assuming that. . . . Maybe I started off with the wrong question.

There is a reference in here to the development of a job strategy work plan. I'm wondering if the minister could explain to us what constitutes this work plan. Is it a public document -- something that the public could see -- so that we can see how this job strategy is going to evolve?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, hon. Chair, I think the government has to communicate to the public its priorities. That's been done, and the priorities of this government are primarily focused in terms of job creation and economic expansion. We've talked about a lot of the elements of that in some detail. I don't know that it's much of a mystery, quite frankly. I think the member is perhaps focusing on a piece of paper, but the elements are there, and they're very clear and very plain. If there are particular issues or questions that arise as a result of any one of those elements, then our obligation is certainly to try to answer questions. But I'm genuinely a bit baffled here in terms of this focus on a piece of paper.

We do lots of work in-house. Presumably and rationally, when the issue is more pertinent to a particular ministry, you find that ministry may play, in terms of that work between officials, a more predominant role. Overall, the ability to coordinate the work across government is an important issue; you can't have ministries working in isolation from each other.

And I've mentioned the specific targets we've set in some ministries: the youth, the tourism, the forestry. In our discussions 

[ Page 4189 ]

earlier I've mentioned our focus on the energy, mines and petroleum sector. We will talk at some length -- I've touched on that -- about technology, the knowledge-based sector, and there are others. I talked about our broader strategies of investing in infrastructure as a primary and necessary component. I've talked about our strategy of investing in people -- making sure that our people have the kinds of skills that match the kinds of industries that are emerging as part of a component of growth in our province. I've talked about the fiscal position of the government in terms of producing balanced budgets.

Really, in the day and a half we've been at this, I think I've dealt with most of those issues in a fairly substantive way. They comprise a broad-based strategy to increase the number of jobs available in this province and to build sectors in this province where there is an opportunity for growth. I think we've done that in a fairly open way, and I've tried to answer the questions.

Now, if the member thinks I. . . . If you want the names of every official who has ever met, when and who was at the meeting and what they talked about, I'd be at a bit of a loss to try to supply that. So if there are specific questions about any of the sectors in our province, about the policies that we have relative to those, we should try to deal with those.

[7:00]

Throughout the estimates debates a year ago in this House, I specifically asked about a job strategy: where is this document? Where are the objectives that we can hold this government accountable for in achieving specific goals when it comes to creating jobs for British Columbians? I was at a loss to find any evidence that there was a plan. Even in the budget that was brought down by the current Finance minister on June 26, 1996, it talks about a job strategy, and we never saw it. Throughout the course of the estimates last year I tried to determine what this job strategy was. Where is the document? What can I ask for? Is it something I can get through freedom of information?

I found out last year that there was no document, because there was no strategy and there was no plan, other than specific items that were not linked together. In fact, a communications document came out of the Ministry of Employment and Investment in the fall of 1995 that basically said there was no job strategy. They described it, I believe, as a hanger with no clothes on it. It was something that was not linked together. There was a whole bunch of isolated projects that were not linked together.

I don't want to revisit a two-year-old communications plan. In fact, I didn't even bring that file with me tonight, because I didn't think it would be relevant. But the fact of the matter is that we are here. The problem that there was no job strategy was identified two years ago; there was no plan. There was a whole bunch of projects. There was a whole bunch of things in the minister's head. Perhaps the Finance minister has a different idea as to what a job strategy constitutes. Perhaps the Premier has a different idea as to what a job strategy constitutes. But that is not something that we, on behalf of the public in our role as official opposition, can hold this government accountable for.

If you wind up with a job strategy that is on paper -- something that has achievable targets, something based on realistic assumptions in terms of the current environment that we're dealing with, that looks at the specific problems we have in this economy when it comes to job creation and comes up with realistic solutions to deal with it -- then we have an opportunity to look at that document and start to say: "Is this realistic? Is the money that is being asked for from the taxpayers to fund this ministry being well spent in achieving jobs for British Columbians?"

It's not something that's going to come out of the minister's head as he pieces together a bunch of specific projects. As I said the other day, these are micromanaged projects. This is not a broad vision for the economy or a realistic strategy that's going to result in a rejuvenated economy in this province; rather, it's a whole bunch of isolated projects that we see today. As that communications document from two years ago said, it's a whole bunch of isolated projects that are not linked together to form a job strategy.

[J. Doyle in the chair.]

That's why I'm hung up on a document, because this is the first document that we have been able to identify. Perhaps there are others out there that we don't know about yet, but they're certainly not in the public realm. This is the first document that we have identified that is titled "B.C. Jobs Strategy." This is the document that I would like to hold this minister accountable for in terms of creating realistic jobs for British Columbians.

I would like to challenge the assumptions in this document. I would like to challenge the fact that there are no clearly identified objectives in this document, so that we can come up with something a year from now, so we can do our job as official opposition and hold this government accountable for spending the taxpayers' money wisely in the Ministry of Employment and Investment in achieving something that's going to result in jobs in British Columbia -- not jobs in a particular company or not some grandiose idea of 21,000 jobs in a jobs and timber accord, which is a total of a whole bunch of specific, isolated job creation examples, but rather an expansion of jobs in the entire economy. I would like to go through this document and make sure that this minister is prepared to implement a strategy that's going to have realistic objectives.

I come back to this. My question is: when it comes to a job strategy for British Columbia, should I be directing these questions to the Minister of Employment and Investment, or should I be directing these questions to the Premier?

Hon. D. Miller: With all due respect, you can direct them wherever you want. I was delighted to touch on some of the issues that the member raised in his little discussion. I was very pleased to listen to the opposition mining critic suggest that the budget cuts had been too severe in that portion of the ministry, and I certainly appreciate the kind of support in the mining sector from the critic opposite. In fact, his tone has seemed to be somewhat sympathetic to the deep budget cuts made to this ministry.

In his discussion, the member talked about wanting to see targets. Where we have developed targets -- for example, 

[ Page 4190 ]

in forestry -- he derides those targets. The only thing that's become clear in any of the discussions I've ever engaged in with the opposition -- the only one crystal-clear fact that's ever, it seems to me, become abundantly clear -- is that there's a fundamental disagreement between our two parties in terms of an approach to the economy. It was the issue that was very defined during the last election. It defined for British Columbians, in stark contrast, the difference between our two parties. On the one hand, we had a party, your own -- with all due respect, this is a place to engage in some debate -- that proposed that the solution for our economy was deep tax cuts to business, elimination of the corporation capital tax, cutting $3 billion out of government spending, and somehow that was a solution to our economic issues. That's the kind of detail that was displayed in that debate in front of the public of British Columbia. Quite frankly, the public chose. So it seems to me there has been somewhat of a rejection of that approach.

I notice that one of the comments made over the weekend by my hon. critic opposite, relative to issues around the economy and employment, was to restate the belief of the party opposite that the solution for British Columbians was to cut taxes for very large corporations, and somehow the free market economy would take care of everybody. There is a fundamental difference, and it's clear, in terms of that difference. . . .

I have talked at length in this day and a half of estimates about the fundamental elements: first of all, the broad elements of an economic strategy -- let's say economic strategy rather than just job strategy. I've talked about the issue of making sure your fiscal house is in order. I've talked about the issue of investing in infrastructure and some of the challenges there. We had some discussion around the issue of how P3s might be utilized to deal with the fiscal challenges on the capital side. I've talked about investing in skills and training so that we can use that as a comparative advantage in terms of growing certain sectors of our economy. I've talked about all of these things. Those elements comprise a broadly based strategy to create new jobs in this province, and to grow particular sectors of this province.

It seems to me that if you put that together, it is very all-encompassing with respect to the economic questions and issues that we face in this province. There is absolutely no mystery about it. The fact that the member doesn't have it written down is not my problem. If he can't grasp those essential elements, perhaps he ought to look elsewhere. So if there are particular questions or criticisms about those elements, I'd be happy to try to discuss them.

Focusing on this job paper and document that he has in front of him, I suspect there's another agenda. But I can only try to answer specific questions, and I'm trying my best to do that. We've answered them. I'm starting to bore myself, I'm getting so repetitious. I'd say we could be more productive here, but the choice is not mine.

C. Hansen: I guess the one aspect of it that has been quite repetitious over the last year is the minister trying to redefine the B.C. Liberals' policies during the last election campaign. We constantly see that repetition in these debates, time and time again. To talk about $3 billion of cuts to government, for example, is a total. . . . There's a word I'm not allowed to use -- I'm sorry. Misrepresentation is a good word. If this government had followed its debt management plan, as was set out, they would have been cutting government spending by $2.4 billion over the same period of time. We looked at a spending cut that would basically be largely absorbed by downsizing government, relative to the size of the economy, over a period of years. I know the minister conveniently ignores that.

I'm not sure how far I can get with this particular document, because it's obvious that there are some issues the minister may not be prepared to get into specifics on. But frankly, I would have thought the minister would have been more forthcoming in specifics on something that is so directly relevant to his ministry.

Some of the things they talk about in this document -- if I can just outline a few of them, because I think they are relevant for this discussion. . . . They talk about several common ideas that emerge. One of them is creating a stable investment climate. I think that's an area that has had some difficulty, as we canvassed to a certain extent yesterday. Perhaps, if I zero in on this area in particular, the minister may be able to enlighten us. Could the minister give us some sense of how we could start to create a stable economic climate, which is seen as one of the objectives in this document?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and I think that is an important issue, in fact. I'll briefly touch on a couple of issues. One is a particularly important sector: the mining sector. I think it's important that we improve that climate. It starts with relationship; and I did cite the fact that I was pleased to increasingly see comments from the mining sector that display some positive statements about the relationship with government. I've mentioned the Mining Association -- Mr. Livingstone -- and the president of Placer Dome, John Willson, saying that the climate is improving for mining. Hopefully, we build on that relationship. I've talked about these elements in that sector, and that it's seen as a more friendly place for capital investment. Following the announcement of the Minister of Forests yesterday, with respect to the changes in the Forest Practices Code, I was pleased to see a senior official from Interfor talk in a very positive way about the benefits of these changes to the investment climate in British Columbia.

The Premier has been very aggressive in terms of defending British Columbia's interests in a major part of our economy: the fishery. In that regard, at a rally in Vancouver the other day I noticed diverse interests who are not normally associated with the government standing up and saying very positive things. In fact, a very prominent member of the federal Liberal party here on Vancouver Island -- who I know very well -- was part of those speakers on the stage, who supported the government and their efforts to protect and enhance the fishery here in the province.

So there's lots of evidence accumulating more and more, and quite frankly, I'm fairly pleased at some of that. I think all of that goes towards building a better business climate. Hopefully, the results of that will be significantly more investment, particularly in those sectors where we have specific targets. But beyond that, in a general sense, where people look at the opportunities that exist in British Columbia, we've had lots of evidence that things are indeed improving in that regard.

C. Hansen: Under a section of this jobs strategy, titled "Structures and Themes," there is a recommendation -- a staff recommendation, I gather. It says: "Staff would recommend that further creative and focus group work be carried out around the following key ideas for the strategy intended to convey a sense of confidence in the future." I'm wondering if the minister could advise us which part of government would be undertaking that kind of focus group work.

[7:15]

[ Page 4191 ]

kind of activity. But that's not limited, because there are other initiatives. I talked about the northern strategy, for example. It seems to me that's a general kind of approach to what. . . . I think this is actually very important: trying to reach out to your citizens. It's important that you do that in ways so that you can understand the feelings and opinions of British Columbia citizens, and understand what their thoughts are about how we ought to be able to improve things here. I suppose that in some sense one could interpret that as a little more modern approach to consultation on some specific issues.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could tell us how his ministry is involved in developing these focus groups, and perhaps the kind of questions that go into it, the kind of input that may come out, and what will happen to that input.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I don't really have any information in that regard.

C. Hansen: The subject areas that are being covered here are pretty germane to this minister's responsibilities to this House. The areas that are going to be covered by this focus group, for example, are under the title of "Building for the Future -- Building Your Future (Jobs Plus)". "Addressing the economic uncertainties faced by young people under 30" it talks about the key audience that these focus groups would be seeking out. "Improving the quality of working life in the changing economy" talks about the key audience being working families. "Building on strengths in the economy in partnership with the private sector" includes regional and sectoral strategies. These are all subject areas which are obviously very specific to this minister's responsibility. I find it surprising that his ministry isn't more involved in developing this work, whether it's focus groups or any other work. I would think that this is something that would be very specific to this ministry's involvement. My question is: does the minister feel that the involvement of his ministry is adequate when it comes to developing these kinds of inputs to government policy?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

C. Hansen: I've had reason to talk to the officials in this ministry over the past year since I've taken on this critic responsibility. I must say to the minister that I have developed a great respect for the professionalism that is in his ministry, the expertise that is there when it comes to economic development and policy development work. I get the sense, in terms of the responses I've got to these questions, that the ministry is not involved in the development of this work. I'm surprised that the minister feels that his staff is adequately involved in this process, because I get the sense that they are not involved. And if that's the case, there is a wealth of talent that is being overlooked. There is obviously a body somewhere in government that is proceeding with a lot of this work that is not calling upon some of the professional, independent, qualified expertise that we have in the public service of this province. I'm wondering if the minister feels that there may be an opportunity in the future for them to become more involved in this policy development work.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I indicated that they were, and I was satisfied with that involvement.

C. Hansen: So far, I don't get a sense that the ministry is involved at all. From the answer to my questions, my read is that the ministry is not involved. In fact, the sense I'm getting is that the minister is not involved as this policy work is developed. Job strategy is something that should be front and centre in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. And I am surprised to hear that the minister is satisfied that it's okay that someone out there is developing a job strategy, a policy for job development in this province, that he is not involved in, because he's never seen this document before. His ministry is not involved in it, in spite of the expertise they have in this ministry, and if you read the mandate of this ministry, this is what this ministry is all about. So who is usurping the responsibilities and the obligations of this ministry and the professionals who are working in it?

Hon. D. Miller: One of the dangers of developing a thesis and then setting out to prove that it's right, hon. Chair, is that quite often you end up with a dead-end trail, and I think that's where the member is right now.

C. Hansen: I do have a thesis, and I asked the minister to disprove it. The minister has not disproven it. So I can only assume that we have something here called a job strategy in this province, we have a ministry called the Ministry of Employment and Investment, and the Minister of Employment and Investment is not involved with developing this strategy.

You know, this whole process of estimates is for this chamber to give approval -- to give consent on behalf of the taxpayers -- for the spending of this ministry. And here we have a fundamental piece of policy work being developed by this government, and we don't know who's developing it. We find out that it is not this minister and that it is not this ministry. I would like to ask the minister: why should this chamber approve the spending estimates that have been asked for in this estimates document, if this ministry is not even involved in some of the most fundamental job strategy work that this government is doing?

Hon. D. Miller: Those questions will have to be answered by those who. . . . That's what this chamber is for. People sometimes arrive with preconceived notions and don't shake them at all.

I am just reviewing again this brief publication that came into my hands today from my parliamentary secretary. It's a May publication of a report on B.C. politics. As I thumb through it, I see an article on the mining industry, then working on jobs projects. I look over and see an article or two on the work of the government in terms of developing new employment opportunities and investment in the forest sector -- a timber accord, a draft call for job quotas, which the member has derided. I keep turning the pages and see Fisheries Renewal, a $7 million habitat start. I see some very glowing articles on the Premier's engagement on the salmon issue. To quote briefly from one article: "Premier Glen Clark Is Waging the Salmon War Well." I don't disagree; I think he's doing an outstanding job. We have a little article on U.S. retaliation.

We go over the page. We see the Quintette-Bullmoose agreement has been renewed. If you think that people in my ministry weren't seriously engaged in that, you don't understand what's going on. We see an article on an Elk Falls power plant, a $225 million project here on Vancouver Island, an independent power project creating jobs. We see an article citing myself in terms of transportation and the issues of northern development. We see an article about how B.C. and Alberta are getting together to deal with transportation. 

[ Page 4192 ]

We see another article on developing jobs in the mining sector. We see an article on the province backing Avcorp for aerospace growth and moving from 375 to 600 jobs. It's an outstanding British Columbia company, which I know the member from Richmond strongly supports. We see an article on the trucking industry freed from regulation.

I would say that here's one publication, and all it can talk about is the economic strategy of this government.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm glad. I'll copy it. In fact, I was thinking of sending it out in my constituency.

So I don't know. I think the member's words ring a bit hollow. Everything is being engaged in terms of the economic future and job creation in this province, everything we do -- and we're doing a good job of it, too. And this ministry has taken a big financial cut in the budget. Despite that, we're forging ahead, and I think we're making very real progress.

C. Hansen: I guess what that interjection boils down to is that the entire job strategy is contained in a newsletter put out by Andrew Lynch. Is that a reasonable summary? It's a good newsletter, but I'm surprised to see that the minister is holding it up as an example of the job strategy in this province. I also noticed that the minister conveniently decided to omit references to a few articles in there which he may not want to be circulating to his riding.

But, hon. Chair, it reminds me of the saying: "If you don't know where you're going, any road will lead you there." I think that sums up where this government is going with the job strategy, because clearly they have a whole bunch of projects that are underway. Maybe some of those projects are good, and some not so good. We certainly have criticisms for some, and we're going to have a lot more criticisms for some. But if this isn't knit together in a document that is really setting out a program, an agenda, what this boils down to. . .which, I think, is a sad commentary on this government.

This government is a government that has put itself forward as the champion of jobs in this province. What the debate yesterday and today shows is that this government does not have an agenda for jobs. They have a whole bunch of isolated little examples of things they're doing here and there. They're beating up on the CEOs in the forest sector, telling them that they've got to create some jobs or else. They're running around trying to create 12 jobs. I get press releases out from various ministries, and they say that because there's a new allowable cut of a few thousand cubic metres of wood, 12 jobs are created -- you know, that's a headline. They put out a press release with a headline: "New Forest Licence Creates 12 Jobs."

Well, hon. Chair, there are 180,000 unemployed in British Columbia today. We have more unemployed today than when he became the Minister of Employment and Investment. We have more unemployed today than when this party took office in 1991. Yet this is the party that puts itself forward as the champion of jobs. The fact of the matter is that they don't walk the talk; they don't have the policy documents; they don't have an agenda. Quite clearly we see that a very inadequate document, entitled "B.C. Jobs Strategy," is being developed in some back room without the minister even knowing about it. I think that's an indictment of the work that the minister has done as the minister responsible for job creation in this province, as the minister responsible for employment.

You know, it's interesting when you. . . . I talked about the fact that this was an inadequate document. Rather than trying to pursue specific questions, I might just outline some of them. Well, maybe I will ask the minister to respond to a few of them.

There's an interesting recommendation in this document that says: ". . .it is recommended that the government continue to note its successes, but avoid high-profile and large job creation targets." That was intriguing, because one of the things we've seen coming from this government over the last year is a lot of money that has been spent bragging about very small successes.

Last Friday we saw the Premier engaged in a press conference at ICBC -- a very expensive press conference. He was standing at the podium in front of a bunch of youth, nicely dressed in blue denim shirts, which were nicely embroidered, announcing a job creation program for 100 young British Columbians. That's good news, obviously. But these jobs are lasting seven weeks. So I say that anything that's going to help young people get jobs this summer is obviously something that should be looked at and should be. . . . I will do my best to find the positive side of that. But why was it necessary for the Premier to set up a grandiose press conference for these things?

I think we see the answer to that. When it comes down to a document, which they call "B.C. Jobs Strategy," we find out that one of the recommendations is that they spend some time communicating these things -- that they note their successes. But I was intrigued when they talked about avoiding high-profile and large job creation targets. Do you know the reason? It says: ". . .the government may not be able to do this credibly, given its lack of success. . . ." I suggest to you, hon. Chair, that this is one of the reasons why this minister does not want to present to the people of British Columbia a comprehensive job strategy that has targets and objectives built into it. It's because they're afraid that they're not going to be able to meet those targets.

Even when you look at something like a jobs and timber accord, with 21,000 new jobs in the forest sector, who's going to do the counting of that? As we discussed yesterday, the count should be done by Stats Canada, not by an accumulation of the numbers that are contained in press releases that come out of the communications office of the Premier.

[7:30]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, first of all, I want to try to provide just some brief statistics and some evidence with respect to some of the positive indicators in the province. I guess we could get into this back and forth. . . .

First of all, I would say that relative to the youth component and the Premier's involvement in that, there has never been a Premier in this country that has been as aggressive as 

[ Page 4193 ]

Premier Clark with respect to the youth of our province -- never has been. He is the first leader in this country to say: "This is a serious issue, and we've got to deal with it. I'm taking this under my ministry." Establishing youth forums, establishing particular targets for youth, workplace-based training, freezing tuition fees, all of the programs are the result of a Premier who feels very strongly and very committed about dealing with young people in our province.

Quite frankly, that's an example of leadership that's lacking anywhere else in this country except here in British Columbia. People should learn and watch and listen, and perhaps get the sense that they ought to invest some time and effort in the young people of our province, as well. Instead of telling them that their future lies with some trickle-down economic theory, say that they've got some empowerment: "We've got some strategies that are going to work for you, young people, to find employment in this economy."

Quite frankly, the market forces argument with respect to opportunities for young people has failed. One only has to look at the 16 or 17 percent unemployment rate for young people in this country to see the concrete evidence that they've failed. If the Premier. . . . He should do it over and over and over again. Every time there's good news for young people, he should hold those press conferences. And he will continue to do that, because he feels strongly about it -- very, very strongly.

It's wonderful to read the Globe and Mail, after listening to the carping critics who always criticize and never offer anything positive. It's wonderful to read the Globe and Mail occasionally -- do the members do this? Do they note little articles like this? Here's Robert Sheppard in today's Globe:

"Last year B.C.'s population grew by about 2.7 percent. Undergraduate enrolment at the University of British Columbia shot up by a little more than 6 percent, part of a trend that has seen the campus grow into a mini-city. . . .

"A marvel unto itself, the population explosion at UBC (and at Simon Fraser and the University of Victoria) is particularly fascinating when you look at what is going on in the rest of the country. In almost every other province university enrolment is dropping like a stone. . . ."

It's absolutely atrocious to listen to this carping negativism about the economy in British Columbia, about positive programs that have produced a positive benefit for young people in our province. It is outrageous.

Again from the Globe and Mail -- a very good paper, the Globe and Mail -- on May 10: "Over the past 12 months employment has increased in British Columbia by 2.47 percent, which is roughly twice as much as the national average." And this member has the temerity to focus on a piece of paper, to get niggling about employment and economic expansion in this province. I can't believe it.

Listen to the senior economist at the Royal Bank of Canada. Now, there's an objective, accepted source of information, I would think. Here's the quote from that individual, Ms. Lisa Bastarache: "It's true that the province's growth has not been as strong as in previous years, but neither has it seen a drastic deterioration. And when you look across Canada, British Columbia still has a lot going for it, including strong job growth." There's an outside source, the Royal Bank, quoted in the Globe and Mail.

Let's look at some of the sectors in our economy and how they have performed. There's an objective assessment. How have they performed over the last five or six years under an NDP administration? We've seen the agricultural sector show 15.2 percent growth -- the second-highest in over 12 years. We've seen mining, quarrying and oil wells grow 13.9 percent -- the highest in over a dozen years. We've seen electrical and electronic products show 63 percent growth in the last five years -- the highest in over a dozen years.

Now, there's a member who says, when there are very positive statistics, when we can show that in fact there has been improvement in our economy, that there has been job growth: "No thanks to you." They want it both ways. If things are in the doldrums, it's our fault, and if things are improving, we had nothing to do with it. I'm sorry, hon. member, you can't have it both ways. As a critic, one of the things you've got to be a try to be -- a little advice -- is consistent. Try to be consistent, because I've got to tell you that over time, in this business, consistency is the only thing that counts.

Transportation and storage, 17.3 percent -- the second-highest in over 12 years; communications, 28 percent -- highest in over a dozen years; other utilities -- highest in over 12 years; retail trade, 20.9 percent -- highest in over 12 years; finance, real estate and insurance, 20.3 percent -- highest in over 12 years. I'm embarrassed, this is too good.

I guess I get a little bit wired here because all I listen to is this carping, negative criticism -- when the statistics, the facts, are there.

We have to do a better job; I've said that. I've said I'm never satisfied. I'm not satisfied with the unemployment rate we've got -- 8.8 percent is too high; I'm not satisfied with the youth unemployment rate -- it's too high.

We have specific strategies to deal with that. We've outlined those in very broad detail; we've talked about those in specific detail. Yet we get this fascination with a piece of paper that's fallen into the member's hands. I can't understand it. I can't understand the member. I try, I grapple with it; I try, I do my best. But I can't quite understand where he seems to want to go.

The high-tech sector rose by 22 percent in one year, hon. colleagues. And what do we get across the way? Negativism, carping criticism, complaints, complaints, complaints.

An Hon. Member: Boy, that is appalling.

Hon. D. Miller: It is appalling. Forty thousand jobs in the province, and what do we get? Criticism, complaints. Export growth is up -- criticism, complaints. I don't know; I do get a bit perplexed.

An Hon. Member: It's just a comedy hour.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't think it's a comedy at all. In fact, quite frankly, when I listen to some of the criticisms, it's far from a comedy.

When I compare the proposals of the members opposite for post-secondary training and a massive increase in tuition fees to what we've done, which is a freeze on tuition fees that has seen a dramatic increase in enrolment here in B.C. 

[ Page 4194 ]

-- unlike other provinces -- then it is a bit disturbing that an opposition party in this province would propose those kinds of initiatives. But like I say, those are the kinds of issues that were debated in the last election, and I guess the results are here for people to see.

C. Hansen: Perhaps I can just remind the House as to what started the minister on that particular diatribe. He talks about negativism. You know what I did? I made the mistake of asking him how deregulation of the electrical market would result in job creation in British Columbia. And that led to this diatribe from the minister, spouting statistics. It was interesting, because I remember last year, when I was very much a rookie in these estimates -- and still am, I admit -- the minister berated me. Do you know what he berated me for? He berated me for using news clippings as a research resource. And from there, he's got the nerve, after spouting statistics from Robert Sheppard in today's newspaper, to then stand up and talk about consistency. We can have some fun with this stuff. But what it boils down to -- as much as the minister's bombast tries to deflect this issue -- is that this government does not have a job strategy. He does not have a job strategy. His ministry hasn't been involved in developing something that's called a job strategy. But we've picked some holes in it, obviously, and will continue to do so.

First of all, before I go to this, I want to talk about Robert Sheppard, who the minister quoted at length. We would be glad to provide the minister with many, many copies of the writings that Robert Sheppard has done about the state of the economy in this province, and the affect that this government's policies have had on the economy of this province. So, to be kind, I think the minister is being very, very selective in the statistics he is using.

The minister made a comment that I found disturbing. He started out by talking about how aggressive the Premier is when it comes to creating jobs in this province. I would like to say that the only thing we have seen this Premier be aggressive about is press conferences and media hype, and trying to stand in front of the cameras, and making grandiose announcements about jobs and economic development strategies in this province, which are not followed through on. He does not walk the talk.

But I was very concerned. . . . The minister then went on to say that jobs are so important to this Premier that he is taking jobs under his portfolio. And excuse me, but I thought that that's what this minister's responsibility was. I would like to ask the minister: who is responsible for job creation in this government? Is it this ministry? Or has the Premier taken this under his umbrella? Who do we hold accountable for lack of a strategy? Who do we hold accountable for the objectives that are not achieved? Who do we hold accountable for rising unemployment rates in this province? Is it this minister, as the Minister of Employment and Investment? Or do we hold the Premier accountable?

Hon. D. Miller: I didn't say jobs; I said youth. Perhaps, unless I'm mistaken, a review of Hansard will indicate that I was talking about youth and the importance the Premier places on that, and why that is under his portfolio. As to the broad question, the entire government is engaged in the job strategy. I've said that, I think, probably half a dozen times in the last hour. There is an interrelationship. Does the member not appreciate that one of the elements of a job strategy might be the policies you have with respect to training? Education? Does that not seem to strike you as a sort of essential element of a job strategy? Does investment and infrastructure, making sure we have capacity to provide that training. . . ? We've got capacity in our transportation systems. Does that not strike you as sort of an essential element of an employment and economic strategy? It seems obvious to me. But those are housed in various ministries. The responsibility, depending on the issue at hand, rests with various ministries. The overall strategy is one that is a collective responsibility of the government. And the Premier is the head of this government.

[7:45]

Never mind us in the official opposition. I know that the minister loves to spar with the opposition. There's a great quote from last year's estimates where, after several minutes of bombast, he said: "This isn't a school yard, and we shouldn't be talking this way." I happened to interject that he's the one that started this, and he said: "Well, I'm not going to complain about who started this; I do like to scrap." Those were the minister's words.

To come back to the key issue, it's that we, on this side of the House. . . . I understand why you spar with us. We can have our debate in this House, but it is not for us that I ask these questions; it is for the public. It is the voters of this province who were told last year that we were going to have a comprehensive job strategy with achievable objectives -- or words to that effect. And on behalf of the public of this province, I have been trying to determine what that is. And what it boils down to is that there is no job strategy with achievable targets. He talks about projects, but we have nothing that we, in the official opposition, can use on behalf of the public of this province to hold this government accountable for a job strategy -- or lack of it.

I want to move on to just a couple of other things in this document, so that I can put them on the record. But I would highly recommend to the minister that he read this document, because he may find out that somebody somewhere in government is preparing job strategies that he's obviously not aware of and he should be aware of. That's what his ministry is all about. That's what his responsibility to this chamber is all about. In here there are actually some enlightening things that I'll put on the record, and then perhaps we can go on to some other issues.

Under the title of "Building B.C.'s Communities," under "Regions and Communities," there's a quote. It says: "There is little indication, though, of any systematic regional or community development." And that's not coming not from a document that's written by the opposition. That's not a document that's written by somebody who is an enemy of this government or in opposition to this governing party. This is a document that's written by somebody inside their government. I don't know who that is yet, and obviously the minister doesn't either. I think we certainly have our ideas as to who may have been responsible for the development of this document. It wasn't the minister and it wasn't his ministry.

Another quote, under "Business Climate," says -- and this bothers me: "Sectoral or regional themes seem more likely to be implicit than explicit." You know, there's lots of other things that I could go into on this, but I think that last quote probably sums it up: we have a job strategy that, from everything the minister has said, is implicit. And I will leave the subject by just saying that on behalf of the public of British 

[ Page 4195 ]

Columbia, that's not good enough. We need a job strategy that is a public document. We need a job strategy that I would think this government, this minister, would want to take around this province into every community, and champion, hold up and say: "This is what we're going to do with your tax dollars over the coming years." And we have nothing that we can use on behalf of the public to hold this government accountable for achieving what they said they would do, because they have never put it into a concise format.

With that, I will move on to some other issues -- I am sure much more mundane. But perhaps we can move to a new chapter in this debate this evening.

I was very appreciative of getting copies of the business plan for the various divisions within the ministry and, as I mentioned at the outset tonight, reading it answered a lot of my questions. Certainly, I would have had twice as many questions had I not had the benefit of this document. I am grateful to have received it, albeit yesterday, once we had actually started this process. It meant that I got to stay up late last night and try to digest some of the stuff that was in it.

I would like to turn, first of all, under the economic development division, to the Build B.C. special account. And I would like to start with the report of the auditor general on the Build B.C. special account, and I would like to ask the minister to elaborate. . . . I think some constructive criticisms were made by the auditor general on the special account, and the ministry responded to these specific recommendations that the auditor general had for improving the management and administration of this special account.

Recommendation No. 1 is that the B.C. 21 committee document its reasons for accepting or rejecting proposals. In the response included from the ministry, the explanation is that the B.C. 21 committee is a committee of cabinet and, as such, is not required to make public its reasons for decisions made. Could the minister explain to the House how the B.C. 21 committee, as it is structured, is a committee of cabinet?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain of the official explanation, but it is under my chairmanship. This year, because of the fiscal situation, we obviously don't have the resources to meet the demand. There is and has been a very strong demand since these types of programs were originally established, going back, I think, to the early 1970s. They have proven to be invaluable in terms of assisting community organizations in a variety of ways, whether it's construction of facilities or buildings, or you name it.

In my experience, it's a very difficult trade-off that you face. For example, in the face of maybe 100 applications where you can only approve ten, how do you come out with some justification that absolutely answers every question about why the ten that are chosen are more deserving than the ones that are rejected? Sometimes there are obvious reasons; sometimes it's very difficult to quantify that; and therefore I think the obligation of the government is to ensure that there's fairness and equity, that the programs are distributed. . . . For example, a variety of issues have been raised about whether or not there's fairness across the constituencies, relative to which party holds those constituencies. We've tried to do that. I can't recall whether there is specific mention of that issue of equity in their report, so I think that's historical in terms of these kinds of accounts. Ultimately, we need to be judged on how they're allocated across the province, and the fairness of those allocations.

C. Hansen: I'll come back to some of the things the minister said in that response, but I would like to come back to my question. In what way is the B.C. 21 committee a committee of cabinet?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not an expert in government, but it is a committee of cabinet, presumably as defined under some rule. So it's a committee of cabinet.

C. Hansen: Could the minister advise the House who sits on this committee of cabinet?

Hon. D. Miller: Myself, the MLA for Alberni, the MLA for Burnaby North and the member for Comox Valley.

C. Hansen: Perhaps the minister could enlighten us, but the last time I checked, the member for Alberni, the member for Burnaby North and the member for Comox Valley were not in cabinet. Unless I missed something on the 6 o'clock news tonight, this is not a committee of cabinet, and I wonder if the minister could enlighten us.

Hon. D. Miller: Cabinet seeks advice in a variety of ways, and if cabinet sets up a committee that has members who are not members of cabinet, it nonetheless remains. . . . I don't know -- it's hairsplitting. Does the member want to make a specific point about the committee or the issue of confidentiality? I did try to outline what I thought were some rational reasons in terms of the criticism of the auditor general. I don't know if the member agrees with that or not. It does seem to me to be a rational explanation, though.

C. Hansen: The criticism that. . . . Well, I guess criticism is too strong a word, and certainly doesn't put the auditor general in the right light. He's not there to criticize government; he's there to make recommendations as to how the work of government can be improved, which he has obviously done in this report. But the recommendation that the auditor general made -- this isn't a recommendation that is coming from me or from the opposition; this is coming from the auditor general, who is an independent officer of this Legislature -- is that the B.C. 21 committee document its reasons for accepting or rejecting proposals. In the text of his report he goes into an explanation as to why he thinks that is important.

In the response issued from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, the reason this is not made public is because it is a committee of cabinet. It is not a committee of cabinet, yet that is the best reason the minister could come up with as to why he would not want to follow the recommendations made by the auditor general, for the reasons that he has set out -- that this should be a matter of public record. I was surprised that. . . .

I am concerned, frankly, that the minister would hide behind some vague definition of a committee of cabinet as justification for confidentiality in this government. This is clearly not a committee of cabinet, because it is made up of the minister plus three backbench MLAs who are not members of the cabinet. To say that because a committee reports to cabinet we can call this a cabinet committee in some vague definition, and thereby exempt it from any public disclosure, is simply not good enough. I would like to ask the minister if he would be prepared to reconsider the response to the auditor general. Would he be prepared, in the future, to make the decisions of the B.C. 21 committee public?

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member raising the issue. We try, in terms of the decisions that are made. . . .  

[ Page 4196 ]

I guess the ultimate decision is made by government, not by the committee. They only recommend, and I suppose that's the link in terms of cabinet. Quite honestly, I feel there has to be regional balance, there has to be fairness for all British Columbians in terms of expenditures from the account, and we do strive to do that. Ultimately, cabinet makes decisions, and those decisions are the exclusive purview of cabinet.

C. Hansen: We're obviously not going anywhere with this, so I won't belabour the point, other than to just leave it on the record that there are many administrative aspects of decisions that are made with regard to grants given from government that are included in the estimates that we are debating today -- taxpayers' money. Throughout government, reasons for decisions are public information, and there is no reason that the reasons for decisions of the B.C. 21 committee should be kept confidential and away from the public's scrutiny. I gather from the minister's answer that we're not going anywhere with this, but I would ask him to reconsider.

[8:00]

Hon. D. Miller: Well, we will strive for consistency.

C. Hansen: I think that when you have an account -- the Build B.C. special account -- which is set up by legislation, it is not the minister's prerogative to "strive" to comply. I would suggest that there is an obligation under law to comply. And again, I'm wondering if the minister. . . . Does the minister feel that it's appropriate to simply strive to meet the objectives as set out in the act?

Hon. D. Miller: It's just a figure of speech. We try to be consistent.

C. Hansen: We will move on in spite of that answer.

In recommendation No. 3, they talk about how the auditor general is asking that the lead agency be required to "certify that the expenditure of funds was in addition to any ministry expenditures previously budgeted for the same or similar activities." I'm wondering if the minister is prepared to adopt that recommendation of the auditor general.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes.

C. Hansen: I gather from that that that is the response, certainly, that was given to the auditor general and was printed in his report: that the minister would take this recommendation into consideration. I gather that that is now a specific commitment from the minister that will in fact be acted upon. And certainly the minister can correct me if my interpretation is not correct. But I will move on, on the assumption that that is a correct interpretation.

Recommendation No. 4 states that ". . .the summary of results of the special account performance be completed as soon as possible." It goes on to say: "The program development branch" -- which is now, of course, renamed the economic development division -- "should design an assessment framework that includes measurable targets, predetermined success criteria and consistent and regular reporting." I'm wondering if the minister could tell us if that recommendation will be followed.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, I'm advised we have done that. We are monitoring the progress of the projects.

C. Hansen: I was wondering if the minister could advise us as to how these results of performance of the account would be made public.

Hon. D. Miller: Through the normal financial reporting and the contractual obligations, I would think.

C. Hansen: I think that in here it's quite specific -- not just talking about the results of expenditures, which we will get to as recommendation No. 5. But under recommendation No. 4, he's talking about measurable targets, predetermined success criteria and consistent, regular reporting. In here under response, it says that the ministry confirms that an interim 1994 program assessment report has been completed and was presented to the B.C. 2l committee on January 27, 1997. Could the minister advise us if that is a public document that could be made available to us?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain that it would be. I'm not sure that normally you would make that public. I mean, I'd have to take a closer look at the issues, but it's really just a progress report. So I'm happy to take it under advisement to see whether or not there are any reasons why one would not make that public, and to try to get back to the member.

C. Hansen: I will take the minister up on his offer to get that information to me. But certainly I find it surprising that there would be any question as to whether or not a report that actually looks at whether or not a program is successful would be a public document. It certainly seems to me that the only way that it achieves its objective, the only reason for doing that kind of an evaluation, is in fact in the interests of accountability.

The final recommendation says: ". . .the results of expenditures under the special account be publicly reported on a regular basis, at least annually." This is the results of expenditures. In the response it says: "The public reporting of the special account is done on an annual basis through the Ministry of Employment and Investment's annual report." Then it also goes on to talk about other vehicles that are used. But, in essence, when you talk about the financial results of expenditures, none of the other vehicles really do an adequate job of giving a report on something in the minister's responsibility. So that really brings us back to the annual report of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I'm wondering if the minister feels that that is an adequate vehicle with which to do that kind of public reporting.

Hon. D. Miller: I think so, and I think Public Accounts is another document where there is reporting, as well.

C. Hansen: I guess one of the concerns that I have is when the minister responds to the auditor general that the 

[ Page 4197 ]

annual report is a vehicle that can be used for this kind of reporting and accountability, yet the most recent annual report that we have from the ministry is from 1993-94 -- which was only just recently tabled. I'm wondering if the minister could advise us when we might see more up-to-date annual reports for the last three years, which are now outstanding.

Hon. D. Miller: They're works in progress.

C. Hansen: I think that if the minister went back to Hansard from last year, with the estimates process from the last fiscal year, I got the same answer at that time. I'm wondering if the minister could give us any indication as to when we might expect that the annual reports will be brought up to date.

[G. Brewin in the chair.]

Hon. D. Miller: I don't have any specific targets at this point -- and I don't mean to take lightly the issue of the annual reports. We've seen a variety of inconsistency, if you like, in terms of that question across government. But you know, there are pressures on any given ministry. Part of that this year, of course, was the downsizing that we took and the amount of work that we're doing. We've got to give priorities, and our priorities are on the economic side and job creation. We will endeavour to get those reports completed and presented to the House on a timely basis, but I don't have a particular timetable that I can offer the member in that regard.

C. Hansen: Just before we go on to some issues involving youth employment, I want to sum up on annual reports with a comment I made last year. I would like to reinforce it again this year. I think that the graphics that go into annual reports are not as important as the information. We've seen some annual reports that have come out from other government bodies which are long on information and short on graphics and design work. I think it's really the information that's important to us, and important to the public, and I would like to leave that thought with the minister.

If we can move on, I know my colleague from Chilliwack has some issues he wants to raise regarding youth employment. I defer to him at this time.

B. Penner: I'll begin by picking up where my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena left off some time ago. Earlier this evening he was speaking about the issue of who has responsibility, ultimately, in this government for job creation projects as they relate to youth. The minister made reference to the fact that this Premier calls himself the Minister for Youth and likes to take credit at every opportunity for programs directed at the young people of this province. On the other hand, of course, the minister's own ministry is entitled the Ministry of Employment and Investment, suggesting that, in fact, this minister is also responsible for employment projects or job creation efforts aimed at all British Columbians -- and presumably, that includes young people. So in terms of my opening question, I ask the minister to perhaps clarify for me some of the lines of responsibility that he sees in terms of whether it's his ministry that takes the lead in job creation efforts for young people or whether that falls under the Premier's office in his role as the Minister Responsible for Youth.

Hon. D. Miller: I think the member should be aware that in any particular ministry of government there are issues that overlap -- or cross ministries, if you like. It may be that we're engaged, for example, in working with the private sector on a particular project, a new business, that might have a preponderance of youth as their employees. Certainly we see the general relative youth of people in the knowledge-based industries. So you don't want to separate; you don't want to draw a rigid line and say: "This ministry will never touch anything that somehow goes into areas of youth employment."

We do administer a couple of the programs. Some are clearly in the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, which has a lot to do with the issues around youth and employment training opportunities -- some through other ministries. We do have the Job Start program, a $2.4 million program to assist 2,000 young people, aged 17 to 24, in gaining work experience, marketable job skills and good work habits in short-term positions which may lead to long-term employment. It does provide employers with a wage subsidy for the first two months of a minimum four-month employment period.

We have the Youth Mentorship program matching 300 eligible young entrepreneurs with business mentors who can provide guidance, knowledge and support over four months as the youths continue to explore their business potential. It's not a wage subsidy program, but rather, it provides honoraria for the mentors that I talked about, with a rather modest budget of $250,000.

Those cover the direct-delivery programs; but broadly stated, we're engaged in all kinds of activities that may result in employment opportunities for young people. You don't stop doing that work simply because the Premier has taken over all responsibility, and although I did get quite passionate in the statements I made earlier, I do think it's important. In our society, is it not important, in terms of the kind of symbolism involved in the Premier of our province saying: "I'm taking responsibility in my ministry for youth". . . ? The Premier's office is a ministry in terms of government, and to engage youth, as he's done now in two youth forums, and to take every opportunity to promote, whether in other ministries or in activities that he can engage in with the private sector and others, opportunities for youth and young people in our province is, I think, absolutely critical, and that, in my view, is what leadership is about.

Right across all ministries where there are opportunities to create employment opportunities or training opportunities for young people, or whatever, they are doing that. You'll probably find in the Ministry of Women's Equality, certainly in the Ministry for Children and Families, the very critical issues of children in care and those kinds of questions. All of those link together; there's no separation; there's no line between those issues.

[8:15]

So it's spread across ministries. The Premier has ultimate responsibility, and he may direct a particular ministry to do a certain thing. His is not an operational ministry. Although there are some programs, generally those programs on the 

[ Page 4198 ]

operational side are assigned to specific ministries. I mentioned two that are housed in my ministry; others are housed in other ministries.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank the minister for that answer. I think that helps me in terms of a starting point.

The minister did mention two programs that fall within his ministry's responsibilities as they relate to youth programs. Generally, that is the Job Start program, which, as I understand it, is a wage subsidy program, and as well, the Youth Mentorship program. I just wonder if the minister can confirm for me whether the Youth Mentorship program is also known as the You Bet program, or if that is something else?

Hon. D. Miller: That is another program.

B. Penner: I've got a question, first of all, to find out whether or not it's his ministry that's responsible for the Destinations program, which I believe is now in phase two of its life.

Hon. D. Miller: Education, Skills and Training is the appropriate ministry, Madam Chair.

B. Penner: I will then take up a number of questions having to do with the Destinations program with the appropriate minister at the appropriate time.

With your leave, hon. chair, and with the indulgence of the minister, I have a couple of questions related, again, back to the trade portfolio in the minister's responsibilities. I don't know if he has the staff with him presently who are able to assist him if I am to ask him some questions about programs in that regard. Hon. Chair, for the record, the minister seems to be indicating in the affirmative, that he does have the appropriate staff with him.

Last night when I was speaking here, I made reference to the recent Team Canada trade mission, something that I had the opportunity to participate in back in January of 1997. On the Team Canada trade mission, I received a copy of a publication which is from the Ministry of Employment and Investment. The publication that I have here on investment climate is entitled "British Columbia, Canada: The Place to Be." It looks like it was put together toward the fall of 1996. I'm just wondering if the minister could indicate to us how many of these very attractive pamphlets were produced, and at what cost. I note that they were made available, I believe, to all Canadian business delegates on the Team Canada trade mission.

Hon. D. Miller: I think it's around 2,000. I don't have a cost figure; we'll try to get that.

I'm just recalling. . . . I think the member was actually in my constituency trying to make a bit of trouble around some of these issues and trying to mislead the people there. I'd forgotten all about that, Madam Chair. I'll have to go research my records and see what the member had to say in terms of trying to mislead my constituents about what happened on the Team Canada mission and, I think, about this document as well, if I'm not mistaken. I was very disappointed, I must say, in that attempt to try to go into my hometown and create a little trouble -- very disappointed. I can assure you that it was not effective at all, which is why I forgot about it.

B. Penner: I do mean it with all sincerity when I say it's a very attractive publication, and I know it was received with interest by those business delegates that were participating in the Team Canada trade mission. In addition, I believe that this publication was made available to the host countries and the various private sector participants in South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand. Obviously, there are a few things in this publication now that are somewhat out of date. For example, among other things, the publication says that we have Canada's fastest-growing economy here in British Columbia. Unfortunately, that's no longer, strictly speaking, accurate.

There are a few other things that were raised with me when I was in Thailand by people from British Columbia who were concerned about the contents of this publication. This relates to the comments I made while I was visiting the minister's constituency earlier this year at the request of some business people I met while on the Team Canada trade mission in Thailand. The concerns relate to the efforts that our province is making to promote our location on the west coast of North America as an ideal place to receive and ship goods to the Asian market.

I'm going to refer the minister's attention just briefly, if I can, to a different publication, which I'm sure he's seen in his office. It's the final report of the Northwest Transportation Corridor Task Force. The title is "Taking Hold of Canada's Shortest Link to Asia." I think some very good points are made in the report, specifically that the so-called northern corridor -- that part of British Columbia and Alberta that runs from the Queen Charlottes east to Edmonton. . . . If you draw a horizontal line from those two locations northward, that part of British Columbia generates about $2.2 billion in revenue for the province -- it's generated from different activities in the resource sector primarily.

However, the report highlights a number of weaknesses that the authors are concerned about. The very first thing that it talks about on page 6 is "the lack of national and international recognition of the corridor's capacities, capabilities, benefits and opportunities." Further down on that page, the report says: "The message must get out, and it must be stated loudly that there is much more to the northwest corridor than the rest of the world realizes."

My view is that on the Team Canada trade mission we had an excellent opportunity, because we had a captive audience on this trade mission of about 500 Canadian business delegates -- many of them vice-presidents, presidents and senior managers of large enterprises in many cases. . . . Receiving this publication on this trade mission, they had many hours on their hands, often because of the lengthy flights involved between countries, to read through the material put out by our province and this minister.

Unfortunately, the document I first referred to -- "British Columbia, Canada: The Place To Be," put out by the minister's office -- didn't take the opportunity it had to really trumpet the opportunities provided by the port that is located at Prince Rupert. It failed to do what the Northwest Transportation Corridor Task Force people had hoped it would do -- that is, to raise international awareness about what is not only Canada's but North America's shortest link to Asia.

As the minister mentioned yesterday, I think -- and it seems to me that he's aware of it -- by shipping goods from the port of Prince Rupert, as opposed to from the port of Vancouver, there is a saving of almost one and a half days' sailing time, no matter what destination you are shipping to in Asia. Speaking to people associated with the port authority, I'm told that the average saving in dollar figures is about $28,000 one way for an average seagoing container ship. Therefore, on a return trip, your net savings are about $56,000 and three days in time.

[ Page 4199 ]

When it comes to perishable products, time is of the essence. That presents the port of Prince Rupert with an excellent opportunity to market itself and be successful. However, during my visit to the port of Prince Rupert in April of this year -- I believe it was -- I was saddened to learn that although the port of Prince Rupert has tremendous capability, it is not living up to all of that capability. In other words, it's underutilized at present and has excess capacity, and the people in Prince Rupert are very interested in increasing the amount of capacity.

Now, the minister looks somewhat perplexed at where I'm going with this, but I'll refer him to the document put out by his ministry, and specifically to page. . . .

Hon. D. Miller: It's page 26.

B. Penner: The minister's claiming page 26. However, I'm going to refer the minister to page 12 and page 13. On page 12, under the Asia-Pacific market, the following is stated with a bullet located next to it: "Vancouver's the closest major port on the North American west coast to Japan." On page 13, there's a table showing the savings in shipping times to Asian ports in terms of days. It compares Vancouver to Los Angeles, indicating a two-day saving out of Vancouver, as opposed to Los Angeles, if you're shipping to Yokohama, Japan. If this brochure had mentioned Prince Rupert at this stage as the closest major port on the North American west coast to Asia, I think business people everywhere would have been more impressed to see that by shipping out of Prince Rupert, in fact, your sailing time is about 9.5 days to Yokohama, Japan.

This may sound like a small point. But when I spoke to people in Prince Rupert this spring, they considered it to be a serious point and said that it was just one more example of how governments everywhere -- whether in Ottawa or in Victoria -- seem to overlook the ability that they have and the opportunity that their ports represents for all of us in British Columbia and Canada to assist our economic growth in dealing with the Asian markets. So I'm taking this opportunity to highlight those concerns for the minister. Those are the same comments I made when I was in his constituency of North Coast, and specifically in Prince Rupert. It was consistent with what people there have been feeling for some time -- that is, that the port in Prince Rupert has been underutilized. I know that there are various factors for that. But they feel that the lack of representation in this brochure highlights perhaps some of the attitudinal problems that lead to the more substantive issues that trouble them.

As I'm sure the minister is aware, one of the ongoing complaints in Prince Rupert is the switching-fee arrangement in Prince George -- that is, the arrangement and the interrelation between B.C. Rail and Canadian National Railways. As I understand it, B.C. Rail effectively funnels resources -- whether it's lumber, coal or grain -- from the northeast sector of the province down through the centre of the province. If those goods are to be shipped overseas by the port of Prince Rupert, they need to be switched onto the Canadian National railway line at Prince George, which runs at that point from east to west to the port at Prince Rupert. I am told by people working for the port at Prince Rupert that there has been a historical difficulty in getting the two railways to cooperate and that this has resulted in northeast products ending up being shipped all the way from the northeast corner of British Columbia to the port at Vancouver.

The minister, no doubt, is well aware of chronic delays at the port of Vancouver, particularly this past winter, in terms of getting our products off the rail cars and onto the vessels waiting in the waters off Vancouver. In fact, there were a number of articles a short time ago in the Vancouver Sun -- actually it was toward the end of April 1997 -- talking about "Grain Handling System Lacks Accountability, Farmers Claim." That was the headline. There is a story in there about how the farmers felt that the bottleneck occurring at the port of Vancouver was hurting their ability to sell grain internationally.

[8:30]

I know that he is the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, and I understand that there have been some ongoing discussions. However, the people that I spoke to in his constituency are frustrated that even with an MLA from their area who is the minister responsible for B.C. Rail, there has not yet been seen to be any movement on the part of that Crown corporation to help increase the flow of grain and other products from the northeast sector of the province through to the port at Prince Rupert.

Hon. D. Miller: They have a right to be frustrated, but not at the B.C. government. I should point out that page 12 of the report the member referred to was really a comparison of highly developed ports -- an analysis and comparison between the port of Vancouver and some of its leading competitors, namely Seattle, San Francisco and L.A. The member knows full well that that was the case. He also knows that the people from the port of Prince Rupert, which is a federal port, appointed exclusively by the federal government. . . . All of their activities are exclusively under the purview of the federal government. B.C. has not had any input in terms of the operations of those ports. If there's any criticism to be levelled, perhaps we should look at the federal government. Indeed, we may want to even look beyond that, at the ports themselves, to see what kind of activity they've been engaged in to try to increase the opportunities through their ports.

I did speak at length about some of the issues that I thought were problems that were created in this country as a result of federal government policy. I don't know where the member stood with respect to the recent federal election -- whether he was supporting the Liberals or Reform. Take your pick when it comes to members opposite. I talked about the elimination of the Western Grain Transportation Act -- the loss of the equalization formula by the federal government for that northern CN line, which is at only 40 percent capacity. Where has the federal government been with respect to trying to increase the flow of grain through that port? Nowhere, I'll tell you, is where they've been -- absolutely nowhere.

I sat down with the federal Minister of Transport, the member for Victoria, Mr. Anderson. I said: "I know you're

[ Page 4200 ]

going to do certain things. I know you want to dispose of the coal port. I know you're going to do this. What about the Wheat Board? What are you going to do about the Wheat Board? Tell them to get off their backsides and get some more grain into that port." "Oh well," he said, "you know, the Wheat Board is the Wheat Board. And this is that. . . ." And: "Oh, we've got problems" and "Isn't it complex?" And that's the kind of gobbledegook I get from federal ministers. That's why the western ministers got together and demanded an investigation into the failure of the system in Canada to deliver grain to west coast ports. It's a travesty in this country, when we've got the opportunity to increase our output.

We know, for example. . . . The analysis we've done, and a very good paper we've done. . . . I don't know if the member has had an opportunity to read it; I'll ship it over. I'm not here to castigate the task force, but "Vision 2010" is probably a better analysis of the issues than that report. That's why the four western provincial ministers got together and demanded that the federal government investigate this.

We saw the prospect of the railways pointing one way: "Oh, it's not our fault." The Wheat Board didn't say a heck of a lot about anything, except. . . . You know what the Wheat Board said? There's a good message. Back in February the Wheat Board said: "We're not going to accept any more orders for the export of Canadian-produced grain, because we can't deliver it." Now, doesn't that boggle the mind? "We're not going to accept any more orders."

The Wheat Board and the whole system of grain is just a travesty in this country. We've got the transportation systems in place. Why is grain funnelled into the port of Vancouver when it takes longer to get it on board a ship and when it adds costs that go right back to the farmer on the prairies? Why does that happen? The Wheat Board is involved; the terminal operators are involved. There's lots of vested interests involved. The railways are involved. Why does that happen? It doesn't make any sense to me.

As the chairman this year of Westech, which is an organization comprised of governments and the private sector, I'm trying to cut through some of this nonsense -- just trying to cut through this garbage. I've said to people: "Don't tell me how complex the problem is. I want it fixed. I want some solutions here." That's why the Alberta minister and I got together; that's why we put out a press release on May 20. That's why we're working in concert to try to see if we can't get more of that Peace River grain through the port of Prince Rupert. That's why we're looking at new developments in the coal sector, to see if we can't get more of that tonnage through the port of Prince Rupert. That's why I've announced publicly that B.C. Rail is prepared to make a bid for the coal terminal in Prince Rupert. We were prepared to buy that. I said that directly, sitting right across from David Anderson. I said: "I know what you're going to do. I know you're going to appoint a three-person committee. I know you're going to sell that port. My view is, David, that it should go to the railways -- maybe a combination of CN and B.C. Rail." I got some vague mumbo-jumbo in response to that direct question.

There are a lot of things wrong in this country, and there are a lot of things wrong when we've got a federal government that's abandoned any pretext of a national policy to use west coast ports to export Canadian-produced commodities, when the Wheat Board movement is to send those products down into the U.S. and across U.S. railway lines and out U.S. ports. And you expect the province that's had absolutely no responsibility for the operation of these ports or the national transportation systems. . . . And you have the temerity to stand up and say there's a problem with the province! It's outrageous!

Now, I've already indicated to the members opposite in previous discussions that we are working with Alberta, and we'll continue to work with Alberta, because we think we can actually find some solutions. So if the member has something productive in terms of criticism of the federal government, where the prime responsibility lies, I'd suggest he get on with it instead of trying to create some devilment in terms of some document that he somehow managed to twist around and interpret as though there wasn't sufficient attention to the port of Prince Rupert. In fact, the port of Prince Rupert has been represented -- and, if I'm not mistaken, was represented on that Team Canada mission. They were there, and are you trying to tell me they weren't able to speak to people and promote the port? Of course they were.

So support the efforts of the B.C. government instead of this foolishness, and maybe we can make some progress, because we're fighting an established system. It's the Wheat Board, it's the railways and it's all of that -- and the federal government to boot. It's pretty hard to try to make progress in the face of that, but we're determined to do that. We think there is significant potential.

Finally, as the minister for B.C. Rail, I'm happy to report to the House that I've not only talked to B.C. Rail at length about being involved in this strategy, but I've also had a meeting in my office with Mr. Tellier, the president of CN Rail. I said: "I want more cargo. I want more volume through that port. You've got a line that's only at 40 percent capacity. This government has given the railways a $15 million tax break on their property assessment in this province, and I want some results." As a result of that, B.C. Rail and CN Rail are now engaged in a very intense discussion about how they can, in a mutually beneficial way, utilize the infrastructure to try to increase that volume.

So lots has been done by this government and, quite frankly, by this minister, which will see improvements and benefits. And it's no thanks at all to the federal government or, quite frankly, to some of the activities in the ports.

B. Penner: Perhaps it's the hour, but I'm getting concerned about the minister's state of health, particularly his mental health, because he sounds rather schizophrenic to me.

On the one hand, he's criticizing me for asking what his plan is in terms of taking action to improve flows and exports via the port of Prince Rupert. On the other hand, he's taking credit for having done something. Which one is it? Is the minister incapable of acting, or is he capable of acting?

I'm simply here today, on behalf of the constituents in his riding that asked me to bring a message to Victoria on their behalf, asking what his plans are to improve the volume of exports via the port of Prince Rupert.

The minister gets angry at me because of something the Wheat Board has done. Well, excuse me! I'm elected to the provincial Legislature, and I don't have much control over what the federal Wheat Board does. I would go so far as to say that I have less influence than he has as a minister of the Crown. That's why I asked the question about what the minister was planning to do. I'm sorry that the minister is feeling rather stressed out. It's not my fault. Perhaps it's getting to be that time of the evening when the minister would appreciate a break. I don't know.

[ Page 4201 ]

I do point out, however, that he is the minister responsible for B.C. Rail. In the report put out by the Northwest Transportation Corridor Task Force, one of the issues that they call on to be resolved is a proper interchange agreement in Prince George between the provincially run B.C. Rail and Canadian National Railways. Obviously the minister is not responsible for Canadian National Railways, and it takes two to tango. It would require cooperation on the part of not only B.C. Rail but also Canadian National Railways. However, I'm here today to focus on those things that we do have within our grasp -- or at least that the minister should have within his grasp -- and that is the performance of B.C. Rail and their attitude in terms of negotiating with CN.

I said initially, in my earlier comments, that I was told by people in Prince Rupert associated with the port facilities that they think one of the stumbling blocks has been the switching fees charged by B.C. Rail -- a Crown corporation that this minister is responsible for. I don't profess to be an expert on the internal workings of B.C. Rail. I don't know if in fact it is true that their switching fees are prohibitively high or if it's a deliberate strategy on the part of that Crown corporation to make sure that every single good that they pick up in the northeast sector of the province gets carried along their entire route in order to increase their profits or so they can pay the dividend that the Minister of Finance forces them to pay to the provincial government to try and improve their balance sheet.

I don't know if those are the reasons that they're doing that or if in fact they are doing it. I would hope that the minister responsible for B.C. Rail would know if that is what that Crown corporation is doing. His answer just a moment ago doesn't belie any knowledge as to whether or not that is in fact the case. If he does know, I would be very happy to hear if he shares the view that perhaps switching fees are a problem. That was the specific question. I am not here today to defend the Wheat Board. I know less about the Wheat Board than I do about B.C. Rail. I would think that the minister would take an interest in B.C. Rail, since that is his responsibility.

I do note, just for the sake of interest and in case there are people suffering through this debate -- watching it -- that the Wheat Board, I'm told, has plans to sue the railways over the delays this past winter in terms of getting grain to the ports. Clearly they are pointing the finger at somebody else. I agree with the minister that they don't seem to be taking responsibility for what has happened. In fact, they're saying that they plan to sue Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways for delays in getting their products to port, which they say, as the representatives of farmers, has cost them lost sales. That's just an aside.

Clearly there's probably a lot a blame to go around, and we seem to be engaged in finger-pointing. I'm just interested in what we can actually get our hands on. If the minister wants to go to Ottawa and try and sort things out as he thinks they need to be sorted out, I would support that. If we could all be brought up to date on what has happened in our own back yard with respect to B.C. Rail. . . . I think we need to get our own house in order, and I'm simply asking a legitimate, sincere question. What are the minister's views on the switching fees that B.C. Rail charges at Prince George for those producers that would like to send their goods on CN to the port at Prince Rupert?

Hon. D. Miller: Every entity, particularly a commercial entity like B.C. Rail or CN Rail, which has now been privatized by the federal government, operates in its own commercial best interests. They wouldn't be doing their job if it wasn't to maximize the returns on the investments that they have.

[8:45]

Did they tell you they were suffering because of the loss of equalization formula? Did they tell you they were suffering because of the failure of the grain transportation system -- the Wheat Board, the railways -- to utilize the port in an efficient way? Did they tell you that? I've never heard them say that. I've never heard them say one thing publicly about the changes wrought by the federal government that have had such negative consequences on that port. Perhaps there's a very good reason; they're all appointed by the federal government. In the last election that we just held, the federal Liberal candidate was the vice-chair of the port corporation. It's the old pork-barrel. Why should they criticize their political masters?

Now, the issue is very clear; it's very simple. Every entity operates -- particularly if it's a commercial Crown -- in its own self-interest, and they ought to. In the case of railways, it's the long haul where you make your money. So in the case of B.C. Rail, if they're going to maximize the return to the investors, the owners -- the public of B.C. -- it's to have as much of that long-haul traffic as they possibly can. In the case of CNR, it's to utilize their systems in a manner that maximizes their returns.

What's happened is that these two entities have been operating in their own commercial best interests, but those commercial interests have not been the general interests of northern British Columbia, the grain producers or the port. So the challenge is: how do you get them together? I'm not going to allow B.C. Rail to be exposed to federal regulation. I simply will not allow that. That's owned by the citizens of this province. They spoke out loud and clear when your party suggested privatizing it in the last election; the public said no. They said: "Don't do that."

So there's only one way to do that. That's through a commercial arrangement between the two entities so that they can both come to some conclusion, from an economic point of view, that sees an improvement in utilization of the transportation system to achieve the benefits which I have outlined and doesn't see them lose economically as a result of that arrangement. Therefore it's a commercial relationship.

I've suggested all kinds of things. We're prepared to buy the CN line from Prince George to Prince Rupert. B.C. Rail is prepared to make an offer on that. They won't sell. They want that outlet to the Pacific. CN has some strategic advantages with respect to the trackage they have to west coast ports, and they want to hang onto it. "Fair enough," I said to Mr. Tellier, "but you better start seeing some volume increases there." So those are the negotiations that are taking place right now, which, hopefully, will result in benefits to both entities, B.C. Rail and CN Rail, and will also see an increase in the commodity shipments through the port of Prince Rupert.

It's a specific, strategic, clearly understood strategy that is now in place. I'm watching that very carefully; I'm on top of it. People know what I want. Hopefully, it'll have some positive result, but I must say it's no thanks at all to anything that the federal government has ever done -- not a thing. Now, we'll see where the federal government picks up, because they left legislation on the table during the last parliament with respect 

[ Page 4202 ]

to the changes in the port corporations and the proposals to create CPAs to allow, for the first time, provincial appointments to those boards. That's long overdue, and B.C. fought for that because it is in our interests to see how those ports are managed. There should be an integration in terms of the economic decisions internal to the province and the utilization of ports. It's long overdue.

So there are some negative consequences that may be faced by municipalities with respect to the tax payable by the corporations. We saw the elimination of the port's police. There are lots of other side issues, which are essentially dumps on the taxpayers of British Columbia by the federal government. But we have a very specific strategy, an ongoing strategy, to improve the utilization of the transportation corridor and the port of Prince Rupert.

People I've talked to, who have compared the document produced by the task force and our own document -- the "Vision 2010" document -- say that "Vision 2010" is far superior in terms of capturing the issues. I was disappointed that the president of the port corporation is outlining his vision, which is offshore drilling for oil and gas in Hecate Strait. When the problem we've got is with the port, which has been impaired by these federal actions, is the solution to drill for oil and gas in the Hecate Strait, where there's a moratorium and where we have no plans to consider lifting that?

I hope you appreciate that I sometimes get a little bit irate about what's taken place at the federal level. We're working very, very hard to try to bring improvements at the provincial level with other provinces. I think that my conversations with the federal Minister of Transport were an exercise in absolute and abject futility in terms of trying to get anywhere. Maybe there will be some changes. Maybe we'll get somebody who understands these issues in a better way, who is prepared to sit down, particularly with western provinces, and deal with these issues. There certainly was a message from the west, I think, and the Premier commented, post-election, that western issues have quite frankly not been addressed. They have not been addressed.

It's not good enough to make these kinds of changes and then say: "Well, these are the consequences. So what?" We need a federal government that is prepared to pay attention to these western issues, and we're working with those other provinces and particularly with Alberta in a very focused way, as well as with both CN Rail and B.C. Rail, to actually achieve something instead of just talking about it.

The Chair: Hon. members, the hon. member for Okanagan-Penticton wishes to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

R. Thorpe: Visiting the Legislature tonight is Judy Dyrland, who is sitting in the gallery on her first visit to the B.C. Legislature to see MLAs at work. May the House join me in making her feel very comfortable tonight.

B. Penner: I was just going to reply briefly and then, hopefully, turn the floor over to my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena. I think it is important that we resist the temptation during these estimates, particularly in dealing with this particular issue, to lower ourselves into the realm of mere political rhetoric, but rather, look at what the problems are that are within our own grasp and try to work together constructively to solve the problems.

Certainly I thought that was the focus of my question -- looking at things that are within the jurisdiction of the province and more specifically within the jurisdiction of this minister, who among many other things, is supposed to be the minister responsible for B.C. Rail. In his response to my latest question, he did not specifically answer the issue to do with switching fees charged by B.C. Rail, except to say that as a Crown corporation, it is acting in its own best commercial interests so it can pay a dividend to the taxpayers of British Columbia.

What has actually happened over the last few years is that the Minister of Finance has continually ratcheted up the expectations he has in terms of extracting funds from B.C. Rail, and therefore, in my view they are perhaps obliged to act in a way that is detrimental to the residents of the northeast portion of the province and to the people living in Prince Rupert.

The minister made a comment that in the last election, the B.C. Liberal Party favoured the privatization of B.C. Rail. In other words, they favoured putting it up for sale so that the taxpayers would receive the proceeds of the sale of that commercial entity and would be able to use those proceeds to pay down the direct debt of the province, thereby saving us the interest costs on an ongoing yearly basis thereafter -- in other words, another form of dividend.

The minister castigated that outlook and that policy, and certainly it's a policy that we as a political party in the province are willing to re-examine. We're willing to act in the best interests of British Columbians, and therefore we are always willing to take a second look if we feel that's necessary, particularly if that is the view expressed by a significant number of British Columbians. We are not necessarily wedded to that position at this time, but clearly there are some merits to that proposition.

If people in the north were concerned about it, it's probably because they thought that being a Crown corporation, B.C. Rail would at times deviate from a strict market approach to the conduct of its affairs and adopt policies that would perhaps be not so commercially attractive but would be to the long-term social or economic benefit of the northern part of British Columbia. What disappoints the people in Prince Rupert that I've spoken to -- and it's not simply people at the port corporation but others, genuine citizens as it were -- is that they don't see British Columbia using B.C. Rail in any other form than simply as a revenue extractor or as another way to contribute to the budget.

So at the risk of entering into a philosophical debate, what is the point of us owning a Crown corporation as taxpayers or as citizens if, from time to time, it will not be used as an instrument for social policy? If the government is afraid to use it as an instrument for social policy in terms of reducing switching fees at Prince George so that farmers in the northeast can ship their grain through the port of Prince Rupert at commercially viable rates, then perhaps taxpayers would be better off having that entity privatized, with the proceeds being used to pay down the debt and the taxpayers receiving an ongoing dividend in the form of reduced interest payments on our accumulated debt.

To refocus my comments to the minister now, I would ask him, again at the risk of engaging in a philosophical debate, what the point is of the taxpayers of British Columbia owning B.C. Rail if we're not willing to use it as a lever in terms of social or economic development policy. The minister had said in his previous answer that perhaps B.C. Rail is simply acting in its own best commercial interests by charging those switching fees and trying to maintain traffic on its entire route.

I have no doubt that that is the case. They're trying to maximize the revenue. But then my question is: what is the 

[ Page 4203 ]

benefit to the people in the north of having that Crown corporation remain in public hands, if the Crown corporation won't deviate from simple market interest and from time to time adopt a policy that would benefit the northern half of this province?

Hon. D. Miller: I would have thought, if the member took some time and reflected on his own question, that he could probably come up fairly quickly with an answer. It seems fairly evident to me. Is he suggesting that the business of B.C. Rail should be to maximize the business of CN Rail? I've said that we've made an offer, and have in the past, to buy the main line portion of CN Rail from Prince George to Prince Rupert. We've made that offer, and we've been turned down. Are you suggesting for a moment that our business in B.C. Rail is to improve the bottom line of CN Rail? Is that what you're seriously suggesting -- that the taxpayers of B.C. should do something to achieve that?

B. Penner: I'm starting to have some additional concerns regarding the minister's mental health, because he certainly is having a hard time grasping the concept.

The concept has to do with the switching fees charged by -- wait for it -- B.C. Rail, not CN Rail. The issue is the fees charged by B.C. Rail, which are prohibitive -- or so I'm told. The minister hasn't refuted that, and I'm trying to seek clarification whether, in his view, they are prohibitive in terms of farmers wanting to get their grain to the port of Prince Rupert.

My question was whether the minister sees B.C. Rail as something that should be used as an engine for economic development or whether it should merely operate as a market entity and just say: "Everybody else be damned. We're out to make the maximum profit possible." That was the question. It didn't have to do with CN Rail. It had to do with B.C. Rail, which is a Crown corporation that he as the minister is supposed to be responsible for.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't think. . . . I hope, at least -- and I'll check with someone more qualified later on -- to see if my mental health is in some disrepair.

First of all, every railway has switching fees -- every railway. It's not unique to B.C. Rail. In this case, we're talking about the switching fee to switch cargo from B.C. Rail to a competing railway. The member seems to be suggesting that we should just take those fees away or put them at a point where it's more economic for competitors to run goods on a competing railway. Surely it's a simple point. I know the Finance critic seems to be looking as though he understands this very simple and elementary point.

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: B.C. Rail does not own the railway from Prince George to Prince Rupert. It's owned by CN Rail.

Now, there are other instances in terms of switching where it may be reversed. All railways compete with each other, and the member is suggesting that somehow we should facilitate the transfer of cargo from B.C. Rail to CN Rail and presumably incur an economic loss or a cost at B.C. Rail. That is the fundamental issue, with all due respect.

[9:00]

Beyond that, I think B.C. Rail -- and we'll get into that when we debate that particular part of my estimates -- has been doing an admirable job in terms of the economic benefits that they bring to British Columbia. Most recently, the member may have noticed the story in today's media about the dinner car that B.C. Rail has put on in the lower mainland, which I hope receives very good publicity today. I hope it's going to prove to be quite a tourist boon and bring added benefits into our province as a result.

They're a commercial entity; they're engaged in property development in Prince George. I think that's appreciated; I know it is in Prince George. They're engaged in property development in the Squamish region. They have WesTel as another discrete unit that is reporting profits. So they're doing their job. They're a commercial Crown owned by the taxpayers. They're returning a dividend to the taxpayers in British Columbia, and they're doing the job quite properly.

Overcoming this dilemma in terms of two commercial entities that are in competition to create an environment where we can get more product to a specific port in British Columbia is a goal that we have. That's why we've employed the strategy we have, and that's why the two railways are engaged in this kind of negotiation. It only happened because they were driven to it, and they were driven to it by this government.

B. Penner: I thank the minister for his comments. At this time I'd like to turn the floor over to my colleague the member for Vancouver-Quilchena.

C. Hansen: Certainly I think it's important that we address transportation links as to how they fit into an overall economic plan, but I also know that we'll be revisiting some of these issues as they pertain to B.C. Rail when we get into the specific estimates debate on B.C. Rail itself.

I am anxious to pose some questions to the minister in some more mundane areas. I'm anxious that we try to wrap up this section of the estimates debate tonight, so that we can move on to the Information, Science and Technology Agency tomorrow. I'm sure the officials that have been assisting you would be pleased if we didn't have to extend this into tomorrow. In saying that, I do have a fair amount of ground to cover in this, so if I keep my questions as concise as possible and the minister can keep his answers as concise as possible, I'm sure we can plow through this expeditiously.

I want to come back briefly to the Guarantee for Youth programs and the student job programs in particular. It's my understanding from last year that there was to be an evaluation done of the success of those programs. The evaluation that was to be done was based not just on the number of individuals who participated in these programs but in terms of the length of jobs, how many days of work participants engaged in and also the quality of jobs. Were they just menial jobs that really didn't have a long-term benefit, or were they jobs that had a certain training or educational value to them?

[ Page 4204 ]

I'm not 100 percent sure that that kind of evaluation should be done by his ministry, but if it was done by his ministry, could he outline it? If not, could he point us in the direction of where that kind of evaluation would have been done?

Hon. D. Miller: Obviously it's spread around between different ministries, the bulk of which is not in this ministry. We did have First Job in Science and Technology last year, I believe. I'll try to get specific numbers to the member, but I think it was an unqualified success. It was oversubscribed.

Opportunities '96, for a variety of reasons, really did not produce the kind of results that we would have liked to have seen. That was not a wage subsidy, and I somehow. . . . When you look at these programs, you're inevitably drawn to some conclusions that unless there is some element of subsidy, they tend not to produce the kind of results that you would desire. Opportunities '96 really was a challenge to the private sector. There was no wage subsidy; there was $150 per individual. Approximately 30 employers participated, representing close to 300 jobs. A total of $18,000 in recoup and assistance was paid. So it's fairly small in terms of the dollar amount expended by government, but not significant in terms of the number of jobs that were created. As I did indicate, this year we are looking for considerably more in terms of two projects, Youth Mentorship and Job Start, that we have in this program.

As to the broader analysis, I can see if there are any documents available, but I suspect that the majority of that would fall under the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training.

C. Hansen: I understand that the Guarantee for Youth initiative has been transferred to the Ministry of Employment and Investment. I'm not exactly sure what that means in terms of whether there's a secretariat type of work that's done or whether it's policy development or what. Perhaps the minister could elaborate.

What I am looking for specifically is not just statistics in terms of how many people participated in programs, because that's public information. Rather, my understanding from estimates last year was that there would be an evaluation done of how effective the program was in terms of the length of jobs that students would get -- whether it was one week, one day or four months -- and the quality of jobs -- whether they were jobs consistent with their educational aspirations or whether they were in fact just jobs that would result in some ability for them to meet their tuition, but really had no other educational components to them. My understanding is that that kind of evaluation was to be done. My question: is it the Ministry of Employment and Investment that has done that evaluation, or should I be looking somewhere else in government to find that evaluation?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, that is the case. We do have two of the programs I mentioned under the ministry. I think my own sense is that broader questions along the lines that the member is asking should be raised with the Premier in his estimates.

C. Hansen: I want to ask about the Canada-B.C. Infrastructure Works program. I understand that there is a project review committee. My question: is Infrastructure Works 2 -- if we can call it that, the new program with the new funding -- the same project review committee that has been in existence for the first phase of that, or is this a new committee that has been struck in a different way? Regardless of which of those two options it is, could the minister advise us as to who sits on that project review committee on the provincial side?

Hon. D. Miller: Rather than try to assemble a complete list of names in this fashion, my assistant deputy minister, Ms. Brooks, is one of the chairs of that group. We can get the names, both on the federal side with people from western diversification and other ministries of government.

C. Hansen: I was of the impression that this was a fairly small committee. Somewhere I had read that there were in fact four people that sat on the committee -- two from the federal side and two from the provincial side. That's what my question is: who might be the two provincial representatives on that committee, if that's available? If we don't have the specific names, then in terms of positions or what level they're from.

Hon. D. Miller: ADM, Highways and ADM, Employment and Investment.

C. Hansen: My understanding is that the arrangement between the federal government and the provincial government was negotiated by this ministry -- the arrangement that was set up. I have learned that in terms of projects that are being considered now for phase two of the new Infrastructure Works 2 program, there is a deadline. These projects have to be completed by March 31, 1998. I wonder if the minister could advise us as to why that deadline was chosen and where that came from.

Hon. D. Miller: That was at the insistence of the federal government. We do have some problems with that, because as the member may appreciate, we recently concluded the agreement. What we wanted to achieve was the maximum leverage that the fifty-one-point-something-million dollars -- obviously three times that amount. . . . And that meant that we had to look across a range of options for eligibility, where we could get that other one-third. The member understands that it's one-third, one-third, one-third, and when you're starting cold. . . .

The previous project was over a broader time horizon and put a particular focus on water, sewage treatment, those kinds of things. And the cost-sharing formula allowed the one-third, one-third to be satisfied.

We do have some priorities in terms of transit, telecommunications -- the traditional cultural side of things -- municipal roads, cost-shared roads, those kinds of things. We can't say absolutely how much is rigidly going to be in each of those components. It is a federal-provincial process, and they have some say in terms of projects that may or may not be approved. We've outlined in general terms where we'd like the money to go; those application forms, I think, are out there in the system. No doubt some have come back in now.

They must be vetted through the committee prior to final approval. But we think the time issue was a bit of a problem. We've pushed to have, perhaps, some extensions beyond March 31, 1998. It seems foolish to us; we want to get the maximum mileage out of the program. And to the extent that we can push that envelope somewhat in terms of time, we're attempting to do that through the federal government and will continue to attempt to do that to try to maximize the benefits.

C. Hansen: I think we're coming from the same place on this: that certainly, having a deadline like that is unreasonable 

[ Page 4205 ]

and is not in the best interests of having taxpayers' money spent effectively under this program. But I gather from the minister's response that to date there is no extension, that there's no exception to this, that it's still a matter of negotiation.

Hon. D. Miller: No, I wouldn't rule that out completely. There has not been an explicit agreement from the federal government on an extension. But neither has there been, in an absolute sense, a complete turndown. We'll continue to push where we think it makes sense.

The joint management committee has actually dealt with some applications. They have approved those and forwarded them. And I should say, perhaps because of the federal election, that there's been a bit of a holdup on the federal side. Hopefully, that will be rectified very quickly following tomorrow's announcement of the new federal cabinet.

C. Hansen: Are there any projects that have been accepted that do, in fact, have completion dates beyond March 31, 1998?

Hon. D. Miller: No, there are not.

C. Hansen: I gather, though, that it's not unreasonable for organizations, municipalities. . . . They should not give up hope that that extension will come through. If they have projects that can't be completed within that deadline, they should still be putting those proposals forward, even though they may have completion dates after March 31, 1998. Is that fair to say?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there has to be some reason. Obviously you can't go two years out. But if there's a reasonable argument to extend the deadline for the project completion, then we're prepared to argue that with some vigour.

The other issue that was raised in terms of cultural projects is that under our system we allow sweat equity. In other words, if there are donations of labour, materials, those kinds of things, they can be quantified and considered as part of the one-third contribution. That's not accepted under federal rules. But again, we're going to push on that question, and hopefully we will meet with some success.

[9:15]

But I did want to ask. . . . There are three components listed under the job strategy. First of all, they talk about the forest sector strategy. I just want to confirm with the minister that the jobs and timber accord. . . . First of all, I'm making an assumption that when we talk about a forest sector strategy for jobs, we're talking about the jobs and timber accord. And I just want to confirm with the minister that the appropriate place to have that full and complete debate is in the Ministry of Forests, not in the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

Hon. D. Miller: That's correct.

C. Hansen: Thank you. If the minister's answer had been otherwise, obviously this would have been a much longer debate. But we'll certainly save that for the Ministry of Forests when it comes up.

There are two other areas mentioned under this. One is regional job strategies. I know that the minister has talked about the northern economic development forum that's being planned. Is that what you mean when you talk about a regional job strategy? I'm just wondering what's meant by that reference.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In fact, I'll go back to the. . . . One of the explanations I tried to offer a number of times is the overlap and the interrelationship. It's clear, for example, that the jobs and timber accord has the regions of the province as its maximum beneficiaries, because that's where most of the work takes place. Similarly, I talked about the northern strategy. I talked as well about the Columbia Basin Trust -- not something concluded by this administration but by a previous administration of our party -- in other words, about the transferring of resources to that region and the formation of a board of representatives from that region with a specific mandate to look at economic development initiatives in the power-generation area. So we do think it is important to have a regional focus to development. It's important that all citizens of the province benefit from opportunities for economic expansion.

Just briefly, one other example of that is the electronic highway accord, the first phase of which has now been concluded with B.C. Tel. We have subsequent phases to go, but we'll see the linking up of all communities to the electronic highway. As the new economy more and more kicks in, we think it's important that those opportunities, through the electronic highway, be available for citizens around the province. Indeed, under the Infrastructure Works program, we're hoping to have several telecommunications projects linking, for example, communities that currently don't have phone service with phone service, and looking at some other initiatives out there in some communities on the communications side that link into the regions of our province.

C. Hansen: When we talk about these regional job strategies, will they be tied together in a document -- coming back to documents? Are they going to be tied together in a document that will really set out those objectives that are to be achieved? Again, it comes back to this issue I raised earlier: will we have measurable results that are set out, so that we can look at this program a year from now and determine whether or not success has been achieved?

Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain. With all due respect to the role of the opposition, I really do think that their job is to comment on the state of things at any given point in time -- as they've been doing, for example, with employment numbers in recent days -- and to try to make the point that it's not good enough and that more ought to be done. That will be the case, I think, on an ongoing basis. All governments are judged at the end of their term by a number of standards, and some of those fly out of the window in the face of the dynamics of any particular campaign. For example, I think the Liberals felt fairly comfortable, given their fiscal record federally. Yet the other issues that came to the fore in that election became more dominant: the issue of national unity, the issues in the Maritimes. So it's not always possible to put an absolutely rigid number to everything -- to every community, every region. It's the relative health of the economy across the province that is really the measuring stick of success or failure.

C. Hansen: Obviously the minister and I will disagree on what the role of opposition is. But it's our role to hold the government to account, and part of that accountability is to 

[ Page 4206 ]

make sure that there are plans in place that show the direction that government is taking in this province. In the interest of time, I don't want to go back to revisit that debate, because we could spend three or four hours on that one point alone -- and we did, earlier tonight.

But I would like to ask the minister: is it not the policy of this government to have business plans with identified objectives?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and we have. We have supplied those to you, and with all due respect to any advice I offer on the role of opposition, it really only results from my own time -- some five years on the opposition benches -- where we were able, thankfully, to translate the kind of work we did in opposition in an election campaign and become government. So it's not my job to advise the opposition. In fact, I often say that I can offer advice but I can't force people to take it.

C. Hansen: Well, this is definitely a different style of opposition from the one that the minister was part of. And perhaps he should take note, because he may well be back in these benches before he knows it.

Under job strategy, there's also reference to a women's employment strategy. Again, could the minister explain what we should anticipate, and what kind of objectives should be achieved under that program?

Hon. D. Miller: That strategy has been developed by the economic development division over the past number of years, with some help from advisory groups from other relevant ministries. We think we've made some reasonable progress on women's employment in some areas: employment equity; employment standards -- we touched on that in an earlier part of the debate -- issues around child care and training. We have been looking at the overall range of elements affecting women's employment: job creation, business, community development, skills, social services, etc. In the coming months, the ministry will develop options to address these issues in the context of the government's overall priorities and research.

This ministry doesn't want to get into. . . . I don't mean to say it's not a lead role. We have an obligation to do this kind of work, relative to the broader employment strategies. The champion of those issues, in terms of the public focus, is the Ministry of Women's Equality.

C. Hansen: I gather from the minister's comments that this is an area of focus of the ministry, in terms of looking at women's employment issues and programs and opportunities. Maybe what it comes down to is a different definition of what the word "strategy" means, and my definition of the word is that we have a game plan that is set out. I gather from the minister's comments that it's not a strategy in that sense but rather an area of attention that the ministry is focusing on. Is that a fair summation?

Hon. D. Miller: Again, I go back to the issue of cross-ministry implementation of strategies. If you look at some ministries of government, they are not completely comprehensive in terms of program delivery, nor can they be. You couldn't, for example, give the program side of equity issues around employment to the Ministry of Women's Equality, because you'd have to build a new bureaucracy. So it's working. . . . It's government setting priorities, first of all, that employment issues for women are a priority of the government, and then engaging a variety of ministries in ensuring that those policies are put into action.

I talked about some of the things that we've already done: the Vancouver Island Highway accord that saw for the first time the goals of equity employment written into an agreement. I think I made a statement earlier today that we wanted to make sure that women had the opportunity to access some of the jobs created by that project beyond what you normally see -- the traditional jobs, which are holding the flag, stopping traffic and allowing it to go. I don't have statistics on that, but that was clearly the goal. We see that in some of the training programs.

I was delighted, in my former portfolio in Skills and Training, to see as one of the Skills initiatives we developed -- a combination of a Skills initiative -- the building of a safe house here in Victoria with construction done by women, some of whom were on social assistance.

So what we were trying to do was achieve multiple objectives -- in this case, to construct the safe house and throughout that program to provide training on an equity basis, rather than put it out to bid and let the traditional method of construction take place.

There was a delightful. . . . One of the advertisements we had at that time was of a young woman who was training in carpentry, engaged in work on that particular project. So that kind of illustrates. . . . We had women in trades, a particular focus in the Ministry of Labour, in terms of the apprenticeship. That is an ongoing issue. We had training programs. I recall a very significant one in the Terrace region, in terms of women accessing traditional trades training.

So you can see that it's spread across a variety of ministries. The objective is broadly stated, which is to increase opportunities for women on the employment side. A number of ministries could be engaged in activities that would realize that goal.

C. Hansen: I gather from the minister's response, though, that there is not a comprehensive strategy document that really sets out where things are going here.

I do want to move on to another subject, if I may. In this document, under the economic development division, it mentions Repap British Columbia restructuring. I wanted to ask the minister. . . . I understand that there was an interim economic plan done by the job protection commissioner early on -- probably about February of this year. I'm assuming that the debate over the Repap restructuring is one that we should do in its full extent under the Ministry of Forests, but I did want to ask the minister about that economic plan -- and specifically, if he could comment on the 5 percent clawback provision that was introduced. My question concerns the waiver of the 5 percent clawback: was that a recommendation of the job protection commission in that interim job protection plan?

Hon. D. Miller: As I recall, I'm not certain that it was a separate recommendation. I think that was a decision taken by government. We are able to act under our structure when there's an interim economic plan. What that primarily resulted in was the release of some $15 million in bridge financing to try to assist the contracting community who'd been adversely impacted by the near-bankruptcy of Repap, now referred to as Skeena. That plan was used as the basis for government to move forward and make some of those decisions.

[ Page 4207 ]

[9:30]

Today the company informed residents of Prince Rupert -- tomorrow, Terrace -- of some of the very real hurdles facing them. They also indicated, as part of their proposed restructuring, the necessity to eliminate almost 250 jobs in that region. These are very, very tough issues. We've tried to be there for the people. I've sent reassurances -- as my colleague, the Minister of Forests, has -- that we will do what we can. We've deployed Forest Renewal. I have been meeting with senior representatives of both banks, the Royal and the TD, to discuss some potential involvement of the B.C. government in a restructuring. We've not reached any conclusions on that; we've not reached any agreements. Rather, I've tried to say that we want to assist where it's prudent and it makes sense for us to do that. So there's going to be a lot of work to try to deal with this very difficult economic circumstance, which was brought about by the private sector failure of a large Canadian forest products firm that unfortunately got itself mired in debt and couldn't produce the kind of cashflow that was even required to deal with the interest on that debt. And they were ultimately forced by the marketplace to sell.

C. Hansen: The minister was quoted in a newspaper article, I believe in Terrace, when he was asked why the 5 percent clawback was waived. It was in the context of whether or not that 5 percent could be used at least as a lever to support the unsecured creditors. And the minister's response to that question was that he had no choice. I was wondering if he could expand on that.

Hon. D. Miller: This may be more proper for the Minister of Forests, but let me briefly say that the banks were handed the keys for Repap B.C. The company that owned it walked away and said, "We don't want to have anything more to do with it," brushed their hands off, and said to the banks: "It's yours." It was a company that we realized had a significant debt position, that had an annual loss exceeding $120 million in the last fiscal year, that was in very serious trouble economically, and that was forced into that circumstance. Under those circumstances, it seemed to us in government that to insist that the 5 percent come back to the Crown -- which happens when there's a licence transfer -- was unnecessary. We waived that provision, and I think it was appreciated by the banks -- who are now the de facto owners -- that we did that. We also waived some of the licence provisions that were contained in the Orenda licence, particularly. We did that because they were in very severe economic circumstances, and we had to respond to it. We did say that in the future, should a buyer come along that wants to acquire those assets, we would take that 5 percent.

The other issue that was raised -- and again, at the risk of offending the rules -- was whether you could link contractual payments to the licence. In other words, the licences are held by the company. They enter into other private sector relationships with contractors, suppliers and the like. And what those contractors were saying was that if the principal company that holds the licences should fail, we should be able to collect what we're owed out of the value of the licences.

The member might want to think about that proposal and come to his own conclusions about why it couldn't work. But it clearly cannot work. There's no residual value, notionally, in a licence. The value in a licence is the opportunity to create employment opportunities, to create opportunities to get a return on your investment. We don't sell those licences to companies; we allocate those licences to companies in exchange for certain activities taking place. Therefore, you'd have to saddle any future owner of the licences with a bill for creditors, because of the failure of another private sector company. I hope the member might think about the consequences of that and come to the realization that, while it may sound attractive on the surface, in my view, it simply could not happen.

As the member may be aware, I stood in front of a group of angry contractors in Terrace, along with his leader, and made some statements they didn't particularly like, but I hope that they are at least respected. I do think that the people of the northwest understand that we are working very hard. We made an announcement yesterday that quantified, for the first time, a commitment that there would be, in our view, a saving of about $20 million annually to that company, and obviously savings to other companies that operate in the region, as a result of changes on the forest practices side and other technical issues. We made a commitment for Forest Renewal to fund road development into the Kwinageese, which would provide some opportunity for work for the contractors in the Stewart region, who are suffering badly.

So we've tried to be there to offer the kind of assistance that is appropriate, and we will continue to be in the picture and available for discussions with the owners about possible participation in an economic restructuring plan.

C. Hansen: It is obvious, if it were a different hour of the day and we weren't anxious to get through this, that this is a subject that I know could consume a considerable amount of time, because this is an area, obviously, that I would love to go into in great detail. But we'll do that in the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

Let me just say that there are some ironies in this: the government basically has the power to grant or not grant a 5 percent clawback, and you have the banks asking for it to be waived. It reminds me of another incident in Canadian history, where an individual was asked why he did something, and he said: "I had no choice." And the other individual shot back: "Yes, you had a choice; you could have said no." And here we have a government minister, the Minister of Employment and Investment, who is basically there backing up the banks, giving a benefit to the banks that was not an obligation on the part of this government. And that 5 percent clawback could have been used in a couple of different ways. It could have been used as a lever, if nothing else, to support the unsecured creditors that are hurting badly in that region. But, as I mentioned, it's an area that we will canvass far more extensively in the Ministry of Forests, if that's appropriate.

I should give the minister a chance to respond, because I know it's an issue of importance to him. Then I'll move on to another subject.

Hon. D. Miller: I just want to be very clear on a couple of points here. We made a choice. I don't know that at any time I've tried to characterize the decision we made as being made 

[ Page 4208 ]

because we didn't have a choice. We made a choice, and we said to the owners -- regardless of the fact that the owners are the two banks in question -- that we have an obligation to the thousands of employees in the northwest part of our province whose fate was hanging in the balance in a very delicate situation, where a company that could have gone into bankruptcy, that could have seen operations shut down and that could have seen creditors lose everything. . . . In the face of that, we had an obligation to be prudent and considered in our response. And we did a couple of things. We did waive the 5 percent takeback for the reason I cited: the company was forced into that position.

It wasn't a voluntary transaction between two entities, a willing buyer and a willing seller. We made a conscious decision to do that in the face of a terrible economic problem that continues to this day -- not because we felt we didn't have a choice but because we felt we had an obligation to be as supportive as we could be in the face of these very dire economic circumstances. I want to be very, very clear on that point.

This is not the first time that the banks, because of market forces, have ended up as the owners of an enterprise. It's not a situation that normally lasts in our economy. I recall when I was the Minister of Forests, working with the banks, and the Mackenzie pulp operation ended up in the same circumstance. And we worked with those bankers. They restructured that company; they turned it around. It ultimately was sold; I think Slocan now owns it. The jobs were saved and the community was stabilized because of the actions we took, and I certainly resent any implication that we did not do enough, or saying in hindsight that because we waived the 5 percent, somehow we were being held hostage by the bank. Nothing could be further from the truth.

My view is that I don't care who the owner is; I care about the people in the communities in the northwest. That's why we put $15 million forward through Forest Renewal -- or at least Forest Renewal did that -- to support that contracting community. That's why we've announced $20 million in annual relief on costs on the forestry side yesterday. That's why we announced that Forest Renewal will be supplying the funding for road development into the Kwinageese -- to provide opportunities for the Stewart contracting community to get some work.

Everything we've done has been done because of those communities and those working families. And that's going to continue to be the position of this government, even though we don't have the answers to every problem that exists. So I want the member to be absolutely clear on that point.

C. Hansen: It's only because of the hour that I'm not engaging the minister in a much more substantive debate on this subject. My only reason for doing that. . . . There are a lot of questions that I would like to ask on behalf of the communities in the northwest. We will certainly do that during the Ministry of Forests debate, because there are a lot of questions that need to be asked and a lot of answers that need to be given. But I will push on to some other areas in hopes that we can wrap up this particular section tonight before we have to adjourn.

I want to draw the minister's attention to page 104 of the estimates book. Under the subject of corporate services, there is an explanation where it says that costs are partially recovered. I'll give you a chance to find page 104 of the main book. Under "Corporate Services," the last sentence says: "Costs are partially recovered from parties supporting community development programs." I'm wondering if the minister can explain what that means.

Hon. D. Miller: That's the community development division. I understand it's a program involving utilization of students -- I'm not sure from which university -- for specific projects. There will be some partial reimbursement by the university to the community development branch. I can get more particulars on that program for the member.

Not to prolong debate, but I just want to say one thing, and I mean this with all seriousness. I've been in this job and in previous cabinet portfolios and dealt with a lot of very difficult economic circumstances. I've dealt with communities where jobs are at stake, and I've had the unfortunate task at times -- in the case of Cassiar -- to have to go to a community and say that it was going to be closed down.

I want this member to know that I take that kind of work in a deadly serious vein. I know how difficult it is when an issue comes along like it did in Golden, where the single employer was going down the tube. And I know how difficult it is to kind of pull people together, pull a restructuring plan together, put a package together and try to save those jobs. I can tell you, it's damn hard.

I know how easy it is to fan the flames of fear that exist when these situations develop. I expect and demand some responsibility with respect to the situation in the northwest, and I hope the member understands what I'm talking about. It's my home. That's where I come from, and that's where I've lived for most of my adult life. And if I see irresponsible behaviour in terms of people trying to propose easy but unattainable solutions, then I will be very, very angry about that. I don't normally get this serious, but in this case I am deadly serious in terms of that. I would just cite one instance.

The Leader of the Opposition stood in front of a pretty angry and worried crowd and suggested that it would be easy for Forest Renewal to take their money and pay the creditors off and supplant Forest Renewal for Repap. That cannot happen, and the member should understand why that cannot happen.

[9:45]

C. Hansen: If the minister thinks that we on this side of the House are not going to ask questions about the restructuring that is going on with the Repap situation in the northwest, he's wrong. We are going to ask questions. We are going to hold the government accountable for what they are doing, because I, like he, share the concern that we're dealing with people's lives. We're dealing with families, we're dealing with homes, and we're dealing with severe hardships.

He doesn't have a monopoly on sensitivity to what's happening in the northwest. We know exactly what those families are going through, so we will hold this government to account for what's happening in that area. He doesn't have to 

[ Page 4209 ]

stand here and make threats or veiled threats that somehow we should sit back and give them carte blanche to do whatever they feel is appropriate in that area. We will be critical, if appropriate; we will be constructive in our criticism; we will ask questions on behalf of people in the northwest who are in the process of losing their homes.

So I don't appreciate him suggesting that we should somehow sit back and be mousey about what is going on and trust this government. Because, quite frankly, the actions that we've seen from this government over the last six years do not warrant trust on the part of the people of British Columbia. We will be asking those kinds of questions.

Quite frankly, if the minister would like to continue this debate directly in these estimates rather than in the Ministry of Forests estimates, I'd be quite prepared to do that. I asked him simple questions tonight in a very responsible way. I was looking for some answers. I wasn't even being critical of what this minister has done. I asked for some simple answers to actions that have been taken by this minister.

My sense is that this debate should take place in the Ministry of Forests estimates, and that's where we plan to do it. But quite frankly, I don't appreciate the threats and the innuendo that somehow we're being irresponsible by raising this subject, by making suggestions and, yes, by making criticisms of government action. We're only too sensitive to what's at stake when you talk about the families and the economic situation that happens in those communities. The minister should not think that he's got a monopoly on that sentiment.

I do have one last area that I would like to pursue. In fact, I have a lot of areas yet to pursue that may call upon these officials. Perhaps what I'll do is deal directly with the officials on them and try to get some answers for those areas.

On that note, I move 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 progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. D. Miller moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 9:51 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 6:43 p.m.

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

Hon. J. Pullinger: Before we proceed on the estimates of the museum, I would like to introduce the museum staff who are here. On my left is Bill Barkley, who is the CEO of the Royal British Columbia Museum and does an excellent job of keeping our museum a world-class facility. Behind me is Pauline Rafferty, also from the museum. And, of course, everybody knows Lynn Tait, my deputy.

I. Chong: First of all, I would also like to welcome the museum staff and Mr. Barkley, who I've met. He may not remember, because he sees so many people through his world-class facility.

Before I make some comments about this, I do want to just say that I myself have in the past been a member of the Friends of the Museum, so I'm very much aware of the role that volunteerism has played to support this facility. I do believe it is a fine facility in Victoria. I believe we have a gem here, and from the outset I want to say that I am very supportive that the museum continues and that it is here for generations to come.

The thrust of the initial part of the comments and the questions I have. . . . I want to address, shall we say, to get these things out of the way so we can focus more on the business of the museum. As the minister knows, there have been some articles and some controversy that have been raised recently regarding the museum. There were concerns, whether or not justified, that certainly bring to mind the intent of any program or any operation that the government undertakes.

What has gone wrong here or is perceived to have gone wrong can easily occur in any program that the government initiates. For that reason, I think it is important that we look into this, so that we get the answers and have them in Hansard. Those who are looking in the future will know that this has been well canvassed, and everyone can start to go on with the requirements of allowing this museum to function.

[6:45]

There is no question about what we believe the mandate to be, but it is a question of what it really means. Within the context of that, I'm wondering if the minister can share with us whether there is something more specific as the mandate, rather than that rather global statement dealing with the natural and human history of the province of B.C.

[ Page 4210 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The Royal B.C. Museum follows its mandate as closely as possible. It obviously can't do all things at all times, but it does, over any given period of time, follow its mandate. It has a business plan, of course, which details how the museum proposes to and does follow its mandate. I would be happy to provide the members opposite with a business plan summary at this time. I have copies here. At some later date, I will be happy to provide the more detailed plan, if the members wish. In fact, we have a whole collection of business plan summaries, so these are here for the members if they want them.

I. Chong: It's not so much the business plan. Again, I am aware that there is a five-year business plan for 1993 to 1998. Certainly this summary will be helpful, because I haven't had the opportunity to fully peruse the business plan. However, I think that what is of concern to those who have read the articles, as I'm sure the minister is also aware. . . . The articles raised enough concerns that the minister proceeded with -- and I'll say it loosely -- an investigation, which I understand was to determine whether the mandate had been breached. I'd like to ask the minister, given that she also had those concerns, whether this mini-investigation or this look into the situation revealed anything that she could share with us at this time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Obviously there is a difference of opinion between Mr. Peden and the museum on what precisely the museum should be doing. I didn't order an investigation. What I did do was to ask my deputy to have a look at the issue and to work with the museum to help resolve any outstanding issues. That, in fact, is happening.

The museum is also a special operating agency. As such, it has a very capable and very broad-based community board. I have full confidence that the board will fully resolve any issues that may be there, and I also have full confidence that the museum will continue to carry out its mandate in the best way it can with the obviously limited funding it has. In the best of all worlds, we would have a lot more funding and could do a lot more with it. But I think the museum has done a superb job of making its programs accessible to the public and also of generating revenue through world-class exhibitions, thus aiding the research function and other functions of the museum. I think they've done an excellent job of carrying out the mandate of the museum.

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that the deputy was asked to be involved in looking at resolving any disputes or differences of opinion. The minister stated that this procedure is currently happening. I'd like to ask the minister if it is near completion. Will there be a report issued, or will it be a matter that is just going to be verbally reported on? Can the minister provide us with some information in that regard?

Hon. J. Pullinger: My deputy has certainly spoken with various parties, has reviewed the issues and is working with the board.

I. Chong: Can I ask whether this would be the board of the Royal B.C. Museum special operating agency, not the Friends of the Museum board?

Hon. J. Pullinger: No. The board that reports to me is the board of the museum.

I. Chong: I know that some of the people who have been involved with the Friends of the Museum have also been concerned regarding this. I have received some of their concerns, as I know a fairly substantial number of those who have served on the Friends of the Museum board.

The question I have is not so much on whether the Royal B.C. Museum will carry out its mandate. I'm assured that that will occur, and I do have confidence in the fact that Mr. Barkley has the ability and the staff to do that. I was wondering whether the minister can advise at what point or at what level there is an established level of the mandate of the curatorial duties and research versus these other kinds of marketing activities that occur. Is there an imbalance that will occur at some point? Even though the mandate is followed, will that create an imbalance that will again cause some concern? Or will it be expected that provided that there's enough money to cover a minimum amount of research, that will be allowed?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Let me just begin my comments by saying that this one-year business plan of the museum's was developed in consultation with people from across the province. The museum is a provincial resource, and I think it has been exemplary in travelling the province and ensuring that voices were heard from around the province. So the business plan and the way the museum operates are based on a wide variety of views and inputs. I think that's absolutely appropriate, and I applaud the board for ensuring that happens.

I also want to say that there are two people on the board from the Friends of the Royal British Columbia Museum, so they have a clear way to make any of their views known. Obviously there will be differences of opinion; that's just a matter of fact. It's simply not possible in any group of more than one person to find absolute consensus on all issues. That's a fact of life, I think. The issue at hand here is to consider people's views and to take them into account, and it's clear to me that the museum staff and board are doing that.

The marketing activities of the museum generate $3.37 million. That money goes to the mandated activities of the museum, which include research. The fact that the museum has done so very well, both in providing us with truly world-class exhibitions and at the same time generating funds for the museum, has meant that the research funds will in fact increase this year over last year. Three new curators are in the process of being hired.

I. Chong: I will have some questions in a short while regarding the board composition, as well, and I appreciate the minister already providing brief information on that. I would also like to canvass the minister as to the staff complement and where we're at with that. But before I do I want as well to address some of the comments that the minister made.

I want to be very clear at the outset that I am very supportive of the Royal British Columbia Museum and have no desire to suggest that it will not continue to be a success story. I recognize that those who serve and volunteer and see things that some of us do not see and that occur on a daily basis will have differences of opinion. And, of course, if we do not hear those differences of opinion sometimes, then we would be accused of not having an open mind to other points of view. I want to be sure that the minister is aware of my intention. It is to ensure that we have it very clear, and for Hansard. We want it to be certain that we are supportive of the museum, provided as well that those who have raised their concerns have had them properly addressed.

With that, I would like to move into more technical or fact-based information -- that is whether the minister can 

[ Page 4211 ]

advise us of the number of permanent exhibits that are at the museum currently and how many have been added in the last year.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The museum has 100,000 square feet of exhibits and has had that amount. . . . It has recently added 10,000 square feet -- the whales exhibit, which I opened on April 18. "Whales, the Enduring Legacy," has about 230 artifacts, including basketry that survived 400 years under a mudslide at Ozette, which is a historic first nations whaling community in Washington State. Clearly, the already magnificent array of artifacts at the museum has been augmented, and we're being served well by the addition of the new whales exhibit.

I. Chong: I appreciate what the minister has provided in terms of square footage space for the museum, but that was not my intent. Perhaps I should have been more clear.

[7:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: Since 1986 there has been a continual process of upgrading within the three galleries. There's the natural history gallery, the first nations gallery and the history gallery. Those three galleries have in fact been upgraded. It's not correct to say that there's a downgrade. As well, in 1994 the Chinese apothecary exhibit was added. That's a permanent exhibit. Of course, I believe the member is aware of the exhibits that have come for a limited period of time, as well -- Ghenghis Khan and the whales.

I. Chong: I certainly appreciate that, because the information I had wasn't clear. When it mentioned that only one new permanent exhibit had been added. . . . That has again raised some concerns as to the issue of the mandate and whether there was in fact balance going to the curatorial duties.

I know the museum has recently gone through some upgrading -- some two years ago, I suppose -- and there was a setback with the fire, and those sorts of things. I have been very closely following what's been happening with the museum.

The area that I would like to ask the minister on as well is regarding the staffing and the complement of the staffing at this time. There's been some mention that there's been downsizing of the science staff. I read an article -- and again, I don't know how true the facts are -- that some 30 years ago there was one director, one assistant and 17 curators. Now, some 30 years later, we have 21 directors -- and I'm presuming they mean the board of directors -- six curators and several managers. I was wondering whether or not the minister can confirm for us at this time how many curators there are and whether that number is sufficient, given the expansions that are ongoing and the exhibits that they're constantly looking to achieve.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's true that the number of supervisory staff has declined; as well, the number of curators has declined. That's a fact of life. We have been in a bottom-line kind of mentality in this country for the last 15 years, and the consequence of that and of continual government downsizing and of the monetarist approach to life that we've taken, the market-driven approach, is that we have fewer resources. And that has resulted in fewer resources for everything including the museum.

However, I would like to point out that the research budget this year has increased. I would also like for the record to be very clear that while there are obviously not the same resources available to the museum, they have done some remarkable work in keeping this museum a world-class facility. During the fiscal year ending March 31, 1997, 27,208 items were added to the collections. That's very significant. As I say, their efforts to bring special displays here is expected to raise over $3 million in addition to the $11 million provided through the government.

The eco-museum tours that the museum has put on, which by all accounts have been a smashing success, cover all interests: archaeology, marine science, insects, etc. There's even an excursion over the Cariboo gold rush trail. Those are clearly all part of our natural and built history and heritage. "Empires Beyond the Great Wall" was a remarkable exhibition here. I'm sure the member saw that; I did, and I thought it was outstanding. It also generated funds for the museum, as I'm sure future exhibits and efforts will.

Despite the fact that resources going to the museum -- as resources going everywhere else -- have shrunk over the years, I think that the museum board and staff are doing a remarkable job in providing us with a wonderful experience when we go to the museum and with a significant tourist attraction that helps economically in Victoria and beyond.

I. Chong: I just want to state that I know the minister continues to respond by saying that it's a world-class facility and that the museum is doing well; again I would say that that is not the issue. I have no problems with that; I agree and accept that it's a world-class facility, and I agree and accept that staff are working very hard and doing their job as best they can given the limited resources.

As I say, I just want to canvass this particular agency to have a fuller understanding as well as to ensure that any opportunities we in the opposition benches have to offer recommendations are taken, so as to compliment whatever position the staff and the board are currently taking. Again, I want to assure the minister I'm not critical of Mr. Barkley or the staff or the museum.

Given that, I do have those questions regarding the staffing. The minister started off mentioning that there were additional moneys being given to research. So given that she's opened that door, I will move right into the area of the funding and the budget. As I understand it, in last year's budget, in 1996-97, this ministry provided to the Royal B.C. Museum $11.712 million. This year, in 1997-98, the budget provides $11.384 million, which is a decline of $328,000. So what I would like to ask the minister is: when she said that the research budget has gone up, I have to assume it's gone up as a result of the activities that the museum staff and management have determined and seen fit, not necessarily as a result of funding from the minister's budget.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The government portion of the funding has indeed declined. One of the reasons for making the museum a special operating agency is to provide it with that 

[ Page 4212 ]

next step of independence and flexibility, if you like, which creates the advisory board -- as I know the members opposite know, having discussed this around Tourism.

So the SOA provides that the funding -- moneys earned by the museum, if you like -- doesn't have to go back into consolidated revenue; it can go back to the museum. It provides for the advisory of the museum. As an SOA, the museum is now in a position where it can in fact generate revenues which it keeps. There is a projected 12 percent recovery this year, which will therefore augment the museum's budget. So it's a 12 percent increase in recoveries this year, which adds to the funding that the museum has at its disposal, which is why budgets such as the curatorial services funding and research funding can actually increase this year, despite the fact that government funding has declined.

I. Chong: It's reassuring to know that the increase in the research budget can come from the more creative and innovative approach that the staff and management have been able to engage in to increase its revenue sources. Given that the increase is substantially more than the government decrease in its funding, can the minister advise whether or not the increase that is generated by the SOA and by its activities will play a role in the future funding? Or will there be a guarantee or a secure level of funding from the ministry that will always be provided to the Royal B.C. Museum?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Part of the SOA deal is always to reduce the core support from government as the revenues are generated elsewhere. We're in year 2 right now of a three-year agreement. The reductions were 6, 4 and 4 percent. So it's 6 last year, 4 this year and 4 next year.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise what happens after the third year, after the $400,000 which is anticipated to be reduced next year? Is it up for negotiation, or are there plans to have this become a new Crown corporation?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The SOA would then be renegotiated.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise at this time whether she can, through perhaps conversations and consultation with Friends of the Museum or others -- as has happened in the tourism industry when that SOA was designed to last a certain amount of time and was then legislated and became a Crown. . . ? Can she advise whether those kinds of conversations are now happening within the Royal B.C. Museum special operating agency and whether we will be looking at a new legislative authority and a new Crown? Is that something that is in the works and that the minister can share with us?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That issue has certainly been raised, but there has been no decision made at this point.

I. Chong: I'm wondering, before I move off the sort of financial side of this, whether or not the minister can provide us with an update, through the staff, as to the current revenue sources, perhaps for the year just ended, for the Royal B.C. Museum. What I'm looking for are the revenues generated from visitors, the revenue that is provided through the ministry -- the $11 million from last year -- and any other revenue sources, such as marketing, etc. What would be the total global budget that has transpired in the past year?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Last year there was roughly $2.9 million in recoveries or gate moneys earned by the museum one way or another. This year we're expecting roughly $3.3 million in recoveries. The rest is provided through government.

I. Chong: The area that I would like to continue with. . . . I'm just looking over some of my notes.

I suppose the fact that people will have differences of opinion. . . . As I understand it, there was a survey or questionnaire that the museum staff participated in. I'm wondering whether or not that survey or questionnaire has been concluded. I understand that the idea of that survey was to evaluate the museum staff's opinion. I suppose this goes to morale. I know there was an article that was written about that. I guess the survey was intended to provide an opportunity for staff to provide their opinions and to show whether or not there is support for the direction the museum is taking -- not just from those who see it from the outside in, but actually from the front-line workers as well, who perhaps have been there for a number of years on a continuous basis. I'd like to ask the minister whether or not there's been any conclusion or resolutions as a result of the survey.

[7:15]

I. Chong: So can I surmise from the comments made by the minister that at this time there is no problem of staff morale among them that we're having to deal with and that, hopefully, nothing will appear suddenly in the next month and catch everyone off guard?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It would not be accurate to say there are no difficulties. Clearly, change is very hard on people, and the museum has undergone great amounts of change. That does create problems; I think we all know that. Again, I can simply applaud the museum management and board for undertaking to resolve any difficulties and to move ahead in lockstep with the staff. I think that's a remarkably progressive way to deal with issues that do inevitably arise as a result of change.

I. Chong: I have some names here, and I'm not absolutely sure as to what their positions were. I wonder whether the minister is able to clarify, through the staff that are here this evening, whether the people that I name are curatorial staff, support staff or administration. The names I have are Cris Guppy, Rick Kool and Wayne Campbell. Are these people who have left? Are they part of the curatorial staff, or are they part of the support staff?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All are former curatorial staff.

I. Chong: Since their leaving, have they been replaced with new curatorial staff so that those positions have been filled?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to clarify that two are curatorial and one is public programs staff. Two of the three have been replaced.

[ Page 4213 ]

I. Chong: I note another article I'd seen which stated that the museum is currently sponsoring two curators who are pursuing their PhDs. Would those be two additional people being sponsored, or would they be the two replacements?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's part of the ten.

I. Chong: The other thing I'd like to ask the minister is whether or not the survey that was conducted would be available for us to have a look at just to see the kinds of questions and issues that were raised, or whether she felt that that was inappropriate. I would certainly understand. . . . I'm not pursuing this. I just wonder whether it is available as information for my background.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The staff put together an action plan as a result of the work done, and that's being carried out and will be re-evaluated. Certainly I have no hesitation in saying that any appropriate materials will be forwarded to the member.

I. Chong: Certainly, if there is a staff action plan, I would be very curious to have a look at it. I would be hopeful that it is a piece of an appropriate document that can be released, because I certainly would value any of the staff participation in an action plan, especially if their recommendations are being endorsed by management. I would like to have a review of that and to know that there have been some good recommendations that have come out of this particular survey.

The other thing that I would like to ask at this point is: being that it is a special operating agency, are there annual reports that are published by the Royal British Columbia Museum?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think the kind of annual report that the member is alluding to is not done. The nuts and bolts kind of functioning reports that go to the comptroller general, of course, are done quarterly and annually.

I. Chong: The minister is partially correct. I am looking for whether or not a separate, distinct annual report is in fact issued. I'll certainly be able to locate the financial information but the annual reports that I was hoping to see as well are things which have statistical information. Things such as volume of visitors -- those areas -- and perhaps just a general overview of the past year and the direction that the museum may be taking in the ensuing year. I would like to ask whether or not there are some statistics available that can be shared with us at this particular time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The museum's report of the nature that I think the member is looking for is included in my ministry's annual report. As a part of my ministry, it's included in that report -- as was the Tourism SOA. It won't be any longer. The reports that go to the comptroller general report on a variety of issues, from staffing issues to research, etc.

I. Chong: I know that the annual reports aren't always tabled three months after a particular year-end, so I would look forward to this current year's -- the year just ended -- report sometime in the fall.

I would like to ask the minister at this time whether or not her staff could provide us with the number of visitors that annually attend the museum. Just to apprise the minister, I have found information that in 1972 there were some 1.2 million visitors; however, in 1995 that had declined to some 1.045 million people. Certainly that's caused some concerns as to what may have caused the decline. Would the minister be able to confirm those figures and to provide us with new updated figures and perhaps an explanation as to why there is a decline in the number of visitors?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm advised that the fee went on the museum in 1987. It used to be free, as the member knows. That made a temporary change in the numbers. Also, if you look at the number of visitors in the 1995-96 fiscal year, you'll see that it's over a million, which reflects the fact that the Ghenghis Khan exhibit was there during that year. The next year the number of visitors was fewer because there wasn't that kind of an exhibit. We are projecting over a million visitors to the museum again this year. The numbers do fluctuate according to a number of variables, but they generally. . . . Obviously we expect to have over a million again this year, which is great.

I. Chong: I have to admit that I did forget that it was free at one time. It was such a long time ago when I got in for free that it completely slipped my mind. I think it was on a school trip at that. That sort of dates me. Now you know the era I come from.

I guess the question I have is in terms of the number of visitors. As I say, I received this figure that in 1995, 1.045 million had in fact attended. I did surmise that that had a lot to do with the Ghenghis Khan exhibit. I think I went three times, so there you have it. I had a pass, and it made it easy to take my company whenever they came to visit. Of course, being of cultural interest to me, certainly I thought I should expose my young nieces to this opportunity. It was certainly once in a lifetime for them to see the exhibit. I saw in another article that there was a figure of 440,000 attached to the Ghenghis Khan exhibit -- the number of visitors that came in. Would it be fair to state that on average, prior to bringing in new exhibits, the museum generally -- once the fee was imposed -- is around the 600,000-to-650,000 range in terms of annual visitors?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The attendance is roughly 800,000 a year. It bounces around a little bit, depending on what's happening, but the trend has been upward on that base figure. But the real significant difference is the special events that are happening at the museum now. That's what the major draw and the dramatic increases in numbers can be attributed to.

I. Chong: I just want to ask the minister whether or not the management and staff actually set an optimum level in order for them to meet their targets for their research, for their educational programs that they wish to put in place -- whether 600,000, 700,000 or 800,000 is in fact the optimum number and whether pushing the number over that level is done with a view to getting in a special exhibit to do that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The member is correct, or is well advised to ask the question about capacity, which I understand is what she's getting at.

In the peak season there are indeed days when the museum is virtually at capacity. What the museum is doing, however, in terms of the special events, the special exhibitions, is ensuring that the off-season, the slow season, is given a boost, so that instead of having just the peak in the summer and then the dramatic drop-off, we can have more people coming through the museum on a year-round basis. Thus there are things like Christmas exhibits and the focus on 

[ Page 4214 ]

bringing in some of the other special exhibits during the winter months, when attendance is normally much lower than it is in the summer, the peak tourism time of the year.

[7:30]

Hon. J. Pullinger: The revenue from the special events is factored into the business plan of the museum. If there were to be no special events this year, we would have $3 million-plus less in terms of revenue, which obviously would have a significant impact on what the museum is able to do.

I. Chong: That leads me into the next area I wish to canvass, which is the area of special exhibits such as the Ghenghis Khan exhibit, the new whales exhibit and any other projected exhibits that are in place. Can the minister advise what exhibits are planned over the course of the next, say, three years through the business plan? If she's got that business plan, which I don't have, can the minister advise as to what those are?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Nineteen ninety-eight will bring the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit, which is an amazing exhibit from the sound of it. It will go to only one other place in North America. In 1999 there will be a first nations exhibit. In the year 2000. . . . Not there yet, but the theme will be natural history.

I. Chong: It's extremely helpful to see the diversity and the world-class kinds of exhibits that are coming here. Again, I agree with the minister that that will continue to put the Royal B.C. Museum at the forefront in world renown.

The other issue I would like to canvass at this time has to do in part with the mandate and in part with the goals and objectives of the Royal B.C. Museum. It has to do with education, in the sense of schools that participate. Can the minister advise what is in place for school programs and school visits -- whether those costs are subsidized and, if they are subsidized, whether they are tracked? And can we have a value of the forgone revenue, if there is such a thing?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm getting educated as we go here. School kids are free -- 85,000 of them per year. That is approximately $255,000 per year in forgone revenue. University students who are working on programs, projects or whatever are also free. No estimates at my fingertips; I imagine that it would be negligible. Similarly, teachers who are doing work of one kind or another are invited in for free. U.S. school students come through -- lots of them -- and they are not allowed in for free, which is entirely appropriate in my view.

Of course, in terms of education there are other things such as the eco-tours, the writings and sort of indirect educational things that happen with the museum, as well as the entire function of the museum, which is education. But those are the direct targeted freebies for school kids and people involved in education.

I. Chong: It certainly is an education this evening. I'm finding out all sorts of bits of information. Again, it's extremely helpful and serves to confirm the value of the Royal B.C. Museum and the importance of continuing a particular level of funding, so that the mandate can proceed and the educational value will continue for future generations.

The other area that I would like to ask the minister. . . . I understand there is a media relations coordinator, if that's the correct title -- a Chris Higgins. I wonder if the minister could advise what his or her -- I'm not sure if that's a male or female -- role or job description is for the museum. What kind of requirement is there for a media relations coordinator?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As I understand it, this individual spends the great bulk of his time and expertise promoting the museum in the media through editorials, articles, etc. He was responsible for a lot of the publicity in the media around the Ghenghis Khan exhibit and will likely be involved in the da Vinci one, as well. So it's a general public relations position to ensure that the public is informed about what the museum is doing and that the information is accurate. I would expect that he would at times field incoming calls or correct misinformation and deal with issues.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise, therefore, if this is a relatively new position? I'll paraphrase that in the sense that the procuring of special exhibits is fairly new. Was this individual brought in for that purpose -- because of the business plan that there would be a new and special exhibit each and every year for the next five years? Is that what this position has evolved from?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The position was created when the museum began actively pursuing special events like Leonardo da Vinci. So the position has been here since the Empires exhibit -- 1994.

I. Chong: That's exactly what I thought it was -- that this position is linked very closely to the fact that exhibits are here and certainly raising the profile of our museum.

At this time I'd like to ask some questions regarding the role that the ministry has with the Royal B.C. Museum. I don't imagine that there would be any FTEs in the ministry to deal with the Royal B.C. Museum, but if I'm wrong, I stand corrected. Is there some sort of support services or administration? If there is, can the minister advise what the FTEs may or may not be?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The museum accesses FOI services, which is one individual, and Mr. Barkley sits on the executive of the ministry. That's the extent of the crossover.

I. Chong: Just so the minister is aware, it wasn't any kind of trick question. I'm just asking that for clarification in case we will be looking at this becoming a Crown corporation. Of course we'd like to know what complement of staff would be leaving the ministry and perhaps going on to a new Crown corporation, should that be a decision that is made in the next year or two, or whether that may in fact play a role in the decision of whether or not a Crown corporation is going to be decided upon.

The next area I'd like to ask the minister about is regarding, I suppose, the future. There has been substantial talk -- and I honestly have not been too proactive in investigating the issue -- about the IMAX theatre. What I would like to know 

[ Page 4215 ]

is if in fact the IMAX theatre. . . . I had read somewhere that it was going to be paid for by a developer or by the tourism sector. I'm just not clear on that. I'm wondering if the minister can give us more information as to how this IMAX theatre will come about, where the funding will be.

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is indeed a private developer that will be building this. IMAX is the name of the technology, by the way. It's not necessarily going to be IMAX; there's another kind as well. It's a $9 million project which will be privately funded in return for the goodwill of being in the museum, which is obviously a pretty wonderful place to be if you want to attract an audience; there's a built-in audience. By way of rent for space on the museum property, there will be funds returned to the museum -- a percentage of the gate plus a leasing arrangement.

I. Chong: With such a substantial investment by a private investor, can the minister advise, then, whether there is a long-term lease and, if there is such a lease, the number of years?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a 30-year lease, after which time it reverts to the Crown.

I. Chong: That's generally what happens, and I'm pleased to hear that that will in fact happen. Can the minister advise when the construction is due to commence and when it's due to be completed? Is there an anticipated opening date in the plan?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I will tell the member what the plan is; as she knows, the best of plans can go awry. The plan is to begin construction later this year -- late summer, perhaps August -- and to open, hopefully, in May.

I. Chong: From the sound of the minister's delight, it was a surprise to her as well as to me, as to when the opening is anticipated. I'm sure that we look forward to that.

Can the minister advise whether there's been an agreement signed with a private developer or if that's yet to come?

When I say an agreement, I'm looking for an agreement that perhaps deals with the issue of the gate receipts, not just the portion that is going to be returned to the Royal B.C. Museum, but -- because some will view this as a component of the Royal B.C. Museum -- whether or not the student visitors who may be entering this. . .whether there's an agreement to have a subsidized or reduced cost for students to use this facility. Is that something that's going to be worked into the agreement?

[7:45]

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her response. I know it's difficult to surmise what may or may not come to fruition once agreements are developed.

However, looking at another similar issue here in Victoria, which has to do with the Victoria Memorial Arena. . . . As I'm sure the minister is aware, agreements are being signed there now, prior to the developer entering into the picture, to ensure that there will be some secure availability of ice for the youth in the area. By the same token, that's what I was looking for in this particular instance -- whether there would be something in the agreement to provide for some sort of security to allow the students to come in. When you run the Royal B.C. Museum, you have that opportunity to have free admission for students. Will you have some sort of opportunity to provide that for students, as well?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Students as a group would come in the off-season. That's wonderfully positioned. The on-season for school is the off-season for tourism, so that works quite nicely. Certainly I fully expect that there will be some consideration for students. There generally is in this kind of theatre, so I expect that will take place. But the details have to be worked out. We don't have that kind of detail yet.

I. Chong: Can the minister advise whether the space that is being given up or utilized with this new development would have been otherwise dedicated or allocated, or is this simply surplus space that was never intended for anything?

[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: More good news! To provide the member with a sense of where it's going to go -- if you know where the elevators are -- it's a space behind that, which (a) was not planned or dedicated to anything else and (b) is a dead space. There's no way out of it; therefore it could perhaps be a safety problem. I understand the city is quite pleased to see that filled with a large format screen theatre.

I. Chong: The questions that I have for the minister regarding this space and the utilization. . . . I primarily want to deal with whether there was any forgone revenue or anticipated forgone revenue, and I'm satisfied that there won't be.

My concerns, then, would be -- and I know it's still something to perhaps be decided on in terms of an agreement -- whether there will be a cost to the museum should this particular venue not provide the revenues that are anticipated. A certain portion of the gate receipts will go back, but is that dependent on it reaching a certain level of the gate receipts? If not, will any of it be returned, and will the Royal B.C. Museum actually have to deal with a deficit from this and absorb that within its operating cost?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The question is: will it incur a deficit for the museum? The answer is no. There is a leasing or renting agreement that will be in place that has nothing to do with the gate. There will be a percentage of the gate -- whether there's one person or one million people -- which will still go to the museum. We've looked at the experience of other jurisdictions with this kind of an arrangement and found in every instance that such an attraction, a large format screen theatre, is a huge draw. In fact, the presence of such a theatre has increased the attendance at the facility that it's partnered with or part of.

I. Chong: Am I to conclude that this will be an entirely positive cash flow and revenue generator basis -- unlike the Victoria Memorial Arena, where they have a property tax forgiveness? 

[ Page 4216 ]

That was their cost of subsidizing in terms of maintenance. So they had those considerations to contend with. In this instance, am I to conclude that there is no such thing and that it's strictly a positive cash flow to the Royal B.C. Museum?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is absolutely no economic vulnerability to the museum. Quite the contrary, the potential is in the other direction.

I. Chong: More good news, as the minister would say. I thank the minister for that. It's been very helpful. I know those who have had concerns are certainly going to be able to see some of this debate in the Hansard, and they will feel comforted knowing that this is going to go ahead. I will be looking forward to the sod-turning event later this year -- if I'm invited -- and certainly to the opening, as well.

Before I leave this area, I want to move very quickly back to the special exhibits. In the area of the Ghenghis Khan exhibit, I said earlier that I had a note that the exhibit brought in 440,000 visitors. There were also some concerns at that time as to whether or not the cost of bringing the exhibit would in fact pay for itself.

A comment that was made by Mr. Barkley some time ago, in an article in the Times Colonist, I think, was: "If 600,000 people toured the exhibit, the museum will break even, but that is a worst-case scenario." I'm wondering, now that all the figures have come in, whether Mr. Barkley is able to advise the minister, with a 440,000 figure, whether we in fact lost money. If we didn't, how did we gain, given that we had 160,000 less people than what was anticipated?

Hon. J. Pullinger: More good news. The net profit after staff and after space costs was $720,000. The economic spinoff in the area was $93 million. This made a profit, I understand, because we had better sponsorship from the community, from our corporate sector. But clearly this is definitely a positive story for the museum, as well as for the community.

I. Chong: I can certainly see the increase in sponsorships, because I was one of those who did that. I am very appreciative of the fact that these special exhibits will increase the revenue sources for this museum, because we are all very supportive of it.

The other response I heard from the minister -- and I wasn't expecting it -- was about the $93 million spinoff. I'd like to know from the minister if that $93 million spinoff would be recorded in the global $7 billion or $6 billion tourism revenue figure that is reported when the ministry reports the industry revenues from tourism.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Well, I have the happy news that I can offer the member a 100-page detailed report full of all sorts of good numbers and things, if she wishes to examine it. The report was done by a third party, and the $93 million would in fact be counted as part of the tourist activity. Certainly it was that, and it was $3.4 million directly attributable to the museum.

I. Chong: I believe that one of the last areas I may wish to canvass -- unless I hear some other answers that I don't expect -- is regarding what the minister said earlier about how the museum staff will be handling the gate receipts or revenues for the IMAX development, once that's completed. Can the minister advise whether there will be an increase in staffing or hiring of additional staff for the Royal B.C. Museum? Would those there now who are not full-time-equivalents be utilized fully? How will that work?

Hon. J. Pullinger: More good news. We fully expect that this will be so successful that yes indeed, we'll end up hiring more staff. We fully expect that those staff who are part-time will become full-time, should they choose to do that. We also fully expect that the developer will pick up the costs of any additional staff.

I. Chong: My question, then, would be: are these staff at the Royal B.C. Museum not currently considered provincial ministry staff?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes. They are counted in the FTEs, but they are on an as-and-when basis -- in other words, on call when needed.

I. Chong: I guess I wouldn't say that this is the final area I would like to canvass, but it is certainly one area, and it has to do with the fees of the Royal B.C. Museum. At that time, I know there was an increase -- I think a year or so ago, or two years ago perhaps -- and there was I wouldn't say an outrage but certainly a lot of concerns and perhaps letters to the editor and comments made. I recognize that the cost of the museum is a fairly good price for the value. I don't question that, but the issue of fee increases is something that certainly got the attention of the public, and they were upset.

The fact that we had moved from a free basis to a user-pay basis -- back in whenever it was, '86 and '87 -- caused some controversy at the time. I would like to ask the minister whether there are any fee increases planned and, if there are, whether she could advise us of that. If that's in the business plan, then so be it, but if she could provide that clarification, I would be appreciative.

Hon. J. Pullinger: More good news. Last year was the year that the summer admission cost went from $5 to $7, so it's cheaper than most movies. CHEK-TV sent a camera crew down, trying -- I'm sure -- to get positive reaction. I'm absolutely confident of that. However, that's exactly what they did get -- entirely positive reaction. People said they thought it was very good value for their dollar. The museum has had no complaints. I've had no complaints, and the museum called all the local MLAs' offices, which also reported no complaints. I would suggest that to suggest there is public outrage about this is incorrect.

[8:00]

"When the Social Credit administration introduced paid admissions at the museum in July 1987, the opposition New Democrats were outraged. One NDP MLA said that it was 'typical of the Socred turnstile mentality.' Far from rescinding that policy, the Harcourt government has gone one step further and indicated that it wants the museum to be more financially self-sufficient."

[ Page 4217 ]

-- and I'm wondering whether their approach to the fact that this now has to be self-sufficient will imply that there will be fee increases on a fairly regular basis. If not, fair enough; if so, then I would just like to have some clarification as to the kind of direction that may be taken.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I remember the debate well; that was back in the late eighties. That was when the Social Credit administration was increasing spending every year at an average of 12 percent. That was at a time prior to the massive federal cuts happening. That was when things were very different than they are today, ten years later.

The public has expressed virtually no concern about the fees. In fact, people feel it's more than fair to pay $7 to visit this wonderful museum. Local businesses -- and the member may be interested in this -- typically, and certainly it's the case here, do not want to be undercut by a public facility. They want to see the fees at a reasonable rate. They would probably be happy to see the fees go up higher.

So there are a number of issues in terms of how the fees are set, and obviously -- in this era of a market-driven approach to virtually everything and declining support from the federal government -- we simply have to do things to ensure the viability of facilities such as the museum. I think the members opposite would agree fully that we should have enough cost recovery to ensure that it's funded at a level at which it can retain its integrity and its status at the very high level of quality that we have in the museum.

The rise in fees is seasonal. They have gone up, and I think they're more than reasonable. I think a trip to the museum provides better value. . . . I guess it depends on what you like, but it's still cheaper than going to a movie much of the time, and I think it's excellent value for money.

I. Chong: I want to assure the minister that the comments I made prior to my reading of the quote from the paper were that I certainly agree that it has become an accepted practice that user fees be in place for the Royal B.C. Museum, because those who attend do feel they receive value for money. That was not the issue.

I had asked the minister on the idea of fees -- that the NDP government now are comfortable with, which they weren't comfortable with when in opposition, which is a fair position to take, and I say that with all respect -- having established the fact that fees are a part of this museum, whether there would be intended increases over a set period of time. Certainly theatres do it all the time. Admissions are raised frequently, whether it be 3 percent, 5 percent or whatever.

I'm just trying to determine whether there are intended increases. Or will this be a fee freeze which the Premier did not announce? So I'm trying to find out whether we can get any assurance from the minister at this time.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is an order-in-council in place right now that allows the museum to raise the fees on a seasonal basis. There hasn't been any discussion at this point on doing anything different. The member may be comforted to know that the museum does engage in market research and things like focus groups, as well -- community consultation -- to ensure that the fees they do levy are in fact appropriate, to ensure that no one is turned away and that it doesn't result in a decline at the gate, which would obviously be counterproductive.

It's worth noting once again that the museum does offer, as well, many services to the community, such as the school children, teachers and students that we spoke of earlier and also people from different homes or institutions -- therapeutic, I think, is the word that is used -- therapeutic groups. Plus, there are times when the museum offers its services free to the public -- 100 hours a year, I understand. So it provides an excellent service to the community, on a free basis in many cases. The museum also works very hard to ensure that the fees it does impose are reasonable and not in any way an impediment to people coming to the museum or to the growth in visitation to the museum.

I. Chong: I do have a copy of the order-in-council or something that I have received, Jan. Perhaps it was from the briefing from your deputy minister regarding the 1997 rates. I do see the seasonally adjusted rates from September 9 to June 30 and from July 1 to September 8. Can I get confirmation from the minister that these rates are adjusted seasonally each and every time that those dates appear? If you purchase your admission or your pass a day beyond the seasonal rate change, you can go back to the cheaper rate for the following year. Is that how it works?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct.

I. Chong: The question that I have now pertains to revenue sources. What I have seen in recent years and in particular this past year, having been elected, is that once in a while we get invited over to the Royal B.C. Museum by a particular group. So I surmise that there are special functions -- that the museum is renting out the museum for these special events. Can the minister advise on whether this is a fairly frequent thing? What value or price is demanded of someone who is wishing to rent this out? What criteria, if any, are there for people who wish to use those facilities for an evening event?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are approximately four such groups a month. Revenue over the year would be approximately $93,000. There are some very clear and stringent guidelines and rules in place to ensure that the exhibits are protected.

I. Chong: With that increased revenue and increased activity, would there be an associated cost, such as additional insurance coverage, that may be required? Would this $93,000 be a net value, or in fact are there other costs associated with that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The $93,000 is net.

I. Chong: The minister stated that there are perhaps four such events per month. Can I again conclude that that would be year-round, or is that just generally during the off-season? I would imagine that during the peak tourist season you wouldn't be able to rent out those facilities.

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, that's not correct. It can in fact be rented out during the peak season. That's a year-round average, but it is rented out year-round.

I. Chong: Is there capacity to increase the frequency, or is four events the optimum? Would that be able to be doubled to eight events, thereby bringing in $186,000 as opposed to $93,000, or is that the absolute optimum? I'm just trying to get a feeling for that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Other than reserving space for museum-sponsored events, theoretically one could have 365 

[ Page 4218 ]

such groups a year. We expect that the number of events may well increase over time, especially as the conference centre business increases. I understand there's some referral from the conference centre over to the museum. We can probably expect the number of such uses of the museum to grow.

I. Chong: I think we've had a fairly good exchange of information. I know I've certainly learned a fair bit about the Royal British Columbia Museum -- information that I probably would not have otherwise been able to garnish from the mass of documents that I've been trying to collect.

I also want to advise the minister that I think my colleague has a few questions -- hopefully, not too many. I'm anxious to have Mr. Barkley leave early, before we have the night hours. My colleague does have a few questions, so I would like to quickly sum up some things just so that we have clarity.

At this time the minister, in her view, is not perceiving that we will be looking at a Crown corporation in the near future. The IMAX theatre that will be built is going to be built with private funds, and there should be no cost to taxpayers as a result. From what I gather, these special exhibits that are brought in on an annual basis are brought in with the intention that they also are a positive cash flow for the museum. They are not brought in with any intention other than that, so they provide a complement. At this time, there is no planned fee increase for the museum over the next short while.

I would say that those conclusions that we've been able to put on the record -- for those who are wishing to follow these debates -- will be very helpful. It's been a very positive debate.

With that, I would like to conclude and allow my colleague from Parksville-Qualicum to ask a few remaining questions. I want to thank Mr. Barkley for coming in on the eve of his vacation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sure there's no place Mr. Barkley would rather be than here in the Legislature.

I just simply want to thank the member for her very positive comments in support of the museum. It is indeed a marvellous facility that we're all very lucky to have. I know we all appreciate the work that the board and staff do.

[8:15]

First of all, I too would like to welcome the staff I have not met. I have been at the Royal B.C. Museum quite a number of times. Let me add to the congratulations in saying yes, it is a winner; it's something we can be very proud of. There's a lot of heritage; there's a lot of tradition in there. It's an absolute winner. It's nice to be closely associated with something that everyone likes and that is a winner.

As a side comment, the minister mentioned the business community wanting to have a pricing system that is competitive. Let me assure you, certainly as a small business person myself, that there's nothing I like more than not having to compete with the government, particularly if fees and rate structures are less in order to compete.

I notice the numbers, of course, of the Ghenghis Khan special exhibit, the $93 million spinoff. What kind of mechanism was used to calculate that? Is there a certain mechanism to calculate the spinoff?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's a third party using a standard economic model that did the work.

P. Reitsma: I have no problem with that, if a standard mechanism is used. I think it is extremely important. I noted with caution the minister's earlier comments that those numbers are part of the $7 billion-plus of economic activity through the hospitality industry, which is good.

Since the Ghenghis Khan one has been so positive, so prominent and so productive, what other special events are anticipated, are in the works, or are being worked on? Of course, I'm looking at the years ahead, as well, because sometimes it takes a long time to get a particular exhibit in. The Tutankhamen exhibit -- which I don't think we've had here; I think it went to Seattle -- took a long time, of course, to acquire those rights. I just wonder if more are anticipated. What's in the works and what's being worked on?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Now for a slight rerun: 1998 is the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit; 1999 is the first nations exhibit.

P. Reitsma: Is there anything planned. Or do we have to plan more than two years in advance? I'm looking at the Olympics, of course. We're looking at the years 2008 and 2010. Are there any major special events or exhibits that would necessitate planning two, three or four years from now?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The planning now goes as far ahead as the year 2003, but those are not fully determined yet, nor have they been announced.

P. Reitsma: The next couple of questions might elicit another déj� vu or repeat performance that I've already mentioned, and that's fine. You're very proud of the museum, of course. As I mentioned, it's an absolute winner and asset. What is the government trying to achieve? Are there any particular challenges and hurdles that the government or the Royal Museum is facing? And what are the long-term goals? Are we indeed progressing towards those long-term goals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The museum is in the process of putting together a five-year plan, which will be completed in 1998, at which time the next five-year plan will be developed. The four strategic objectives that have flowed out of the strategic planning process of the five-year business plan are thus: (1) to be relevant and responsive to the public; (2) to be more self-sufficient by becoming less financially dependent on government; (3) an educational mandate, by delivering timely and innovative educational programs; and (4) informational, by improving access to collections and to information about the collections.

P. Reitsma: That takes care of part of my next question in the planning area. But in terms of challenges, are there any major challengers that the Royal B.C. Museum is facing? That's other than, of course, setting goals and priorities, which is really part of a business plan, anyway. Are there some major challenges?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think it's fair to say that there are really no huge outstanding challenges in the context that the 

[ Page 4219 ]

member means. Certainly the museum is working on becoming very responsive to and communicative with all of the regions of British Columbia as well as working on the ever-present challenge of diminishing financial resources.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer. It's under the category of more good news. I would genuinely hate to see major challenges that could cause interruption or great difficulties. So that's good to know.

When we're talking about trying to deal with the future long-term goals, does the minister or ministry feel that they have the ability to maintain or indeed improve results, and the capacity to deal with the future?

Hon. J. Pullinger: More good news: because of the SOA that we have put together recently, the museum is now in a position to move ahead with a very strong board to undertake all of the innovative things it has been undertaking to in fact carry out its mandate very well indeed in future.

P. Reitsma: More good news, more questions and, hopefully, more good news, which is good. The minister mentioned that a business plan is being formulated at the present moment. Is it to be ready by the year 1998?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The five-year plan, the first one, will be finished in 1998. But there is an annual plan, which is in this delightfully bright red colour. And we have a little pile of them here for you.

P. Reitsma: The five-year plan comes to an end in 1998, and there will be a further five-year plan for the ensuing five years. And that is being worked on at the moment, I take it?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That's correct. In 1998 we reach the end of the first five years, and in 1999 we start year 1 of the second five years. And prior to the end of the expiration of the first business plan, there will be another five-year plan in place.

P. Reitsma: As part of the ending of the five-year plan and indeed looking towards the next one in terms of planning, are there any key issues and trends that are being addressed or that they are attempting to address, particularly towards the end of the first five years? I'm just wondering if there are some key trends and issues that need to be addressed or that have been addressed.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The business planning process will certainly identify and deal with any challenges of the future. But in terms of this year's estimates, there's nothing to report along that vein.

P. Reitsma: Still part of the planning, I suppose there will be certain performance targets, including, but not limited to, the very important marketing. I wonder if the minister could outline some of the marketing approaches, maybe based on certain trends and certain measures of performance targets.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'll be pleased to provide the member with a copy of the business plan, so he can get all of that detail. But the only notable item is that the museum, at present, is focusing on increasing the group tour market from 7 to 10 percent.

P. Reitsma: The last question on the planning aspect. . . . And the minister has already provided a number of details in terms of planning any special initiatives designed to improve capacity and numbers of people coming, and group tours -- which is always a good target, actually. You've got a captive audience, although they're likely in group rates. But are there any other specific initiatives that are being undertaken, or contemplated to be undertaken, to improve capacity -- that is, basically, either more people coming to the museum or indeed acquiring more material, for lack of a better word?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The museum partners with other entities such as Tourism British Columbia or Butchart Gardens or other local attractions to pursue its marketing strategy. As with other kinds of tourism or attractions, the museum is certainly finding that there are increased numbers of visitors coming from Asia and therefore is appropriately focusing its energies somewhat on that market.

P. Reitsma: Just a bit of a side correction on the details of marketing: is there specific marketing directed to specific areas, or is it just some general advertising? How much is done within B.C., within the country and internationally?

[8:30]

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. So I guess most of the advertising and the marketing is done locally to capture those that come here. That's fair enough.

To generally improve quality and quantity, do staff travel to other museums either within our nation or internationally? I don't know if there are any exchanges going on in terms of exchanging information: how it should be run, what exhibits should be done, or what can be acquired. Is there some kind of a working relationship and exchange with other museums, whether national or international?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The professional curatorial staff certainly have their own networks around the country and in fact around the world. Happily, in this day and age they can stay very connected to them via the Internet and other such communication means. There is some interaction. There are staff members that occasionally go to other places. There is also the ability on a limited basis, as funding permits, for staff to attend various meetings, at which time they visit museums.

P. Reitsma: And that goes on from time to time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That happens from time to time.

P. Reitsma: Once you've had the operational portion and then the planning, at some time you want to measure results as well; that's part of it. What mechanism is used, and how are results measured? Also, have there been failures which are part of the operation? I hope there have not, but it's always possible.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is an institution that is very accountable. It has some 29 accountability measures in its SOA agreement, and if the member looks at page 215 of the blue book, he will find the performance measures printed there.

[ Page 4220 ]

P. Reitsma: I shall do that. I don't have the blue book with me at the moment but I accept the direction of the minister and will be going through the book at the appropriate time. In terms of results, no doubt an assessment of the financial conditions will be done. What measures are there for the protection of the assets? Generally, how are the skills of the employees rated? And does it need upgrading? Are there courses to be taken? And, in light of the work environment -- generally this is very important to an employer and employee as well -- is there general satisfaction with the working environment? So those three questions.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm advised that there are ten million objects in the museum across the street, so clearly they don't count them on a regular basis. There is, however, a system in place to check that assets are where they ought to be, and that is a process that's routinely followed. There's $50,000 spent annually on staff training that provides people with upgrading or acquisition of skills in areas such as conservation and protection of the artifacts. Similarly, the working environment. . . . We canvassed this earlier, and the museum has been through a number of changes. Clearly that's hard on the staff; there's no question about that. Therefore it's important to deal with that fact, and the museum is doing that, and doing that very well. I refer the member to the earlier conversation with his colleague in which we discussed that at some length.

P. Reitsma: Did that include, then, the potential skills upgrading, or additional skills or knowledge that might be required? Are the skilled employees sent out from time to time to upgrade in certain courses skills that require more knowledge?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are in fact three staff taking some sophisticated courses right now.

P. Reitsma: Just a couple of short questions on the financial part: this may have been addressed, and if so, the minister will let me know. What are the financial objectives of the government, and are they being realized?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The government's objective is to provide the best possible situation and funding for the museum, and we've done that through the special operating agreement. That agreement, as we discussed earlier in this conversation, provides for three decreases: 6 percent in the first year, 4 percent in each of the subsequent years. We're now in the second year of that agreement, so those two cuts have taken place, with one more to happen. The special operating agency status, however, allows the museum to engage in activities that generate revenue, which it is doing remarkably well. Those revenues more than cover the amount of the cuts.

P. Reitsma: I take it that all the financial affairs are being managed according to sound financial controls, as laid out.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Of course.

P. Reitsma: I just like to get it on the record.

I know it's an SOA, but what funding is put aside for acquisition of more items? Is there a certain budget in the overall SOA budget for capital expenditures, the acquisition of more artifacts?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The '97-98 estimates show the asset acquisitions for last year at $55,000 and for this year at $173,000.

P. Reitsma: This is probably the last question of this portion: what are the actual revenues and expenditures, and the cost recovery?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is a definite rerun.

The museum total for 1997-98 is $14.721 million. That includes $3.337 million in recoveries.

P. Reitsma: It may be a rerun. Let me assure you that some of the reruns are quite popular, actually.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This one is not. I guarantee you, this one is not.

P. Reitsma: I would ask the minister, though, for a copy, please, because we don't have a copy.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm sorry -- say that again. Rerun that.

P. Reitsma: That's going to be popular in my rerun, as well, I suppose. I'm just going to ask the minister to provide us with a copy, because I don't think we have a copy.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Of what?

P. Reitsma: Of that which I asked for, in terms of the actual revenues and expenditures. I take it that is an affirmative.

That certainly concludes my questions, and I share in the sentiments of my colleague from Oak Bay in thanking the staff. It's something extremely positive, something you can be very proud of. There's lots of good news. I don't think there was any bad news, as a matter of fact. I do thank the curator for his time and wish him a good trip, wherever he's going. No doubt it will be a good trip. I thank you for your time and patience in addressing the questions.

The Chair: A ten-minute recess, hearing no objections.

The committee recessed from 8:44 p.m. to 8:56 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: Back to the Tourism part. Before going back, I have a couple of questions on PRIT. The minister supplied some information to me. There is, I understand, an access line -- the 1-800 number -- for services regarding campground reservations. I wonder how many people are associated with this particular function, Discover Camping. When I posed the question last year, I made a point of phoning almost every working day. It was extremely hard; in fact, I never got through. I've phoned for the last number of days, and I got through once, actually, to a recording to do with Discover Camping. Could the minister shed some light on that, please?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I understand there were some problems in the first year of that program's operation. But I would advise the member that that is the Ministry of Parks, and I would suggest that he therefore direct his questions to that minister at the appropriate time.

P. Reitsma: Just a few questions -- back to PRIT.

I thank the minister for supplying me, during the supper break, with the business plan -- which, of course, I haven't 

[ Page 4221 ]

gone over -- and the list of board members, as well as the information that the board members are volunteers and receive travel expenses only. I went through the list. There are 21 members. I understand they are all appointed by the ministry. Is that a correct statement?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Those are all ministerial appointments.

P. Reitsma: Given that they're all appointed by the ministry, out of the 21, I noticed that there are none from Vancouver Island, none from Victoria -- which is part of Vancouver Island, of course. I noticed that 16 of the 21 are all from the Vancouver-North Vancouver-Burnaby area. There are two from Cranbrook, one from Vernon, one from Prince George and one from Kamloops. What are the criteria to become a director? What is it based on? Do people have an opportunity to submit their names?

Hon. J. Pullinger: These are all volunteers. I'm actually surprised by the line of questioning that the member is undertaking, because earlier today the members on that side were arguing that it should be a self-select board. Obviously we can't have it both ways. The members on that board are there by reason of their involvement in tourism, education or a variety of other things. It is, to all intents and purposes, a board whereby the names come forward from PRIT, but they're all volunteers who take this position. If the member is unhappy with the composition of the board, I will certainly pass that on to the institute and advise them that the member would like to a see a different composition of the board.

[9:00]

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is a board that has historically been appointed because of their particular interest or background or connection in either tourism or in education or elsewhere. Certainly it's not of the composition that our government would like to see, but for the very reasons that the member's colleague pointed out, we have actually simply left it alone.

P. Reitsma: I accept the answer. I find it somewhat disheartening that while staff might be volunteers -- and I don't know what the criteria are. . . . I certainly do not suspect that party affiliation is any criterion, but. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: I don't know if there are any Liberals on this particular one -- since I mentioned it -- nor do I particularly care. We need people on boards that give it their best.

As we talked about the new SOA, the minister so proudly said -- and I agree -- that representation should be from the whole of the area. I find the representation on PRIT to be somewhat anemic in terms of the various areas of B.C. My concern is that if this is accepted by the minister and by the ministry, hopefully this type of philosophy will not extend to the appointments of the board, of the new SOA, because. . . . I'd like to read the mission statement of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism: "The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism coordinates provincial human resource development activities designed to attract, develop and sustain the professional workforce in British Columbia's tourism industry."

Again, the north and the east and Vancouver Island are as much a part of British Columbia and the development as the lower mainland, where we have 16 or 17 of the volunteers as directors. So I appreciate the minister's comments that she has taken note of the concern that we have expressed in terms of the composition of the board.

A question that was posed last year in terms of Crown land. . . . I don't know if the minister is aware that literally dozens, if not hundreds, of interior fishing resort owners who lease Crown land in B.C. are almost driven out of business because of the astronomical increases in property tax assessment that go back to '94 and '95, some ranging as high as 500 percent.

I can give you some examples: the Star Lake fishing resort went up from $14,000 to $53,000; the Heffley Lake resort from $37,000 to $142,000; and the Tunkwa Lake resort from almost $63,000 to $107,000.

I don't know if the minister is aware of that. Mind you, it could be Lands and Parks and Housing, I suppose, but that concern was expressed quite gravely by the tourism industry. I wonder if the minister has some comments on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: With reference to the issue of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism, we canvassed that area extensively with the member's colleague. I have been very clear that the new Tourism British Columbia board will be reviewing all of its programming. It will be looking at the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism; it will be looking at the composition of the board and who those board members are and how they get there. All of that, to put on the record once again, is in process and will shortly be underway.

With respect to Crown lands, I am aware there are concerns among tourism operators. I'm also aware that there are market rents applied increasingly so. But I would direct the member's questions about Crown lands and increases to the rents or fees, or whatever he's referring to, to Crown lands. It seems to me that we have had a lot of discussion over the past day and a half about other ministries, and I really think we should confine this one to things that this ministry is responsible for.

P. Reitsma: I'm also aware that we've talked to the minister on a number of subjects, such as the signs, where initially we were told: "It's not in the purview of my ministry." Yet upon asking questions that were very legitimate, of course, it very much became part because the ministry officials of this ministry are assisting and helping -- and are indeed concerned with -- the other ministry. It was the same with the recreational back-country property. Initially we were told: "That's got nothing to do with this ministry." As we pursued it, of course, all of a sudden the ministry was heavily involved. So I know there's overlapping, but so be it.

In terms of ecotourism, which is extremely important, it's an emerging part of the tourism industry. There are some forest trails in the forest; there are oyster farms; there are salmon farms. They're even talking about visiting lighthouses as part of a tour. I would like comments on ecotourism from the minister. First of all, are there policies in place?

Hon. J. Pullinger: To do what?

P. Reitsma: Are there any policies in terms of ecotourism?

[ Page 4222 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: To do what with ecotourism? Marketing policies, development policies. . . ?

The Chair: Through the Chair, members, please.

P. Reitsma: The minister is asking me what kind of policies. She's giving her answer in terms of marketing. I'm asking the minister what policies there are. If marketing and advertising and promoting are part of it, say so.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The very broad question of policies is nebulous, but we do have a land use component of the ministry which works to provide a voice for tourism in land use issues. The ministry has a very broad advocacy role which we use across government wherever it's appropriate. Also, the marketing component of Tourism British Columbia markets market-ready ecotourism ventures, businesses.

Apart from that, I'm not sure what exactly the member is getting at in a broad request for policies. Those are not policies, exactly, but those are the functions of our ministry to do with ecotourism.

P. Reitsma: As ecotourism and marine tourism are an emerging part of the tourism industry, which I think will blossom in the years to come, probably it would behoove, like everything else, to have some guidelines and some policies in place, and indeed some goals.

Are there any goals, or any guidelines in place -- or that are going to be in place -- to regulate or to assist ecotourism?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Our government has probably done more than any other in terms of helping ecotourism through initiatives such as the land use planning, such as the creation of 250-plus parks, and certainly through the new marketing vehicle for tourism that will help ecotourism as well as other forms of tourism.

If the member is suggesting that we should involve ourselves in the private sector development, I believe that it's appropriate for government to provide the generic marketing of British Columbia and to provide a means whereby various private sector enterprises can be listed, and we do that through a variety of means.

P. Reitsma: Part of the marketing, of course, is promoting tourism opportunities. I think there is a marvellous component in ecotourism to tourism in general, and I just wonder if the ministry has undertaken any steps to consider or promote it. I'm talking about going to the various forest trails in there, although it could be related to Lands and Parks, and so on, but tourism is part of that. In terms of oyster farms or the farming of salmon, is that being promoted? We had a delegation out last week, as a matter of fact. The salmon-farming industry is extremely important to the economic base of British Columbia. Is any promotion or marketing done to target the possibilities of that part of the ecotourism -- visiting those particular possibilities and the tourism opportunities that I laid out?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The most overt marketing tool of British Columbia is the Super, Natural British Columbia trademark. That, of course, points to the fact that we have a remarkable province in terms of its diverse geography, which is not only magnificent to look at and experience but also provides a wide variety of recreational opportunities. I'm surprised that the member is not apparently aware of the fact that Super, Natural British Columbia -- he probably is -- is the primary identification of British Columbia, that Tourism British Columbia publishes golf guides, venture guides, ski guides and all sorts of different adventure tourism guides. They are very commonplace and can be found in all of the tourism information centres. Certainly the 1-800 line provides reservation service for many of those kinds of experiences as well.

P. Reitsma: I would like to assure the minister, although she indicated that she was surprised that the hon. member may not be aware, and then stated that the hon. member was aware. . . . So it is contradictory in terms, I suppose. But let me assure you that that is part of my business. I have people coming into my motel and into my travel agencies, and, indeed, I am advising them about tourism opportunities. I certainly use the guides that the Ministry of Tourism provides, which are very good tools. So yes, indeed, I am quite familiar with it, thank you very much.

I referred to lighthouse tourism. Do I understand that there is a government report on potential tourism to lighthouses?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Lighthouses are federal.

P. Reitsma: I certainly do not share the enthusiasm as displayed by the minister, so I will read this -- it's her own government: "Imagine vacationing at one of B.C.'s lighthouses in a bed-and-breakfast, hostel or camping area. Twelve light-stations close to southern Vancouver Island have good potential for tourism and recreation." So says a B.C. government report. I would not wish the minister to take shelter and hide behind a rather simple statement that this is federal. I would like the minister, please, to comment and advise us and the industry what the report is all about.

[9:15]

P. Reitsma: I'm simply quoting from the statement made in the paper that there is a B.C. government report that pertains to the potential for tourism and recreation. I thought that at least the Minister of Tourism would know about the report. However, if the minister does not, I will endeavour to get the report to the minister. Be that as it may, would the minister be enthusiastic and endorse travelling opportunities to lighthouses as a way of promoting that particular area, and indeed have people visit lighthouses as part of or maybe as an overall grand tour?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I welcome any new and interesting and economically viable opportunities for tourism in British Columbia.

P. Reitsma: I detect some enthusiasm here, which I'm quite happy about. I'll make a note to provide the minister with the report.

The minister has stated several times that marketing is being removed from the ministry. What is left is land use, resource management and policy. The minister has mentioned it a number of times. Once the marketing has been taken out, is that what is left in the ministry's component of tourism?

[ Page 4223 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: What's left in my ministry, as I've said numerous times, is land use issues, policy development and some shared responsibility for the development of the industry.

P. Reitsma: That being the case, could the minister advise if there is a business plan for those components and what the goals are?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It would be more appropriate if we were to canvass those issues under the appropriate part of the estimates debate, which is corporate planning.

P. Reitsma: If this is all that's left in the ministry in terms of the Tourism component, and if I'm advised to have that discussed under corporate affairs, do I then draw the obvious conclusion that there's nothing left in the Tourism component of the ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: As we canvassed this morning, I responded to several similar questions that there are 11.5 FTEs in the ministry who work on those sorts of issues.

P. Reitsma: The Ministry of Tourism is boasting of creating 23,000 new jobs. Could I ask the minister over what time span are those 23,000 to be created?

Hon. J. Pullinger: That figure is based on the growth in the industry roughly over the last five years, in which we saw 23,000 new jobs created. We expect roughly the same over the next five years.

P. Reitsma: That is fair enough. Are those jobs to be created as part of the mandate of the new special operating agency, the new Tourism B.C., or is that with the ministry itself?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Job creation is one of the highest priorities of our entire government. We function in many ways to do that. As I indicated earlier, we have supported tourism not only through this innovative marketing agency but through the creation of over 250 parks, through better management of our resources, through building the infrastructure of this province, through education and training programs, etc. I expect that all of the efforts that we undertake and have in the past. . . . We've seen, since 1991, remarkable growth in the tourism industry for a variety of reasons, including those I mentioned. I expect that those kinds of sustained initiatives plus the new marketing tool that we have provided in the new agency will together assist in creating those kinds of jobs over the next five years.

I. Chong: Following up on my hon. colleague from Parksville-Qualicum, regarding these 23,000-some-odd jobs, I suppose the reason why we're canvassing this issue is because when the framework agreement that was signed and that was negotiated to set up the special operating agency. . . . The Premier, in his press release at that time, was very clear that he expected 23,000 jobs to be created. Subsequently a number of other announcements have been made -- the jobs and timber accord, things like that -- and there's always been mention of so-many-thousands of jobs that are expected to be created.

When we ask for perhaps some more clarity on that, we're looking to find out whether or not there are consequences if that figure is not met when that figure is in mind. Particularly with the new Crown corporation being established, if it is expected over its first five-year term or whatever, once it develops its business plan, that 23,000 jobs are to be created or are expected to be created, will there be consequences if they are not created? And at what points will you be measuring them -- after two years have passed, after three years, or what?

If a very small number of jobs are created, will that cause the minister to have a look at the special operating agency the new Crown -- legislative authority -- to set some direction, to set some policy -- I wouldn't necessarily say to interfere, but to provide some intervention to get the Crown on track? Would the minister be able to give us some sort of insight as to how the government's job targets will be, I guess, accepted?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The immediate consequences of not creating the number of jobs, which means we haven't seen the growth in the industry that we would like to see, will be a lack of growth in the marketing funding and therefore the lack of ability to expand out to do other things that the corporation may wish to do. If the corporation goes off the rails in any way, then obviously at that time I'll take whatever steps are necessary to get it back on the rails, whatever it may be that got it off the rails. Obviously that's all hypothetical. I would simply deal with the situation as it arose.

The numbers that we have provided here are the best guess. Any kind of economic forecasting. . . . What we're discussing right now are estimates. All you can do, projecting into the future, is estimate. So we've taken the best information available to us and, on that basis, projected into the future an estimate of what we can reasonably expect in terms of job creation over the next five years. I'm sure the member is very aware that anything, from changes in the dollar to changes in the weather to natural catastrophes to a war in the Middle East -- whatever. . . . There's a whole range of factors that can profoundly affect, positively or negatively, tourism in British Columbia, and many of them are out of the control of anybody here in B.C.

All we can do is our very best. I think that we have a mechanism and potentially a group of people for the board and certainly a very skilled and dedicated staff that will do everything humanly possible to see that we realize our economic and job potential.

I. Chong: I want to advise the minister that there are reasons for our line of questioning on this. We do recognize that there are uncertainties. The reason for this line of questioning was to find out whether there were other mechanisms in place, mechanisms that would affect the operation of the special operating agency of the new Crown corporation.

I wanted to assure the stakeholders involved that as long as the government was aware that there would be fluctuations in job creation, they would not tie the requirement to establish new tourism jobs to the funding formula. I say that perhaps with a caveat. We have heard, for example, that the Premier has wanted to tie creation of forestry jobs specifically to tenure in the forest. I want to be very clear here that creation of tourist-related jobs will not be tied into the funding formula and that if the jobs aren't created and the marketing dollars aren't there -- granted, those things will fluctuate based on what is available for marketing -- then the minister would not intervene and say that because these jobs aren't created and you didn't meet those targets, this is what we are going to do. That is not certain; that has not been made clear. Whereas in the other industries, such as forestry, that has been much clearer and more evident. So if the minister is saying that that is not one of the intentions, then so be it. I would accept that, if the minister could say that at this time that is not the intention.

[ Page 4224 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't think I can get clearer than providing a funding formula by legislation, and that's what we've done. In the legislation there is no tie; there is a mandate and a requirement that the board do everything possible to grow the industry and to create jobs. But obviously the industry itself wants to do that anyway, so I don't see that as any kind of an unreasonable imposition on the board; nor do they. As I said, the legislation is very clear. There is an allocated portion of the hotel tax that will go to the Crown corporation, and the legislation doesn't put any restrictions on that.

I. Chong: I know the member for Okanagan-Penticton asked last night, or I think it was last night, regarding the measurement of the jobs created. . . . I recall that the minister mentioned certain industry or labour statistics, and I apologize that I don't recall exactly what was said. I did check the Hansard Blues, and it wasn't clear to me. What I'm curious about is: when the jobs that are created are being measured or tallied up, what is the measurement? Do the jobs created have to last a certain duration? Is a two-week job considered a job created? Is a six-month job considered a job created? How will the minister receive this information and establish those as jobs created?

[9:30]

I. Chong: I appreciate that. I do understand the difficulty in ascertaining jobs, and that's why I was curious as to how the measurement can be developed to ascertain how many jobs are created.

I know the minister doesn't always like hypothetical situations, but permit me to pose this hypothetical situation: if there were 25 two-week jobs created, would the industry standards be to choose that or to develop it as one FTE? I say that directly in relation to an area we will be canvassing, and that has to do with the PNE, where you have people who will be hired for a very defined period of time, whether it's two weeks or three weeks. So if you have 100 people working for two weeks, that would be a measurement of 200 weeks. Is that considered one job of two years or two jobs of one year or four jobs of six months? That's the kind of measurement I'm trying to have clarified, so that when we are throwing around statistics, we have an idea of a base of how these things are calculated.

As I said to the minister at the very beginning of our estimates, I know how statistics can be manipulated. Once we understand the base of how those statistics are developed, it will make it a lot easier for all of us not to be skeptical or cynical when we are given those kinds of statistics.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The figures used are monthly labour force reportings. That means that the raw numbers, if you like, do show the seasonal fluctuations. In order to be as accurate as possible, we use annual averages, and that allows us to measure a more consistent level of change. So the methodology is fairly straightforward. We use the best information available to us and then calculate it in a way that reflects the most stable and trackable numbers possible.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's best efforts to try to put those kinds of measurements into some sort of rational reasoning for those of us who are going to look back on this particular debate and perhaps use that information in the future.

The other area I would like to ask the minister about has to do with tourism summer employment. I understand that there is a program -- and I'm not sure how accurate this is, or whether it's a '96-97 program. . . . Can the minister elaborate a little bit more on the summer employment program which is funded from the base budget of the tourism operations branch?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The summer employment program is essentially the program that provides for the hiring of staff in the travel infocentres. That's the one that probably rings a lot of bells for the member; that's the one that was 100 percent funded last year. I believe there were 97 infocentres, which have provided for the same number of people to be employed this year. However, the subsidy has been reduced from 100 percent to 75 percent, which is still 25 percent above most. So it's still a very generous subsidy. It's still available to the 97.

I hope that the 97 infocentres that have been previously funded. . . . Other than the reduction of 25 percent in the subsidy this year, the only other difference is that we have targeted that program specifically at youth.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her indulgence and patience. Had I known that this had to do with the travel information centres, I would not have pursued this line of questioning, except for the fact that the information I got was that it was summer employment -- it was something different. The comments I received were that within this particular division there was a 54 percent cut, not a 25 percent cut. So I thought these were two separate and distinct programs. If that is not the case, then I apologize for that.

I don't believe I have any further questions on this particular issue regarding jobs, and I'll defer now to the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

P. Reitsma: On the summer employment for youth related to the travel information centres, could the minister please advise how that program served the goals that were set out for the program, how successful it has been and if the goals of last year have been met?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The goal was to create jobs; we created over 300 jobs. We provided staffing at 97 locations and provided good service to visitors around the province.

P. Reitsma: That's fine, thank you. That's 300 jobs, which I assume are mostly youths. The jobs provided were 300 -- I would assume it was last year -- and they were mostly employment for youth, I take it, in basically 97 locations.

Might I ask what the funding level was in terms of actual dollars and what the funding level is going to be? The minister said 75 percent, so if I know the base funding is multiplied by three-quarters. . . . How much was the funding, how much is the funding going to be, and how would that relate to the number that will be employed -- particularly youth?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The budget last year was $1.3 million. It was roughly 25 percent less this year, which is just under a million -- $975,000 or something in there. That's to be finalized. The business plan has not come to me yet, so those figures are not final.

[ Page 4225 ]

P. Reitsma: I take it there is a business plan in place for this.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The business plan has not come to me yet.

P. Reitsma: Last year provided jobs for 300, mainly youth. How many jobs are anticipated to be created by means of this particular program?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There were the same number of jobs. We've just reduced the subsidy by 25 percent. So if the overall budget is reduced by 25 percent and the subsidy to each individual participating is reduced by 25 percent, that means that we can hire the same number of people. The difference is that this year. . . . Last year most of the people employed were youth; this year all of the people employed are youth.

P. Reitsma: I'm trying to correlate that. The funding has been cut by 25 percent, which isn't necessarily fine, but I accept that. Some 300 jobs were created. There will be 300 jobs again; there's no cut in the actual numbers, mainly youth. So I would assume that either someone is picking up the slack or the operational times of the tourist infocentres have been reduced. Is someone else picking up the slack, or are they compensating in terms of reduction in time?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Because this is the first year of the change, there's considerable latitude allowed for either of those arrangements. I would expect that in most cases they will find the other 25 percent. Most job subsidy programs are 50-50. This one has been incredibly generous at 100 percent; it's still very generous at 75 percent. The community is required to come up with the additional amount or to shorten the length of time that it operates this year. As I say once again, that flexibility has been allowed this year because it is the first year of the change.

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

Motion approved.

The committee adjourned at 9:42 p.m.

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