[ Page 4227 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

G. Bowbrick: Joining us in the gallery today is a constituent of mine, Teresa Menendez, who is here both as a constituent and on behalf of the Burnaby-New Westminster Business and Professional Women's Club. I ask everyone in the House to join me in making her welcome.

P. Nettleton: It is my pleasure to introduce to this House a couple of good friends all the way from Fort St. James: Charlie Butler and Quentin Lodge. They are at retirement age, but they're still going strong. I am delighted to have them here. I would ask you to give them a big welcome.

J. Sawicki: It is my pleasure today to introduce a guest. Her name is Kazumi Shiine. She is visiting here from Izumi in the city of Iwaki in Japan, where she works with my niece Lynne Fownes, who is teaching at the English conversation school in that city. She is here today with my brother-in-law Ron Fownes, who, by the way, has just recently retired from his work with the Ministry of Finance. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. Weisbeck: In the gallery today is Ann Wicks, the chairperson of Camosun College Student Society. Would the House please make her welcome.

P. Reitsma: In the gallery today is a constituent of mine from north Nanaimo, John Kraeker, who is a data analyst at the Canadian Forces Maritime Experimental Test Range in Nanoose Bay. He is also the president of Local 1017 of the Union of National Defence Employees. He is here to discuss the potential impact on job security of the 90-day moratorium asked for. . . .

Before I ask the House to welcome him, I would like to put on the record that contrary to what has been said in the press, this is not a nuclear missile test facility. It is not a U.S. base; it is not a U.S. submarine. . . .

The Speaker: Excuse me, member. We are pushing the boundaries. Thank you.

K. Krueger: Although I don't have this pleasure nearly as often as the member for Peace River North, I'm delighted to say that today somewhere in the precincts, if not in the gallery -- I can't see them -- are 40 grade 7 students from Arthur Stevenson Elementary School in Kamloops, with eight chaperons and their teachers, Mrs. Penny Sharpe and Mr. Lade Maloski. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Oral Questions

PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL
FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

My question is to the Premier: what on earth was he thinking when he allowed the Minister of Finance to remove the property tax deferral system from people with disabilities?

Hon. P. Ramsey: As minister responsible for disability issues, I'm rising to respond to the question.

To the Leader of the Opposition: we have indeed changed some of the requirements that allow people to gain access to tax deferral. It has had what I believe is an unintended consequence, and if enacted, I think it would have the sort of impact that the member describes. I'm also very concerned about the very short notice that has been given to people to put their affairs in order. I have been discussing this matter with the Minister of Finance to see if we can find a viable solution to resolve this matter as quickly as possible. As minister responsible for disability issues, I want to state clearly that we are committed to ensuring that policies are there that enable people with disabilities to live in their own homes, in their own communities.

G. Campbell: To the minister responsible for people with disabilities, I guess the question has to be: where on earth were you when this was taking place?

This government is so anxious to grab more and more taxes from the people of British Columbia that they totally ignore the human costs of this kind of a decision. I have two cases involving women who were asked to pay over $1,200 in property taxes. It's not good enough to say: "We'd like to do something about it." Are you going to guarantee those women and the other people with disabilities that they will not have to pay their property taxes, that they will be able to use the property tax deferral program in 1997 as they need to?

Hon. P. Ramsey: The preliminary work that my ministry and the Ministry of Finance has done indicates that of the 8,000 people who received this letter regarding changes in qualifications for this deferral program, the estimate is that around 30 could be affected in the way the Leader of the Opposition describes. It's a small number, but I believe any impact is too great. As I said, I will be working with the Minister of Finance, and reporting tomorrow on the steps to rectify the situation.

G. Campbell: I will take the minister's commitment that he will be letting those 30 people know tomorrow.

From this side of the House, I can tell you that it was wrong for 30 people to face this. I don't think there was any thought given by this government to the impacts on people's lives. These women have been worried sick about being forced out of their houses, and I would like a commitment from this minister today -- and I ask him for it today; I'm asking if he's willing to give it today -- that they will be able to use the property tax deferral program and that whatever actions are necessary will be taken before the July deadline so they can use the property tax deferral program.

[2:15]

[ Page 4228 ]

in contact with my office. That is why we're acting today to make sure that we can address this in a prompt fashion, and we will be reporting back tomorrow on action that we will take.

SEVERANCE FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE
CONVICTED OF FRAUD

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources: why is the NDP paying severance to government workers who are convicted of ripping off taxpayers?

Hon. D. Streifel: It's been a long drought for the Minister of Human Resources, waiting for a question that's in order. I'll take the opportunity to correct the record. The members of the opposition do the bulk of their research through the daily news -- through the Province. The sequencing of events here is a little bit misreported in the Province today, and I think we should take the opportunity now to correct the record. The individual involved was involved in a labour arbitration.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I don't know. Maybe the drought should last a little longer. They don't seem to be too anxious to hear.

The individual involved was involved in a labour arbitration in the spring of 1995. There was a settlement as a result of that arbitration, and in February 1996 -- 11 months after the arbitration, after an extensive investigation by the enforcement division of my ministry -- charges were laid, and the individual was subsequently convicted of fraud in the courts.

F. Gingell: This reminds me of an earlier case when someone had been let go with a very substantial package where there were questions about honesty, having to do with the Health Labour Relations Association. I would have thought that this government would have finally learned. The ministry's own communications director has conceded that it is out of the ordinary not to seek restitution. So aside from the $25,000 severance package, this convicted fraud artist is walking away with $13,000 she stole from British Columbia taxpayers.

Will the minister tell us why he isn't on top of this issue? What is he doing with his time? Why isn't he protecting the interests of British Columbia taxpayers from people in positions of trust who defraud British Columbia citizens?

Hon. D. Streifel: First of all, I'm not quite sure the opposition members listened to the answer. The answer is that this was a result of a court case where there was a fraud conviction. It was the Crown's decision whether or not to go for restitution. But what's more disturbing than the opposition's decision to focus on this instance today is their consistent positioning, where, in their personal judgment, they would interfere in court cases or labour arbitrations to have reversal of a procedure that binds our democracy -- and that's through the courts. They have no interest in labour law. They have no interest in the court system whatsoever.

NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL FUNDING

Does the minister not agree that the elimination of provincial weed control grants is shortsighted and will result in an even greater future cost to control noxious weeds throughout the province?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, please.

Hon. C. Evans: Firstly, I'd like to say thank you, hon. member, for the very first question about agriculture in two years.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I think we're all anxious to see how the minister handles it. Perhaps we could give him a chance.

Hon. C. Evans: The member is correct. The province of British Columbia used to give out grants to municipalities for noxious weed control. We ceased giving that money, owing to fiscal matters, which I believe is unfortunate. I don't remember the word he used; I think it was unfortunate. However, what we did do was to level the playing field with the rest of western. . . .

Interjections.

Hon. C. Evans: Come on, you guys, you've only got 15 minutes. Shut up, or it'll run out.

The Speaker: I detect a pregnancy of anticipation at this point.

Hon. C. Evans: We decided to do what the rest of western Canada does and engage municipalities to manage noxious weeds in their own regions. It is indeed unfortunate if the state can no longer do the municipalities' work for them.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Minister, will you wrap it up, please.

Hon. C. Evans: I just want to encourage the hon. member to ask another one.

J. van Dongen: If the minister is talking about levelling the playing field with the rest of western Canada, he's got a lot of work to do.

The control of noxious weeds is critical to maintaining the productivity of B.C.'s crop and range lands, as well as protecting our provincial parks. The Peace River regional district has already written to the minister and said that they will not continue the program without provincial assistance.

Will the minister commit today to maintain this critical program to protect jobs in B.C.'s farm and ranch communities?

[ Page 4229 ]

Hon. C. Evans: I totally agree with the first part of the statement, where he says that it's absolutely important to deal with noxious weeds in order that farming will prosper in British Columbia. But the government can't do it alone. We would like you and the municipalities and the farm communities to join with us, because it's incredibly important.

All of you folks know what knapweed is. The farmers have to deal with it.

Interjection.

Hon. C. Evans: It may not be important in West Van, hon. member, but it's important in the Peace. It's a real issue, and we need partners to deal with this real issue. And thank you for asking, hon. member.

APOLOGY AND COMPENSATION FOR
YOUTH RANCH VICTIMS

My question is to the Attorney General. Will the minister do the right thing: order an immediate withdrawal of this appeal and issue a full apology to the victims?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I appreciate the question and the sentiment expressed by the opposition member. It is important that we recognize that this appeal is on a question of law, and it's a very important question of law. I don't recall all of the details, but I would be happy to report back to the House on that issue.

M. Coell: The Supreme Court of British Columbia has found that the province is culpable for the abuse of teenage boys at the Arden Park youth ranch. On previous occasions the Premier issued government apologies for the abuses and injustices that occurred in residential schools and at the Jericho Hill school for the hearing impaired.

Will the Minister for Children and Families follow the Premier's precedent: issue an apology and compensate those boys who were abused at the Arden Park youth ranch?

Hon. U. Dosanjh: The question of historical injustice is extremely important, and one must not treat it lightly in the context of a particular case. As I said, this case is before the courts; it is on a question of law. I do not have all the particulars, nor is it appropriate for me to make any further comments. But I would bring back to the House, if the House wishes, what particular grounds this issue is being appealed on.

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

The Speaker: Before members leave the chamber, and before I call the committee Chairs, I want to advise members that the member for Okanagan-Penticton has given me notice of his intention to proceed with the matter of privilege that he raised a few days ago. I have agreed that we will consider that matter at 3 p.m. today. So I'm advising the House Leader and the committee Chairs that we will indeed have to adjourn those activities.

[2:30]

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

L. Reid: My thanks to the minister, in that he and I have had a number of discussions over the past year or year and a half about the future of science in this province. I continue to remind this minister that certain individuals, such as the Prime Minister of this country, say when they visit the west that the future of this country is the west. Indeed, where we are headed in terms of knowledge-based industry is to put in place the very best economic platform we can; that speaks to me. I think it's a key statement, because it recognizes that economic applications will be the future of this country and will only happen if we continue to think strategically around the development of science- and technology-based industry.

I'd like to begin with a number of opening remarks to frame today's discussion. I intend to cover the science and technology research areas throughout the debate this afternoon. What I want us to come to is some understanding of what is observable, what is measurable, and whether or not there are benchmarks in science that people understand, that are communicated effectively to the public and that the ministry and the minister report out on a regular basis. Quarterly would be my goal.

The fact is that the ministry puts out an annual report that's well behind the time frame reflected -- i.e., it's usually well behind the year that it is intended to reflect. It's a dilemma.

An Hon. Member: Four years behind.

L. Reid: My hon. colleague suggests it's more than that: four years behind.

The dilemma with knowledge-based industries is that they move so quickly. So when the ministry is reporting out 18 or 20 or 24 months after the fact, we've missed some glorious opportunities, because we haven't been immediately responsive to the changing needs of the industry.

I do believe it's time we analyzed the contributions of science and technology to the economy and to society. There are many problems today that need responses, that require solutions. Many of them are medically based. Whether or not we arrive at the best possible practice is, for most part, a science question. Whether it's best practice in transit or whether it's best practice in a new heart valve, those are decisions that are reached through good, basic research.

I'm not clear that this government is committed to the research aspect of science and technology, yet I believe 

[ Page 4230 ]

strongly that it's the key to the future of this province. We can manufacture solutions for individuals that will have worldwide applications. We can bring those things to bear.

We face some enormous challenges. One is keeping intellectual property in British Columbia. We graduate some of the finest minds in the country. They leave this province to apply their talents in other places. That's an enormous cost to the taxpayer, in that we have subsidized that level of expertise -- sometimes for upwards of 20 years of education. When that skill set has evolved to the point that it's marketable, it's marketed elsewhere.

We need to have a clear understanding this afternoon of whether or not we can pursue excellence. And I notice the Premier. He and I have had many discussions on this topic in the past, and I believe he agrees. . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: "Totally onside," says the Premier. I believe he agrees with the direction we're headed in, and I do thank him for his support in the past. If indeed he can offer some guidance to his hon. colleague today, I would appreciate that. I think it's really important that we come up with some solutions today to these very complex problems. I want this minister to commit, by the end of today's debate, to research and development applications for the province of British Columbia.

He and I have been at many openings in the past number of weeks for either companies that are brand-new to the exercise or companies that are evolving. Those are good things. It's important that we understand and foster those kinds of applications.

This minister has taken to the podium on a number of occasions and said that he was proud to say that government has done nothing in terms. . . .

Interjection.

L. Reid: Yes. Your hon. colleague, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

L. Reid: It's not a criticism. It's an acknowledgment, if you will, that he has taken great pride in the fact that the government has done nothing on some occasions, and still, very fine companies have come to this province to do business.

Interjection.

L. Reid: Since you left, it's gone south in a breadbasket, as my hon. colleague would say.

What is indeed alarming is that he's missing opportunities. This Minister of Employment and Investment is missing some glorious opportunities to foster some kind of economic climate. I know that we're going to have a much more in-depth discussion on that issue today than we've had in the past, because I do believe that this minister has taken some responsibility for learning more about what the system needs and has met with a number of key individuals around the province.

There are some wonderful, wonderful scientists, thinkers and planners who have come to this government and said: "This is what the industry needs to succeed." And I'm not clear that the answer from this minister has always been positive. I do intend to refer to the Klopfer recommendations today, because those individuals are still awaiting answers from this government, and that report has been before them more than a year.

The minister has heard me speak in the past about fostering larger companies, because they will have some ability, some responsibility to foster smaller companies -- to grow some smaller companies. That's a very good thing. I believe that government does have a role to play, and I don't believe it's appropriate that somehow we suggest that government shouldn't foster that kind of growth. Certainly what government doesn't do particularly well is select companies for growth. I don't think this is an opportunity for the government to be in a position where they would select which companies they might promote. But if they were to do more to level the playing field, the companies that had the best skill set and the greatest drive, initiative and personal responsibility would hopefully come to the surface.

Certainly the Angus Reid book, Shakedown, a prediction for where growth is going to be in the next ten to 15 years, is around medical instrumentation; it's definitely around aerospace. The minister and I were recently at the expansion of the Hughes Aircraft Co. in Richmond, my riding. Those jobs will be long-term, sustaining opportunities for employment. And that is a very good thing.

Telecommunications will play a much larger role in the next decade than it has in the past -- and chemical and pharmaceutical industries. When we talk about the cost of drug programs, as this Minister of Health is often prone to do, what we need to recognize is that people on very sophisticated drug therapies are often staying out of hospital longer, and that it is indeed sometimes the best alternative. It's the kindest to the patient, it's the least invasive, and it's usually the least expensive of the two alternatives. So again there are some good things that all of these players bring to the table when we talk about science.

Quantitative, qualitative benefits from decent-sized technology and research applications in the province of British Columbia -- again, I would suggest that this government needs to be very clear about the role it could play in that. I don't believe they're taking every opportunity today. I don't believe they're operating at optimum when it comes to putting in place that kind of understanding and that kind of receptiveness -- that kind of championing of the industry.

Certainly many Premiers across this country have taken to heart the challenge: Frank McKenna, and Clyde Wells when he was in office. There were big billboards in their provinces that said: "If you want to talk science, talk to me." I want that same message to emanate from this government, because I think it's vitally important. There are people today looking at British Columbia, looking at Washington State and looking at Alberta -- and not often choosing British Columbia. It's time this government moved down that road in terms of being more welcoming and more forthright in terms of their fostering of those industries.

I do believe that it is about world-class marketing. We're not selling products to British Columbians. We're selling products worldwide, and we have to move beyond the notion of simply being purchasers and believing that the world will come to us. It's truly time that we took our skill set and marketed it worldwide. I'm intensely proud of what this industry can do. They've done some very fine things. There are some key leaders in the industry. There's the B.C. Biotechnology

[ Page 4231 ]

Alliance and the B.C. Technology Industries Association -- people who come together because they believe that knowledge-based industry is the future of this province. And I would support that. I do believe that that's the case.

Certainly the minister has heard me speak many times about the need to retain a high technical competence. It's a very good thing, and we need to look at it across the broad frontiers of science and technology. We can become very specific and provide some very specific examples, but the bottom line is that every single problem today has a solution that's probably based in science. New refinements, new products and new markets will come to us if we start to think strategically around science and around science questions.

One of the other areas that we need to concentrate our efforts on, I believe, is around managerial competence. We have some very fine scientists who come to the table with wondrous ideas. When it comes to marketing that idea or marketing that product, that is simply not their skill set today. I would very much wish to see some integration of that programming at colleges and universities. I would hope that any new program that comes forth from an advanced educational institution crosses the boundaries of being cross-faculty training, if you will. Anyone learning science, technology and research today should be learning commerce, should be learning marketing, should have the ability to take their product effectively to the marketplace and should have that kind of exposure to all the different skill sets they'll need to effectively run a business.

This government often doesn't give the true picture when it comes to the level of bankruptcies in this province. It's a horrifying number. There are people who have great, great ideas but simply don't have the skill set to manage the business effectively. If there are things we can do to ensure that both of those skill sets are merged more effectively in our academic institutions, that would be a very good thing.

I referenced earlier the November 1995 report entitled "High Technology Industries in B.C.: The Agenda for Growth." Those are recommendations that have now been before us for close to two years. This group of individuals, the Technology Industries Association, is awaiting answers from this government, and frankly, they deserve answers. They're going to build a very fine industry, but they need to know what government's response is to a number of the questions they've posed.

One of their issues was developing a strategy to help companies attract senior levels of management personnel. I'm not clear that the minister has arrived at a conclusion for that particular recommendation, but would he please respond as to whether or not his government is prepared to develop the strategy to work in concert with the Technology Industries Association to ensure that strategy is in place today? Would the minister kindly comment?

Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's remarks. I want to say at the outset that since I took over this portfolio, I've been fascinated by this knowledge-based sector in the provincial economy and to some degree frustrated because of the very good things that are happening here in the province and the lack of a spotlight on some of those things. I always think it's important that the public, the citizens, know what's going on or have a general sense or feeling of confidence that some good things are happening here.

I know the member has been very active as the critic, does her homework and takes a lot of time to talk to people in the sector. Whenever I go to a function involving science and technology, invariably the member is there and knows the people very well. So I compliment her on the kind of work she's doing.

To continue on that theme, if there's a bright spot in the economy in British Columbia, it's certainly in this sector. I'm just looking at a couple of the statistics on the kind of growth in the high-technology sector in British Columbia. In 1995 this growth was 22 percent in British Columbia, compared to about 5 percent for the rest of B.C.'s economy. You can see that it's amazing.

It also represents an economy that still relies to a large degree -- particularly for the export receipts -- on some of our primary industries, and we want to continue to do that. For example, in forestry and mining we think we can actually enhance the economic activity.

[2:45]

The ministry has been very active. I'll just run through some of the issues that we do deal with. The member and the House may be aware of the changes that have taken place in terms of where this sector is housed; in some respects, if you like, it's been all over the place. I think bringing it together in my ministry with someone of deputy minister status as the chief information officer gives us the opportunity to coordinate the activities in this sector, in the economic ministry. There is a correlation and a tie-in with other parts of the ministry -- the employment and investment part, trade, and indeed with the energy, mines and petroleum resource sector as well. I think it gives us a better framework.

Hopefully, as we move on, the public will come to understand the kind of linkages on the economic side that exist. We have the Information Technology Access Office, which develops information technology and telecommunications policy -- and I'll get on to the electronic highway accord soon; the B.C. freedom-of-information and privacy office, which is not the subject of this discussion; the B.C. archives; Enquiry B.C.; the information technology services division, which is the area of government that operates and directs our communications networks and mainframe computer systems; and the science and technology division. They've all been put together under the Information, Science and Technology Agency.

Generally, when you look at the conditions that are required to nurture and grow a sector, the answers are pretty obvious. In the last couple of days we've dealt with some of those. Of course, one of those is training -- making sure that British Columbians have an opportunity to acquire the kind of skills that are in demand, particularly in this sector.

I'm not particularly satisfied with what we're doing to date, and I am in fact working on pulling together a one-day conference -- hopefully, quite soon -- of representatives from 

[ Page 4232 ]

the industry itself, from the post-secondary institutions and from other sources. I certainly would extend an invitation to my hon. critic to do a bit of focused brainstorming around some of these issues -- not thinking that we can deal with all of the issues that exist in one day, but rather to try to concentrate on the issue of mismatched skills. How do we accelerate the ability of our public post-secondary institutions to develop the kind of graduates that are in demand in the sector? Once we get things firmed up in our planning, I think that should be a fairly productive session. The more input we get on that, the better.

In the past, and currently, we have been trying to achieve that through working with our post-secondary institutions. Obviously we think that the opportunity for young people -- we see some coming into the gallery today -- to get the kind of skills required is important. Perhaps as important is to get the kind of direction that's required, the kind of counselling and the information that's required, particularly at the high school level, so that they simply know these opportunities exist.

I think there are some holes there; I think we need to tackle that kind of problem. We've moved to try to develop programs that are more focused and more science-based -- in the applied sense -- at the K-to-12 level and at the community college level. Recently my colleague, the Minister of Education, has announced that we will proceed with the new technical university. Again, I think that holds significant promise.

I've discussed with some leading people in the knowledge-based or high-tech sector about how they may become more involved in the process. I think the linkage there needs to be developed in a much more cohesive fashion.

We are expanding the electronic highway accord. Again, I speak about that as someone who comes from outside the large urban centres. It's critically important that all British Columbians have an opportunity to participate in this new, emerging economy, and with communications and telecommunications that is entirely possible. So the electronic highway accord, which is really using government's purchasing power, the government's leverage, in getting the private sector to buy in, will see virtually all of the communities in the province linked into that electronic highway accord, providing the kind of opportunity that exists to all British Columbians.

We've taken a bit of a hit on the budget side this year. We've talked about that briefly in other parts of my ministry. It's been tough, but I was very pleased with the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. We had several meetings. We engaged -- rather than sort of the ministry itself making the decisions about where the cuts might be apportioned -- the Premier's Advisory Council. We have had numerous discussions with the Science Council. So there's a real feeling in the community that they've had a hand in managing this very tough issue in terms of the tough fiscal environment. That's been very positive.

There are numerous outstanding examples. I won't get into naming any particular companies. I was delighted at the opening of Hughes. Again, British Columbians may not be aware that Hughes Aircraft has their Canadian headquarters here in the province, in Richmond East, I believe. I must say I was fascinated, as I continue to be fascinated, by some of the technology that I saw, in this case the development of the new computerized air traffic control systems. Being somewhat illiterate myself in terms of computer technology, watching a demonstration of these computer screens, all the information that can be put on them, how that's utilized in air traffic control and the dramatic difference between what we do now and what we'll be doing in the future is something to see. But knowing that it is a Canadian company that is doing the work here in British Columbia is even more exciting, in my view. There are numerous, numerous examples of that kind of activity.

I think perhaps we need to communicate more with the public. I've asked the Science Council to see if they have some ideas on how we might do that. Hopefully, I'll get some word back on that fairly soon. I think we need to applaud the best and the brightest in a better way. I think we do a wonderful job; for example, the Science Council awards. As the member is acutely aware, we were at the Science Council awards dinner where British Columbians who have produced marvellous technology which has application worldwide were celebrated by their peers.

But there was one glaring omission at that dinner at the Hotel Vancouver: there was no media present. In other words, the conventional media in this province didn't take the time to attend what I thought was a significant event. I noticed the same at the Advanced Systems Institute awards, where awards are given to students who have developed or are working on technological innovation. In fact, I was delighted at that awards event to present one to a young fellow who originated in my hometown of Prince Rupert. His father was a commercial fisherman.

There are lots of good examples. Perhaps we can discuss some of those and some of the issues we're dealing with on the budget side. There's been some improvement, I think, in terms of the federal-provincial relationship. Certainly at the opening of the National Research Centre building at the UBC campus, I had some discussions with Dr. Jon Gerrard, who, unfortunately, was defeated in the last federal election.

We are finally getting some agreement from the National Research Council. The federal government, as you may be aware, does provide the bulk of research money in this country. They will in fact listen to our priorities here in British Columbia, as opposed to some priority that might come out of central Canada that has nothing to do with developments taking place in our own province.

So on those comments. . . . The member did ask about the Klopfer report's 17 recommendations. We are evaluating those recommendations. I did mention the kind of growth that is taking place in the province. I'm mindful of the need -- it was in the media again today -- and the desire to attract that sort of major player. It's the critical mass argument.

I'm convinced that the growth is both good in terms of the percentage of growth in that sector and sustainable in terms of what I think is happening in the industry. Certainly it's a priority to this government that we continue to promote, develop, enhance and grow what arguably will become, over time, perhaps even the most critical part of our economy. With that, I think I've tried to deal briefly with the report, and I look forward to further questions.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his remarks, because I do believe that there is much common ground around how to approach science, technology and research. I do believe this ministry is missing some opportunities. I think the fact that the reference to the Klopfer report was raised in last year's estimates and that the minister committed to responding, and that another full year has gone by, is alarming. The recommendation I referenced is recommendation number one. Will we do some things in this province to assist companies to attract 

[ Page 4233 ]

senior management personnel? The answer has to be yes, because we don't want to see any additional bankruptcies around science and tech companies.

I will make some remarks, but I would ask the minister to perhaps percolate my request and come back today with an answer, at least to the first recommendation. There are a number of key recommendations, and they have been before this ministry for more than a year. I know I raised them last year in the estimates debates.

In terms of the folks who need that kind of managerial assistance, it's world-class scientists and world-class innovators. This government is making some strides in terms of post-secondary education. So if we believe that, are we going to encourage the integration of those skill sets? To me, that's a very simple notion. We believe that a scientist and innovator -- a first-class thinker -- should also have some managerial skills that are supplemented by an understanding of commerce and of a business plan, an understanding of all those things. The magic is that they merge together. One really can't stand effectively by itself, which is demonstrated by the level of bankruptcy.

If indeed we're going to move on that, it seems to me that it's the package the minister has to address, because it's one of the recommendations the industry has highlighted over the years as being a huge concern. If we accept that they are expert in their field and understand their industry best, and if they make that recommendation, the very least I believe the minister can do is to respond specifically to that particular recommendation.

I very much want, as we proceed in today's debate, to craft some linkages between what I see as technology and economic performance being the package. It's not possible to separate them out if we want technology to succeed. One of them is definitely linked to the other, and people's skill sets to put forward and foster both of those have to be enhanced. Otherwise, we will continue to see the very best ideas leaving this country and this province. I know that can't be the goal of the ministry.

Indeed, the minister referenced mining and forestry in his remarks. Those are definitely traditional industries in this province, and they will continue to flourish and thrive if new applications are brought to bear. I fully support that notion, whether we're talking natural gas extraction, new forestry practice or new mining practice. Those things will only be enhanced by new science applications.

The minister in the past has gone down the road of suggesting that it's an either-or discussion and that we can't have both. I believe we can. I believe the only way we'll succeed is if we merge those two entities together -- the existing established industry and the new application. Those things will work together extremely well.

He also referenced the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, and I think that's a good thing. I would certainly hope that I can be apprised of developments in that group, in that forum, as it comes ahead. If the minister is going to put forward a forum and an opportunity to bring more scientists to the table, I would very much appreciate an invitation. I would be delighted to participate in that kind of endeavour.

A lot of what we're talking about today in terms of science is not about any four-year term of office in government. It's about a long-term commitment for this province. Each government has the responsibility, I believe, to build the building blocks. The building blocks -- I think the minister and I agree -- are certainly education and training, but an integrated educational program that ensures that people who are going to craft some of the finest ideas this country has ever seen will indeed have the skill set to survive in the business world.

The marketplace is fierce. There's no question about that, and to disadvantage them from the outset is, frankly, not fair. It compromises the taxpayer who has made upwards of a 20-year investment. If there are ways for the ministry to reflect on that and come back to the point I raised in terms of the first recommendation of the Klopfer report, I would be pleased to have the minister respond.

[3:00]

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

J. Weisgerber: I request leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

J. Weisgerber: Seated behind me in the gallery are 35 grade 7 students, members of Mrs. Evans's class from Little Prairie Elementary School in Chetwynd. They are joined by a number of teachers, an exchange teacher and their team leader Mr. Brian Bradshaw. Would all members please make them welcome.

The Speaker: Before recognizing the member for Okanagan-Penticton, I want to advise the House that I have indeed read the submission and am prepared to adjudicate on that submission and to hear the submission made. I want, however, to advise members that if they have difficulty with that, I will certainly respect that. I understand the sensitivity of the matter, and I would then ask the Chair of Committees to take my place for both the hearing of the motion of privilege as well as the adjudication. So I ask members if they would prefer that, or if it is acceptable to them that I remain in the chair. Opposition House Leader, is that acceptable?

G. Farrell-Collins: I am fine with you hearing this.

The Speaker: Thank you kindly. I appreciate that.

Point of Privilege

[ Page 4234 ]

dinner recess, the minister rose to make the following personal statement: "Yesterday I apologized to the members of the House, however, I wish to strongly emphasize that at no time did I intend to mislead the House. If any member believes I misled the House, I unreservedly apologize to both the House and Mr. Hughes."

The Deputy Speaker was in the chair and then said the following: "The Chair considers that in keeping with parliamentary practice and traditions, that apology ends the matter."

My contention is that the Deputy Speaker breached my privileges as a member of this House in two ways. One, she ought not to have assumed the chair for the purpose of ruling on my points of privilege, because of a reasonable apprehension of bias, details of which I will itemize in a moment. In her disposition of my points of privilege, she demonstrated actual bias. As a result of this breach, I was deprived of my right as a member of this House to an impartial adjudication of my points of privilege. I now wish to outline the reasons supporting my contention.

I wish, first, to make a point with respect to the ruling of the Deputy Speaker. I suggest that no reasonable person looking at the minister's statement objectively would construe it as either an unreserved or an unconditional apology. It did not contain any admission that she had ever misled the House. The apology offered was expressly conditional. This is my contention: that no person sitting in the chair, acting reasonably or objectively, could have accepted the minister's statement as putting an end to the matter.

What, then, is the problem? The central issue raised in respect of the actions of the minister, the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith, is the inappropriateness of using a public constituency office for personal partisan political purposes during a federal election campaign and then misleading the House about that matter. I submit that it would be inappropriate for anyone who was in the same or a similar situation to presume to rule on my points of privilege. Such circumstances would raise an apprehension of bias, because a decision-maker would be influenced in making her decision by the fact that she would be vulnerable to the same charge.

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling documents which came to my attention during my research into this motion. From these documents it is clear that during the last provincial election campaign the Deputy Speaker financed her campaign in part with a loan granted by a credit union to the Victoria-Beacon Hill Commonwealth Society. The society's only asset is the Deputy Speaker's constituency office, a fact known for some time. The credit union granted the loan to the society, the constituency association treated the loan as its own, and the constituency association on the same day gave the loan proceeds directly to the Deputy Speaker's election campaign.

The credit union holds a mortgage on the constituency office. It appears that the constituency office was, in effect, the collateral for the loan to the campaign. In other words, there is a connection between public funds used for her constituency office and private purposes, namely the Deputy Speaker's election campaign.

In summary, the Deputy Speaker was in a similar situation to that of the minister. She ought not to have assumed the Chair to deal with my privilege motion. The reasonable apprehension that she could not discharge her duties free from bias became actual bias when she decided the point of privilege by removing the issue from the scrutiny of the House. I suggest that there is reason to believe she made the decision in order to remove the question of her own actions from the scrutiny of this House, as a referral of this issue for debate in the House, with possible referrals for investigation by a committee, would have likely uncovered details of her own actions.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the question is only whether there is a prima facie case; I contend there is. I am tendering the necessary motion.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker: I thank the member for his submission. I recognize now the Government House Leader.

Hon. J. MacPhail: This is the first time I've heard the submission from the hon. member, so I'll just make a couple of comments, and then perhaps I would ask the indulgence of the members -- that I will make a written submission as well, with copies available to the opposition.

I'll, first of all, turn the members' attention, and yours, Mr. Speaker, to standing order 9, if I may:

"The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum and shall decide questions of order and practice. In deciding a point of order or practice, the Speaker shall state the reasons for the decision and shall cite any Standing Order or other applicable authority. The Speaker may invite submissions from members but no debate shall be permitted on any decision. No decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House."

The Speaker at the time made a ruling that that was in keeping with parliamentary practice and traditions, that the apology ends the matter. This motion of privilege challenges the Speaker's ruling and is in violation of standing order 9. In fact, I think it's really a thinly veiled attempt to thwart the ruling made by the Speaker regarding these two matters of privilege and is in violation of standing order 9.

Hon. Speaker, I would submit that that is enough on which to base your ruling. But I also understand that the Speaker may wish a response to the information that I as House Leader am hearing for the first time. I would ask that I be permitted to make a written submission, and I will do so in very quick order.

The Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader.

As you know, it is not our practice to have a debate about points of order, but given the seriousness of this matter, I will recognize the Opposition House Leader for. . . ?

G. Farrell-Collins: Thank you, hon. Speaker. A very brief submission to perhaps clarify, if I may, the point.

The issue of the point of privilege, just for the edification of the Speaker, is not specifically the substance of the decision that was made by the Deputy Chair, but rather her putting herself in a position where she would be making the decision in the first place, regardless of the outcome.

[ Page 4235 ]

The Speaker: I thank the members for their submissions -- all of them -- and I am going to accept the suggestion from the Government House Leader. Indeed I would like to suggest, members, that it ought to be, I think, future practice in this chamber, on matters of privilege, that the other side in any suggestion of breach of privilege be given an opportunity to review the matter before responding. I think we would all benefit from that practice, and therefore I'm accepting that suggestion from the Government House Leader.

In keeping with our rules, members, I will reserve judgment on this until having had some time and opportunity to review the matter in detail, and I thank members for their indulgence.

[3:15]

The House in Committee of Supply B; J. Doyle in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT
AND INVESTMENT
(continued)

L. Reid: Prior to the slight recess, the minister promised that he would respond to the questions I posed earlier. As he comes to his feet, would he would be so kind as to introduce the staff accompanying him today?

Hon. D. Miller: I apologize for being a little bit late. I had to make a media call, and you know what they're like.

Mr. Phil Halkett, the deputy minister in charge of the branch, and Carol Pereira, the manager of program support in the science and technology branch.

Just briefly, in responding, the member was talking about the traditional industries, the existing resource sector of our province and the need to. . . . There's some debate about whether it's an either-or situation. I want to be clear that, in my view, it's not.

The member also talked about building on our strengths. In my view, the opportunity exists in British Columbia to create an even stronger forest resource sector, an even stronger mineral sector, an even stronger oil and gas sector, all through the addition of technology. In fact, some of the technology that has been developed, the sort of state-of-the-art technology that is now an exportable commodity, was developed in these sectors.

I guess the question is: how do you further the development of technology and the strengthening of those sectors? What are the necessary ingredients in doing that? I think we have laid a fairly positive framework to do that. We have the forest renewal fund. We have a component of that devoted to the development of the so-called value-added sector: tertiary manufacturing. We have contributed in a significant way to both the new forest sciences building at UBC and, equally important, the centre of excellence at UBC, which in all respects is a faculty of value-added. And that faculty will turn out graduates who have sophisticated skills in the area of marketing, in the area of process -- in other words, mill process, design, all of those kinds of key areas where you need people with the right skills if you're going to grow that sector of the industry. That centre is, as I indicated earlier, linked into our community colleges and linked in even to our high schools. And that should provide the opportunity for the growth of the skill sets required. There are other components as well, in terms of forest policy that are also part of that mix.

With respect to the nurturing issue, the member is aware that, through the various programs administered by the Science Council, we do spend moneys; we give specific grants. And I think one of the key areas, if you look at the development side of it, knowing that a lot of these new technologies, in fact, are developed at our post-secondary institutions, not exclusively universities by any means. . . . The community colleges, many of which now have degree-granting authority, are also the incubators of the new ideas.

Quite frequently, the challenge for the people who develop these new ideas is in taking them out and trying to commercialize them and create a business. One of our programs is aimed exclusively at assisting in that process. I'm also pleased -- and I don't think this is exclusively government's job -- that now we see some of the financial institutions. . . . Some private sector elements are also now recognizing that to foster these kinds of businesses is, quite frankly, a good economic investment. Banks -- CIBC and others -- have developed mentorship programs and are, in other ways, trying to duplicate the work that we've been doing for years in the Science Council. I think that's starting to build as it grows more and more, as investors see that this sector of our economy is one that promises significant returns. We have just mentioned Ballard and some other companies: Newbridge Networks, Dynapro and others. Indeed, these are places for very good investments. The other, the working opportunities fund, provides a lot of support in financing for the development of these kinds of companies.

The Klopfer report the member talked about does indeed have 17 recommendations. I don't want to be misleading at all. It's not that. . . . I think there are some that we may find some problem with. I understand the need to attract and retain people of a certain calibre in our province. It's very difficult to kind of separate the recommendations that the report makes for specific, if you like, tax breaks and other kinds of things for those individuals. I'm not convinced that that's really the critical issue with respect to the retention or attraction of people to British Columbia. I think it's a range of things. But to the extent that the recommendations provide some useful guidance, then we're quite prepared to see whether or not they can be implemented.

L. Reid: If the minister is saying he's prepared to see whether those recommendations can be implemented, I'm assuming he's being fairly positive about the content, the substance, of those recommendations. I would speak strongly to the number one recommendation, which is to attract strong managerial competence. We don't have to go down the road of the tax discussion at this juncture, because I think we can indeed have some homegrown individuals who possess that managerial competence. They talk about attracting U.S. personnel, but they would never say no to someone who is British Columbia-based and had that skill set.

The dilemma today is that we don't integrate that level of education. And I'm not going to suggest that a university is doing a better job than a community college or a university college. I think it has to be partnerships. I think all of those 

[ Page 4236 ]

institutions must come together and recognize that we want scientists with a strong managerial competence, period. That would be a very good thing. So again I ask the minister to put his thoughts in writing regarding these recommendations and respond directly to the technology industry association. That would be a very good thing.

What alarms the industry at large is the lack of correspondence, the lack of communication -- something that's substantive, something in writing. They truly appreciate the minister's attendance and participation at a variety of functions. But they have to have something in writing that says: "Yes, this is a policy of government" or "It isn't." And I think what they have done is provide the framework for a fairly decent policy.

The minister does not need to accept every single recommendation. Certainly, any report received by government. . . . Some are not accepted at all. Many recommendations from this are solid, vetted by the industry. They make good sense. But if the minister were to accept 15 of the 17, and actually put that in writing, I still think the industry association would be delighted. You know, pick your 15; I don't mind. I think there has to be some substance to the discussion, in that for many months now -- more than a year -- I have had the minister suggest to me, as the critic: Indeed, we're looking at it." Keep looking by all means, but also put something in writing. I would welcome that from the minister.

Earlier we talked about solutions to the ongoing problems. One of the other opportunities that is available to us is the strong sense of environmental protection that we have here in British Columbia and, frankly, that we possess as Canadians. That's a very good thing. From that there will be science applications that we can market to the rest of the world. We have some leaders in terms of environmental cleanup, oil spill technologies. A lot of those technologies are things that the rest of the world can use and would do very well with if they were to purchase that product from Canada. That would be a very good thing.

So in the terms of the minister, I am agreeing that there are solutions today that we could respond to very effectively and take well beyond the Canadian marketplace. There are countries across this globe who would benefit from the discoveries made here in British Columbia and certainly in Canada.

I come back to my earlier point about research and development, because I believe it's vitally important if we are going to answer some of these questions in the long term. I'm not suggesting that the minister come back to the table with a short-term plan. This is a five-to-ten-year plan positioning us as we head into the next millennium. These are building blocks that need to be in place. Certainly I want the minister to come onside in terms of thinking of research and development as being one-third research and two-thirds development. The idea is just one aspect, and what happens now in research and development in British Columbia is that the idea migrates to a different province or country. Then we don't have the opportunity to do the value-added, because we've lost the idea.

So in terms of research and development, one-third is the research component, and two-thirds is the development component. It's the two-thirds that I believe we're giving away today. We don't hold on to and harness that kind of energy in terms of understanding that it would be a good thing, that the majority of jobs we can possibly secure will be in that realm of the value-added -- and these will be highly skilled, well-paid jobs, in all sectors.

Certainly, having served as Health critic for many years, I want the minister to understand that there are some real quality-of-life returns from basic research. We don't have answers today for breast cancer; we don't have answers for Alzheimer's. Those are tremendous personal costs, tremendous financial costs for British Columbians, for Canadians. If there are ways for us to arrive at best practice around the treatment, around the care of individuals suffering from those horrible diseases, we would be doing some good things. Those are science questions, questions that are based -- steeped -- in the need for decent qualitative-quantitative research. For the most part, those are longitudinal studies.

When the ministry is unclear about where it's headed and doesn't have a five- or ten-year plan, that level of support that's required to engage in a longitudinal study. . . . Most of those are ten or 15 years -- in terms of arriving at a reasonable research outcome -- and perhaps longer. We need a commitment, a sense of support, that we value the answers that will be found in that type of research. I don't believe we've done a particularly good job. I think we are established; we've crafted the launching point here in British Columbia.

[3:30]

Interjection.

L. Reid: It's true. Trust me -- it's true.

It's important to be seen as the champion of science. That will invite more investment into this province, and it will invite more participation by entities within this province.

This province has survived for so many years by having the minister responsible attend the annual events. The other provinces in this country have learned that it's not enough, that you have to be out there championing the cause every single day. And I commend this minister. He's doing a very good job in terms of his attendance at a variety of functions, but there needs to be some commitment on his part to create some more opportunities. His deputy certainly has that skill set and could craft those kinds of opportunities. The deputy has suggested that if we both commit to being absent from the House at the same time, more of those opportunities can occur.

I would welcome the minister taking an active role in the life of some of these companies around the province -- and I speak clearly of "around the province." We've tended to focus a lot of energy on what happens in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. There is good science happening all across this province. I've spent a great deal of time with the regional science councils -- the six of them we have in British Columbia -- and they're doing some wondrous things. 

[ Page 4237 ]

Again, no spotlight, no attention and rarely a visit from this government. A good thing for the minister, if he were choosing a focus for this coming year, would be to focus on science outside the lower mainland.

The ginseng operation in Kamloops will benefit tremendously from new science applications, from some value-added. Natural gas extraction in the Peace: there are some very good opportunities for science to receive some focus and to receive some recognition. A lot of these industries aren't looking for government dollars; they're looking for recognition. They're looking for some assistance when it comes time for them to receive outside investment -- that the welcoming mat is in place from the government of British Columbia. That would be a good thing.

Earlier in my remarks I referenced what's happening in the Atlantic provinces in this country. If Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Newfoundland can do it, British Columbia can take some very fine lessons and can, I believe, act on those suggestions.

One of the other issues I have raised with the minister in the past is funding for research chairs at major universities. Let's use the examples I offered in debate earlier: the breast cancer question and the Alzheimer's question. To me, those are social questions that need responses. Indeed, if the minister were looking to highlight a definite need, I would be interested to know if his ministry has evaluated whether or not they will put the building blocks in place and invite investment for those specific questions.

I'm not asking, today, for this government to put the dollars in place. I'm asking it to orchestrate the opportunities, similar to what happens in Newfoundland today, where people who have different levels of investment they might wish to offer come to the Premier and the minister and say: "Where would the best investment be?" They're advised that, oftentimes, it's science questions and it's medical applications.

I need to know if this minister is involved in that level in attracting investment to the province of British Columbia, if he could kindly comment.

Hon. D. Miller: I don't disagree at all. I referred to the kinds of programs we deliver. While they're modest in their total budget impact, they've been very effective. We could talk about growth of 20 percent or 22 percent in a sector. It's not as though you sit back on your laurels and say: "Well, everything's rosy, and we don't have to do anything." You have to build on that kind of growth.

There are -- I did have a list; I don't have it with me right now -- companies outside the greater Vancouver area or the lower mainland or southern Vancouver Island: ALI Technologies of Kamloops, and others. As I said in some of my earlier remarks, with modern telecommunications and the like, you don't have to be situated in Vancouver or the lower mainland to be in the business, to be in the game. As well, I don't think we should ignore the kind of innovation on the applied technology side that's taking place, a lot of which we don't know about, because people are just getting about their business and doing it.

The Science Council does maintain regional groups. I've spoken to Dr. Chow on numerous occasions about this, about making sure that we reach out.

It goes back to the issue of: how do you get the message out? I see young people in the gallery today, and to the extent that if there's a positive message about the future, it's this: there are exciting opportunities and jobs to be had in the field of science and technology. Not all of those, by the way, are ones that require students to go through and get advanced degrees in a particular field. Many of those opportunities are available through, for example, two-year courses at a community college, those kinds of technology programs that we've tried to put in place -- in fact, have put in place -- throughout the province.

On the export side. . . . Again, in terms of building capacity, I recently signed a memorandum of understanding with the Philippines -- and Indonesia, I believe. If you look at where we have expertise in the science and tech field, there's biopharmaceuticals, telecommunications and distance learning, and we are acknowledged internationally to be one of the leaders.

The opportunity to marry private sector expertise in British Columbia with the needs of the developing economy is significant, I think, and by signing these agreements, these memorandums of understanding, we think we've created the conditions to allow a B.C. company to actually export their expertise and to grow their company in B.C. The by-product of that, of course, is that the value of that export comes back into our province. A myriad of companies are fully engaged in that business.

Going back to ALI Technologies and the advanced systems awards they presented -- the science awards to graduate students -- there was an individual I met who came out of one of the community colleges up in the interior. I can't remember now if it was Cariboo or which particular college, but he is developing systems that have an impact on beehive burners. We're phasing out beehive burners, but there's still a requirement for those applications. That's being developed at a relatively small community in the central interior part of our province, but quite frankly, the application is international.

Another graduate student received an award for work that he had done in developing a sensor and monitoring system to measure the stress on metal frames. It's ironic. That was done because he had an interest in manufacturing bicycle frames. In a very competitive environment, he wanted to develop a frame that could withstand shocks and strains and everything else -- metal fatigue -- and he developed this sensoring system so his could be superior in terms of design. Well, the broader application is to all metal structures that are subject to those kinds of strains.

You can see that in doing that kind of work in terms of developing a bicycle frame, we have developed a technology that has an application in the aerospace sector and, presumably, in an unlimited number of applications. I was delighted to be talking to the individual. As a graduate student, he had gone to France to do some work and research, and he was living in France for a while, bicycling. So I said: "Tell me what it's like in France." It's a sophisticated industrialized country, etc., but he said that France is nowhere and that they don't do any of the things that we do. "They're so far behind us," he said, "you wouldn't believe it." I feel good about it, as a British Columbian, when I hear those kinds of anecdotes.

We're trying to hit every area. You know, there are no areas we're going to ignore, whether it's moving from academic infancy to commercial product or, on the trade side, to support through a variety of mechanisms. Even in the attempt to negotiate with the private sector, we were over looking at some of the systems that have been developed within government -- and many very good systems have been -- and that became or could become potentially marketable commodities. Look across the piece. Our property assessment system and 

[ Page 4238 ]

all kinds of the internal systems that we've developed are in fact very sophisticated. Again, the application in the emerging economies around the world is highly desirable.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, because I do believe, particularly around the Science Council, that we have some individuals in this province who have demonstrated tremendous leadership. Dr. Suezone Chow and Dr. Martha Salcudean are individuals who you can tell right away, at first meeting, love what they're doing. They believe in science, and their entire focus is on engaging more people in the applications of science. I believe those are exactly the leaders you wish to have in place. The individuals who are also engaged in activities around the Science Council do some very fine things. They, too, believe that it is an important focal point for this province.

Where we are today in terms of the minister's examples. . . . I would concur that indeed it's not just the universities or colleges that put sufficient programming in place to allow people to engage in this new knowledge-based sector, but it's also the apprenticeship programs. I would pay particular attention to the one crafted in concert with this government at Avcorp Industries, currently situated in Richmond East but soon to move to Delta. The level of programming is what's outstanding. Indeed, to allow students on the job site to acquire eight, ten or 15 months' worth of highly skilled specialized training, to allow them to be active participants in the aerospace industry, is a wondrous thing.

The work of Dr. Norman Streat at BCIT, the British Columbia Institute of Technology. . . . Those are very useful partnerships. It's not appropriate to suggest that every student is going to be able to engage in a four-, six- or ten-year advanced education program. Some students, based on their circumstances and their needs, may truly wish a six- to ten-month program that allows them entry into the workforce at a wage that is sustaining. I applaud that. I have never stood in this chamber and suggested that there's a one-size-fits-all solution for any of these problems, and I believe the minister agrees.

I think where we're headed today in terms of channelling resources. . . . I appreciate the minister's remarks about a budget reduction for his ministry. But when I come back to the health questions, it seems to me that if science can respond to some of these larger problems that are causing great harm to our health care budget today, and if we can resolve some of those issues and provide some solutions, the overall budget of this province would be in better shape and the overall contribution expected from the taxpayer could at some point maybe level off. This wouldn't continuously be about tax increases. Indeed, we could find some solutions that may provide a better quality of life -- which I think is priority one -- but following that would allow people to keep some dollars in their pockets.

I appreciate the minister saying that he has fewer resources. In that this is the estimates debate for this ministry, this is a good place to have this discussion. He has fewer resources with which to respond to some of the science needs around the province. But I'm saying it's time to look at the columns in the ledger and perhaps not suggest that because science is less, we can't respond to some of those questions in health care or in forestry.

What I'm looking for is a network across all ministries that says: "Let's look at the human cost. Let's look at the actual cost, and let's have some kind of performance review for the taxpayer. This is what we spent. Did it have a benefit to the taxpayer, and did it have a human benefit?" Did we indeed look at finding a solution to improve treatment for Alzheimer's patients? That is a huge cost factor in the Health ministry today that is virtually ignored in other parts of this government. If there were a merging of the needs for a solution, perhaps two or three or four ministries could come together and say, "This is where we're going to focus some energy this year," and be responsive to the needs, whether it's breast cancer or whether it's Alzheimer's.

Some of the health questions will continue to drive the health care budget at an alarming growth rate. In the short term that I have been elected -- six years -- the budget in health care has gone up over $1 billion. There's no sense that that budget will diminish, yet I believe that is where science can make a significant difference. If some of these questions were responded to, some good things would indeed happen.

[3:45]

The governments that have done that most successfully are the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland. Every minister has a responsibility to come to the table and say: "This is what I'm doing to find a solution, to advance the issue, to integrate my programming." And it seems to be working. The other province that is amazingly successful is Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Research Council has the largest research park in Canada. It's in Regina, Saskatchewan, and it's a good thing.

If we in British Columbia got halfway down the road to being as productive and as efficient as the research park in Saskatchewan, we'd be doing some very good things. Admittedly, Ron Woodward is heading that up, and I think it was a great loss to British Columbia that he left. I trust that at some point he will come back to this very fine province, because his sense of science is basically what I'm sharing with you today: that indeed, it's only working well when governments see, across the board, that it needs to be incorporated and it needs to be folded into the overall goals of government.

In my days on the Public Accounts Committee with my hon. colleague from Delta South, we talked many times of benchmarking valuation, of how best to come to the table and deliver an outcome that's understandable to the taxpayer. There is a matrix that I want to refer to as we lead into debate. It's from "Enhancing Accountability Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan," and it's certainly an initiative of governments. In British Columbia they are indeed addressing it as we speak, but most governments in North America and in different parts of the world have said that the question is accountability and that how you expend the taxpayers' dollar is a significant issue.

I accept that notion; I know the minister probably does as well. What I want to do this afternoon, in terms of the more detailed questions I'm going to pose, is to have the minister respond with some kind of operational focus, some kind of financial focus and some kind of compliance evaluation. All the press conferences announce some wondrous things; I want to know what happens to that six months later and what 

[ Page 4239 ]

the benefit is a year, perhaps, or 18 months from the date of the announcement. A lot of things appear to die after the press conferences. I don't know if that's true; it may simply be a matter of things not being reported out effectively following that.

It seems difficult to acquire information in this area. The situation is definitely improving, but I believe it's certainly an issue for a general framework for accountability, and that it's time that governments responded to particular questions based on some kind of framework.

The Public Accounts Committee report, volume 2, was tabled yesterday by the hon. member for Delta South, who lives and breathes financial accountability. I would like this minister to also consider human accountability: how best to deliver products and services to people so that they're understandable to them and so that they're also enhancing, in some way, the fact that government is there and somehow has a positive impact on their lives, as opposed to negative.

Those questions are certainly prevalent in health care delivery, but they're also prevalent in science, in research and in technology questions. Because people continue to pay an astounding level of taxation, they need to appreciate -- in more detail, I think, than is available -- today what it is they indeed receive for those dollars.

Could the minister respond in terms of whether or not his ministry has allocated specific dollars for research in the province; if there's an overall business plan that looks at whether or not they are directly involved, supportive and fostering that kind of development; and if this business plan is indeed available today?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, and I will refer to a document we talked about last year, which is still the operational document in terms of the goals of the branch and the government.

Again, with some more young people in the gallery. . . . The longer I'm in the portfolio, the more I learn about. . . . I think you could spend a lifetime looking at some of the developments here in B.C. I had a very informative discussion, for example, with Chris Brough of Mainframe Entertainment. It's not well known, but there is a computer-animated television show which is, I gather, North America-wide; it's carried by the major American networks, etc. I think it's called "ReBoot."

I don't know if that draws any response from up there, but here's the story. And again, these are anecdotal stories, but they're great. Chris came to see me, because in his field. . . . He's a fellow, by the way, who's had a long history of producing movies. He spent considerable time in Hollywood; I think he produced one of the Beatles's first movies -- if you can believe that. He has a business, Mainframe Entertainment, and he produces this computer-animated television show in downtown Vancouver. He employs a number of young people -- and I referred earlier to the fact that you needn't necessarily be an engineering or science graduate. Since he developed his company -- and it's not that long ago -- he has created seven millionaires. These fairly young people -- a lot younger than I am -- are, I guess, computer hackers, or whatever, and are employed in a very creative field and making outstanding wages. He described, again, a young fellow. He said he knew the parents of this young fellow, and they phoned him up and said: "Well, our son is at kind of loose ends, and he's not really doing well. Can you find a job for him?" Chris said: "Yes, send him over and I'll put him to work, maybe starting to clean up around the place." That young man, Chris told me today, will be producing his first feature-length computer-animated movie in a year or two -- and he'll be a millionaire by the time he's through. I cite those stories because it's kind of delightful to know that here in Vancouver we're developing this program that's popular around the world. There are lots of those kinds of stories.

In terms of going back to the last fiscal year, we think that it is important to do some analysis. What were our goals? Did we achieve them? Where are we going in this fiscal year? For last year, really looking at the kind of work that we've done. . . . The western science and technology cooperation agreement -- the member may recall the conference linkup between the western ministers responsible for science and technology and Dr. Gerrard, in terms of a formal MOU for cooperation among the western provinces and the federal department and the territories. That was looking at the clusters study -- a strategy for the development of the high-technology sector in B.C. across the west; in other words, where there are companies in a similar field of the science and technology field, it makes them aware of the activities of other companies. Again, part of that is sort of critical mass. It assisted the National Research Council with the planning and development of the innovation centre that I talked about earlier. It assisted the WestMOST Consortium: 10 companies and eight western universities in the development of post-graduate degrees in software engineering. It really provided leadership in the measurement of the high-technology sector and the innovation in science and technology statistics. It worked with B.C. Stats to update their statistical report on the sector. Seven regional science and technology innovation councils have been established -- in Prince George, Dawson Creek, Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo, the East Kootenays and the West Kootenays -- which brings regional resources and perspectives to the importance of science and technology. Addressing the skills shortage is a subject I talked about. It supported the independent study of challenges facing the sector, collected and reported statistical skills and the skill shortages in B.C. and supported the development of a master's program in software engineering for western Canada.

There are more. I'd be happy to share the report -- really, just an overview -- with the member. It supported the Premier's advisory council; it worked on a number of international activities, including the planning of the International Symposium on Micromachining that was held in May of this year and the organization of an APEC seminar on trade opportunities in the high-tech sector. Again, I talked about trade as part of the mandate and the linking-up of the expertise here in B.C., both for export purposes and investment purposes. There is applied research through programs such as Technology B.C., the fisheries development and diversification program, the technology assistance program and the product development fund.

Some of the benefits are. . . . For Technology B.C.: $4.4 million in investments resulted in one job for $50,000 and a return of $2.64 million to the economy for every dollar spent -- a pretty good return. The technology assistance program assisted small and medium-sized businesses with 108 projects, generating $15 million in economic benefits for the province and creating 360 jobs. Technology transfers promoted the education and skill-development scholarships and fellowship programs. Graduate research engineering and technology scholarships provided 100 graduate students with practical work experience. The First Job in Science and Technology program, which we did last year -- 166 new full-time jobs for recent science, technology and engineering graduates -- attracted 33 quality graduate students through the ASI scholarship program.

[ Page 4240 ]

There's a number of things that we think really bear testament to the work we're doing and the results that we've achieved, and we want to do that in terms of the ministry. There's not much sense unless you have a plan, a focus, and then do an analysis to see whether you've achieved your objectives, and build that information into the planning that you do for the forthcoming year.

L. Reid: Could the minister kindly cite the title of the document he was referencing?

Hon. D. Miller: The document coming out of the ministry is simply two pages for my information as the minister, to look in short form at the kind of work that we've done and the results we've achieved in the last fiscal year.

L. Reid: Some weeks back I requested the business plan. Where I was headed with this discussion this afternoon was around evaluation -- what internal mechanisms are in place and perhaps what external mechanisms are in place. What I received was the Information Technology Access Office report on the first year -- a very fine document; I appreciate it immensely.

I wonder if the minister can respond to my questions, specifically with reference to evaluation, based on what may or may not include aspects of the business plan. I'm convinced that there's probably a business plan separate from this document, which I see as some kind of summary document. Could the minister comment on the existence of the business plan, on his hopeful willingness to share it and then the evaluation tools in place?

Hon. D. Miller: I guess in a sense the budget is the business plan. While the budget is often looked at as simply a listing of numbers and programs, it essentially represents the business plan of the ministry for the forthcoming year. Overarching that are the primary objectives of the government with respect to science and technology, and that's the strategic plan for British Columbia developed when the Premier was the minister responsible for this sector. The member is aware of the document, and it continues to be the guiding document, in sort of an overarching sense, in terms of our policy objectives for science and technology.

Beyond that, to give life to the program side, there are a number of programs that we fund. I mentioned the impact of the fiscal restraint program, the budget reduction, on that -- a fairly modest budget, by the way, of just shy of $26 million last year, but cut down to about $19.3 million this fiscal year; on a percentage basis, a pretty big hit. That is included under the broad topics of research and development, R and D, new products and processes, technology application and transfer, support for commercialization and science education and awareness. Those are the primary broad topics.

Included under those -- for example, under R and D -- are the Media and Graphics Interdisciplinary Centre, the Networks of Centres of Excellence, the development of the clean room for the B.C. Cancer Agency that the member referred to earlier, and the Centre for Climate Studies at the University of Victoria.

[4:00]

Finally, as we look at the year-end, at an assessment of. . . . Well, we've spent some of the taxpayers' money, and here are the areas -- what were the results? Do we think that there's been some measurable success beyond the kind of statistical growth that I've talked about in the sector itself? I believe the answer is yes.

As well as continue our business plan, the framework and everything else, I think we need to be open and creative to new ideas that might come along that have not been part of our thinking. To the degree that you can seize those and act in a very quick and positive manner, I can tell the member that it's fairly routine for technology companies to come and visit me -- some within the province, some new ones that have ideas about locating here. We treat those as opportunities. We try to make them welcome, show them the advantages of locating in British Columbia, the support at some levels, through perhaps other parts of the Employment and Investment ministry or the industrial incentive fund, if that's appropriate.

I'll close on that note. I had worked on the Avcorp proposition since my days as the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. What I liked about it was that we had a British Columbia company that had proven its capability as a manufacturer of aircraft components. That company wanted to expand. There were certain requirements in terms of land, in terms of financing and in terms of skills training. We sat down and negotiated a package with them -- an $8 million investment in this expanded company. Five and a half million dollars was distributed through our post-secondary institutions on the training side. A nice package, and we should see the increase. I regret that that company is leaving its all-too-small location in that member's constituency and moving to another one. But on the positive side, we can see the addition of 200, 300. . .my own view is far beyond that -- a significant number of new jobs, high-skilled jobs, well-paying jobs. They contribute enormously to our economy.

L. Reid: I want to take a moment just to endorse the minister's comments regarding Avcorp. There's no question that they will be a significant player in the aerospace industry in years to come and will be good news for the province.

What I wanted the minister to respond to -- and I'll just take a moment to review it -- was an accountability framework. The minister has said that the budget is the business plan. I disagree vehemently. What I'm looking for is a set of goals, and there are four questions that I believe need to be responded to. Is government achieving what it set out to achieve? Is government developing and maintaining the capacity to deliver results in the future? Is government achieving its financial objectives? Are government affairs conducted in accordance with legislative requirements and with expected standards of conduct?

[ Page 4241 ]

That is contained in the accountability information matrix that's been put forward and entitled "Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and an Implementation Plan." What the minister said was that the budget is the plan. I don't agree that a list of numbers gives any indication of what the goals are or what the intended outcomes are. There's no way for the critic, there's no way for the taxpayer, to look at the budget and then look at the annual report and decide if the objectives were met.

Today we're not clear what the objectives are. The annual reports come out so many months following that it's difficult to create any accountability around them, because they don't state the initial objectives. There has to be an ability to look at the objective and then decide if it was met. That's missing today. Could the minister at least give me some reassurance that a business plan does exist that sets out the goals of the ministry in very succinct, measurable, demonstrable terms? This is about benchmarking a standard of excellence -- particularly in science, because this is where it should happen best, if you will.

It alarms me that it's missing, and I fully support the document that the minister has in his hand. It's been before us for a couple of years. Surely there's been some refinement of that. It is the umbrella document, as the minister said; it is the overarching document. I don't take anything away from the minister's comments, but that's as far as they go. I believe it needs to be something that is evaluated on an ongoing basis. Some refinements need to be brought to the table, so that there can be some evaluation in place. If the minister could respond in terms of what the internal mechanisms are for evaluation -- how that information is shared in a public way -- and what the external mechanisms are which are either in place today or which are planned to be put in place.

G. Robertson: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

G. Robertson: With us this afternoon we have from Sointula the principal of A.J. Elliott Elementary School, André Kaufmann. André is a longtime friend. We've played hockey together and have known each other for a number of years. As well, André is a very skilled musician. Accompanying him are nine grade 7 students from Sointula, and Song Troughton and Butch Aleksich. I've known Butch for a long time. He's a North Island fisherman. I ask that the House please welcome them to these precincts.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, I do think it is important that we do evaluate our programs and whether we're not. . . . You know, I suppose there are many evaluative forms. One of those is the one we receive from the auditor general, who does value-for-money audits -- are we getting good value for the money we spend in particular areas? I believe the Public Accounts Committee is seized with some of the discussion relative to these different criteria for evaluating performance, and government, as well, is examining that question.

But I do go back -- not to oversimplify -- to looking at the strategic plan. That's the touchstone. I think you've got to keep coming back to that. Let's take objective 6: "Business, labour, industry, academia and government will jointly identify needs, priorities and implications of new technology and information transfer and adoption." And objective 7: "Improve the education and training of British Columbians to provide the skills and knowledge necessary to both promote and take advantage of the new opportunities that science and technology bring."

Let's look at that -- let's take, for example, objective 7 -- and then say: "Okay, just anecdotally, what do we have here in British Columbia?" The member, as the former critic for Skills, Training and Labour, is aware of the kind of advances on the post-secondary side and in the K-to-12 system. She is also aware, as I mentioned previously, of the announcement of a new technical university for British Columbia, which is a very focused decision right in line, in my view, with objective 7. And really, looking at the participation rate. . . . I think that's important as well: can students access these post secondary institutions? Can they afford to get the skills? Can they get in?

I was delighted to see a number yesterday. While enrolment in post-secondary institutions in the rest of Canada is down, in British Columbia it's up by 6 percent. So that tells me that the policy goals we've established and the implementation of some of those is working. We're going exactly in the direction we said we should go in, and the statistical results are there to support that claim. And I'm sure that's true.

I just picked on one of the objectives. But as I look at the objectives -- as I meet, for example, with the Science Council, as I talk to people in the sector, in the industry, and to people at the post-secondary level -- there's a general feeling that British Columbia is doing many things right.

The most consistent issue that's arisen in the last short while has been the skills shortage issue -- that and the idea of having a significant player: the critical mass issue. Really, I think in terms of the media reporting on the ones that have predominated in the last year -- the year that I've had this portfolio -- we have had discussions with major players: IBM. We have seen the official opening of the Hughes Aircraft Canadian headquarters, and Hewlett-Packard locating their call centre in the same vicinity -- I think in the member's constituency. A number of these -- and I don't have a list of them all -- point as hard evidence that our strategies are paying off.

We need to do more. That's why I'm going to have this one-day conference to try to strategize around a fairly focused part of this -- the skills shortage part. Because that, it seems to me, is quite important. So all the evidence is there, it seems to me. I don't say that with any sense of smugness or satisfaction -- that we can somehow sit back and take it easy. But I think we are going down the right road. I think the evidence is there in terms of the growth in the industry and a bunch of other indicators. We just have to continue to drive that agenda. I think, finally, that we need to get it out to the public in a better way.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments about the broad goals that the ministry intends to achieve, particularly around increasing enrolment, as an example. The difficulty is that we don't know what the goal should be. We don't know what the ministry's goal is. Is it an increase of 10 percent, 15 percent or 5 percent? There's no way for us to evaluate the success, because we're not clear on what the initial goal was. So beyond the broad goals that the minister is referencing this afternoon. . . ..

Let's take his example: to increase enrolment. Was the goal to increase it by a certain percentage? Has the goal been met? I think there are some accountability mechanisms that are missing from today's discussion, and I would only ask that the minister incorporate them into future discussions. Because an annual report saying, "We did a list of these things," doesn't indicate whether or not that was the strategy in place at the outset. 

[ Page 4242 ]

Was that the intended outcome, or was that the ancillary outcome? Did those things happen, or did they happen as a result of some concerted effort on behalf of this minister and this ministry?

Since the minister specifically raised the issue of the Avcorp investment of $8 million. . . . We know what the investment is. What's the anticipated return? What's the outcome? If the minister's not comfortable with that example, I don't mind if he chooses another. But I want at least one example today of where there is a specific decision to take an investment, to assign a certain sum of money and then to have evaluation. What are we getting for that? What does the minister intend that the taxpayer receive for an $8 million investment, and how will that be measured?

So I don't mind the example, and I appreciate the minister's reference to broad goals, but I want to know -- and with the absence of a business plan it's difficult to know -- if these things happen as a result of any activity. That would be a good thing for us to know, if the minister could respond.

[4:15]

For example, I'm not saying that the budget is the strategy, but the budget is the strategy given life in terms of where you're going to put those investments. That requires a certain rigour. In other words, when you go back to Treasury Board in terms of budget allocation, and you say, "I would like this amount of money again," their question is: "Well, what did you do with the money we gave you last time?" We have to answer those questions. We have to fight very, very hard to say: "In this program or this program, here's how much money we put in; here are the results we've achieved." It's a very rigorous process. So that analysis is actually there. Perhaps it has not been clarified in terms of a document -- I don't know.

I think the work of the committee would be useful. We're certainly open to that question in the branch, because we want to make sure that the money we put in produces results; it's important. I do say, however, that looking at the statistical indicators -- whether it's growth in the sector, whether it's enrolment in post-secondary, whether it's development of new companies -- we are achieving our goals. Can we do better? That's the question, and. . . .

Interjection.

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the goals, as I indicated broadly, are contained in the strategic plan to develop and grow the sector in British Columbia. It's happening. I mean, 20 and 22 percent growth in a sector is arguably something that is the envy of almost every other sector in our economy. I don't think there are any that can match it in terms of a spectacular growth rate. I said at the outset that in my view, that growth rate was sustainable. It could get even bigger, so the trick is to stay at it.

Yes, evaluation is important. It's critically important. You don't want to spend all your time, though, on that kind of internal process. Sometimes you can get too caught up in that. I'm not arguing against it. I'm just saying that you don't want to get focused on being obsessed with it: there's got to be a document; it's got to outline every single nuance; we've got to analyze it to see whether we met every single nuance. You can spend a lot of time engaged in that. When you're actually, practically, doing business, don't ignore the instinctive value and knowledge of employees, which is often not captured, in a very narrow sense, on a piece of paper. It's important to have systems, goals and evaluations, but it's also important to get about your business in a vigorous way.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, I ask the minister to look at this discussion as perhaps reporting out to the shareholders, who I perceive to be the taxpayers of this province. They wouldn't be fobbed off forever with very broad goals. They would ask for some detailed accounting and a detailed business plan. If the corporation of the province of British Columbia is the corporation in question, and as this is the estimates debate for this ministry, this is the discussion for today. In terms of the minister's inability to provide that information today, I accept that, because I do appreciate that the minister and the ministry have been in transition over the last year in terms of where these programs come to rest.

I can't accept for a moment that there aren't business plans for these programs, that there isn't somebody. . . . I certainly support the minister when he talks about expertise within the ministry. There are some fabulous people working in that ministry who will do some very fine things. So I'm convinced that they have written that information down. What I'm asking for future discussions. . . . Or, given the minister's indulgence, simply send that information to me at the earliest opportunity. I think it's the baseline for discussion, and if future briefings can be arranged, I could have some opportunities to discover what objectives have been met and what objectives have been set out. I don't believe that's a difficult task. I take nothing away from the minister's comments when he says that the sector is growing and that we should all be delighted.

I go to a lot of the press conferences where this is a good-news ministry -- no question about that. But it's still a $20 million expenditure. Are those dollars being expended in the most useful way? Are we getting optimum benefit from that expenditure? I'm not having those questions answered today. The minister tells me that that information is not available today. I will accept that, as long as there's some commitment that specific plans have been addressed and will be reported out sometime in the next two or three months. Because in its new form, the ministry is more than a year old today.

In terms of what I'm looking for, again found in the matrix put forward by the auditor general in "Enhancing Accountability for Performance: A Framework and Implementation Plan," I don't believe I'm asking for anything that all ministries are not going to be required to provide. This is the way of governing in the future -- that the taxpayer will expect a very different level of accountability for the expenditure of tax dollars.

To be effective, the auditor general recommends a so-called performance management system that includes clearly established objective programs, effective strategies, program design, policy development, planning to meet the objectives and aligning resources, where the budget is only one part. This is not the entire report, hon. minister. There are budget 

[ Page 4243 ]

information systems, people controls to implement the strategies, performance measures to facilitate accountability and a system of relevant and timely reporting, and real consequences associated with not meeting performance measures.

That is where governing of the future is headed. Should I be privileged to be in this position next year, I trust that the minister will be able to respond to these questions in more detail.

In terms of the document of the information and technology access office, the report on the first year, the information is sound. This is the summary document. What I'm looking for is the original document that said, "These are the goals we intend to achieve," and some demonstration of whether or not they've been achieved. I appreciate the minister's proffered commitment to provide that at some future point.

Hon. D. Miller: I do understand the focus of the member's questions, and I'm going to pass over the document that perhaps typifies the kind of approach she is suggesting. It has to do with the information technology access office. It's a report on the first year, but it does detail the various objectives under that section, and some results. So I think that's the kind of document the member is looking for.

This is a broad area for discussion, as I've indicated. There are certain views with respect to evaluating performance and the like. Perhaps the member might want to take a look at this and see if it is something that fits the mould that she has been raising. So if someone could take this. . . . Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact, you could do it.

L. Reid: I appreciate the speed with which the minister proffered that document. In terms of the rest of today's discussion, I very much want to centre on a number of specific programs, and I would ask for some response from the minister.

The minister has referenced the openings that we have attended: Hewlett-Packard, Hughes Aircraft and the Avcorp expansion. I'm hoping that at some point we'll be attending the opening of the Pacific Development Centre for British Columbia, which is the IBM initiative that has been in constant negotiation with this ministry and has met a number of different deadlines, if you will. Extensions have been proffered because it was believed, I felt, that it would be a good thing to have that level of activity, that cluster approach, happen in British Columbia.

Where I started my remarks today was that we need to look at some larger companies that have the ability to spawn some smaller companies. I believe the minister agreed with that contention. If that's the case, perhaps a status report and update on where that negotiation now sits -- fully supporting that it's probably well beyond any sensitivity issues, because it's been on the table for such a long time. . . . I would respect the minister if there are issues he's not able to share today, but I would like some sense of how much effort is going into this negotiation and whether or not he supports the contention that this would be a useful catalyst for the growth of knowledge-based industry in British Columbia.

Hon. D. Miller: Obviously the negotiations and discussions between IBM and ourselves are the subject of some confidentiality, so there's some limit to what I can say. I did refer earlier to the technology that government has developed internally, which is now being viewed, quite frankly, by the private sector as an opportunity. More and more, in fact, the modern challenge of governments is that interrelation with the private sector. As we look at the kinds of services that might have traditionally been offered by government, in terms of the delivery of those services, we can see some efficiencies. We can see the marriage of government-developed technology with the private sector in terms of exportable technology, which has the potential to bring revenue back to government on a continuous basis.

That's really the focus of our discussions with IBM. They've expressed an interest in doing some of the work that we've done -- the sort of internal service work, the systems that we've developed in government. We have been engaged in a fairly intense discussion and negotiation with them over some of those components. I can tell you that there has been progress made. IBM, I'm sure, would confirm that that's the case.

But we also have to be mindful when we do those things that we address the kinds of public policy issues that go with any disposition of assets. Government has a different mandate and is subject to greater scrutiny that the private sector. It's much easier, quite frankly, in the private sector for two entities to get together and say, "Let's make a deal," and do that deal to their mutual benefit. But when it comes to government there are added criteria. It's the responsibility to report to the public; it's the responsibility to be mindful that Public Accounts, the auditor general and others may scrutinize those transactions to make sure that they passed the test of public accountability.

That of necessity requires that we be careful in those discussions and negotiations. With that, I believe we've made significant progress. I've had a number of discussions with IBM. They continue to meet, discuss and negotiate these issues with my ministry and others. Hopefully, at some concluding point we can have an announcement that indeed is good news for British Columbians -- good news in terms of government, systems, operations and for opportunities in the private sector. But until that happens, some of our discussions obviously have to be confined.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. If I might reference the comments of the deputy minister when he said the location of that facility here in British Columbia would be a good thing, but not at any cost, I certainly support that contention. There are some balancing acts that need to be refined, if you will, in terms of not taking away business from existing smaller companies, who've done their absolute best to position themselves here in the province and would not like to see a wholesale giveaway of the industry that they have so definitely attempted to create -- and have been very successful in lots of cases.

The only question I ask the minister to perhaps respond to is: is there a new time line in place for this negotiation? Is it open-ended today? Or indeed has a time line been established that will allow this minister and ministry to say: "We've come to the end of the road in terms of negotiation, and we brought some closure to it"? Or will it stay open until it's refined well enough so that both sides believe that it's win-win?

Hon. D. Miller: We do anticipate that by the summer's end, early fall or somewhere in that period we should be in a position to make a substantive decision and subsequent announcement. I hope that we can meet that target.

L. Reid: With the minister's indulgence, I ask that this committee take a short recess.

[ Page 4244 ]

The Chair: The committee will now recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:30 p.m. to 4:42 p.m.

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

L. Reid: If I might beg leave to make an introduction. . . .

Leave granted.

L. Reid: In the precincts today is a group of elementary-aged students from Garden City Elementary School in my riding. They are accompanied by Mrs. Gail Aitchison. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

To continue with the discussion, one of the other issues that will confront us, as a science-based and knowledge-based community the world over, will be what happens to computer systems in this land come the year 2000. It seems to me that it's a significant challenge. I'm not convinced that we are preparing today to take on that challenge. Certainly it looks at every single computer data-processing program having to be redeveloped and redesigned to ensure that the year 2000 is reflected in those programs.

My understanding is that there is a cost per line of code that needs to be addressed. Indeed, it's a significant cost item. My understanding of this issue is that it's somewhere in the neighbourhood of $250 million to revamp government programs such as Pharmacare, programs where data collection is the bread and butter of the program, if you will. There needs to be some plan in place in terms of the cost being roughly in the neighbourhood of $250 million. But the length of the project is also two to three years.

So I ask this minister: has a decision been reached, and can he assure this House today, that indeed there is a significant plan in place to address this issue? We are, you know, in month six of year 1997. We're looking to a solution in 30 months. Given that it's exactly the time line that the industry prescribes as being essential to complete the task, is the task underway?

[4:45]

We did deliver a status report to the government, Treasury Board and the auditor general. So we anticipate that we will have accountability and be in compliance. Each ministry has been directed to prepare a three-year plan that clearly identifies how they will be addressing the problem. The chief information officer will continue to monitor cross-government progress to make sure that we're on top of the issue and avoid any consequences beyond the year 2000.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. Certainly I concur that the auditor general has suggested a cost of $46 million. But that sentiment is not shared by anyone in industry, who basically suggest that it's at least five times that sum of money.

So as we proceed through this process, which is roughly 30 months from the change of the millennium, if the minister could report out dollars expended to date -- perhaps at the end of fiscal '97, the end of fiscal '98 and the end of fiscal '99 -- I would commend this minister, because it seems to me that it is an enormous challenge, an enormous task, if it is indeed possible to achieve the task for $46 million.

I think the enormity of the task has not yet been realized. Canada is not alone. I mean, every country is grappling with this. They are coming in with cost estimates far greater, with fewer government programs and fewer data collection and data management problems than currently posed by British Columbia.

So I think there's probably some relevance in this discussion for future estimates debate. I would inquire, in terms of budget allocation: where indeed will the dollars flow? Is it a decision that will be parcelled out to each ministry to accommodate the change? Will someone be responsible for the overall expenditure?

Hon. D. Miller: Interesting enough, I think our numbers are fairly accurate. We've obviously got a range between $40 million and $50 million. In this kind of situation it's probably impossible to avoid the sort of speculative views of some who might suggest it's massively larger. It's estimated to be about $100 billion worldwide.

If we fail, then we can always go back to using pen and paper. By that time there won't be many of us left who remember how to do it. Fortunately, I've avoided becoming computer-literate, so I'll be in the forefront if that ever happens. That would be interesting to contemplate.

The responsibility of the chief information officer, as I indicated in my previous response, is in terms of oversight and guidance. But the individual costs associated with each ministry are borne by those ministries and are part of their budget process. I don't think there will be a discrete line item in terms of that question; I think it will be part of their administrative budget. But obviously it's an issue that we want to stay on top of. In fact, maybe we're in a better position now with the formation of the new branch, having this kind of technical expertise housed within the ministry, to provide the kind of oversight and guidance that's required to achieve our objectives.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that response. I'm inquiring of the minister whether or not the current B.C. Systems building -- the RFP. . . . Is that in place today? And has there been any movement on the notion of privatizing the information technology sector? My understanding of this issue is that there's somehow going to be anticipated savings in the neighbourhood of $170 million. If this is factual, I would like to know how that number was arrived at.

Hon. D. Miller: No, we have put out what's called an RFI, a request for information. We've invited companies, and 36 companies have responded as to their interests, their capacities and those kinds of questions. We will then take that information -- and we're in the process of doing that now -- to develop a more specific RFP, a request for proposals. That is work that's currently underway.

There are a number of components. I talked earlier about the expertise that has been developed internally to government. Some of that is the technological capacity. Some of it is hardware, and some of it is other things like fixtures. Once we have done that kind of analytical work, we will then be 

[ Page 4245 ]

publishing a request for proposals. That will be a public document, and it will be available for these companies to submit any bids they may have. Those will then go through an evaluation internal to government prior to any decision being made.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. I'm not clear about what kind of information would be requested in a request for information. Would these 36 responders be prospective purchasers or prospective providers of this service? Are they being asked to delineate their capacity or capability in terms of taking on this task? And how does an RFI differ from an RFP?

Hon. D. Miller: An RFI allows us, in a general way, to advise interested parties about our thinking about either asset disposal or systems or whatever and to request companies who have some interest not only to respond to the kinds of issues we present but also to present ideas they may have. I think that's an important process. In other words, there are numerous ways in which one can, let's say, make a decision to devolve a government system or an asset to the private sector. You can simply hang up a for-sale sign and say, "Well, whoever comes along with the most money is the winner," but this is a much more complicated, sophisticated, technical issue that we're dealing with in terms of systems.

Going back to that comment I made earlier about the relationship between government and the private sector, in some of these situations there's an ongoing relationship. By us itemizing our thinking and putting that out inviting these kinds of proposals, we think we'll develop, through that process, a better RFP. Once we've done that, it will become public, and we'll await any kinds of bids that come in from the private sector. I believe that the information on the RFI is on a web site, and I can certainly get that calling number to the member.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his offer. What intrigues me is if the problem is presented as prospective asset disposal of this information technology sector, this B.C. Systems building and its related capability. Are you asking these companies to suggest what the repercussions might be to their existing businesses as a result of this prospective sale? If that's the case, that would be an intriguing way to structure that kind of information exchange. If it's simply that, I will accept it. The question I began this with was on the ministry suggestion that this is an entity that's worth in the neighbourhood of $170 million. Is that the purchase price? Again, how was that number arrived at?

Hon. D. Miller: We have not used a dollar figure, nor will we. Really, it goes to the heart of what we're doing. I'm trying to think of a specific example. If you're going to sell an asset that has a revenue stream, you can put an evaluation on it yourself and say: "We're prepared to sell it for X number of dollars." A better way would be say: "Here's an asset. What kind of bids can we obtain? What's the value of this to any particular company?" It may have a higher value to some companies than to other companies.

Important in all of that equation is the whole question of ongoing utilization and the services that are provided. I did refer to the range of assets that are included in this package. A building would be an obvious one, one would think. There's a building. Now, what's the value of the land, the real estate, etc.? But looking at it all -- the building, the data platform, data processing, the help desk, B.C. OnLine, provincial telephone network -- these are all services. On an ongoing basis, what's the value to a particular company in terms of being involved here? You can't put a number on it, and in fact, it would be foolish to try.

I was just recalling an article. Let me just quote a brief quote in today's Sun by Gary Rasmussen. The article says it's Bruce Rasmussen, but I'm advised that it's Gary Rasmussen. There's just a little quote at the end of the article, and I think it's important. He said: ". . .about 60 percent of the information technologies services revenues are in the public sector." So you can see that it goes back to what I said about the fact that we've developed internally.

Indeed, that relationship has been a significant one in terms of purchase of service by government. I think MacDonald Dettwiler have received a considerable amount of support through the kind of relationship they've had on land data with the B.C. Ministry of Lands and the Ministry of Forests. The development in that work has allowed them to develop new technology, which they are now marketing on an international basis. There's a relationship there.

Mr. Rasmussen goes on to say: "What they do with that has a big, big swing on what companies are going to grow here and what kinds of skills are going to be developed." This is a much more complicated exercise than the traditional one -- "Let's privatize a part of government" or "Let's sell a building." It's much more complicated and sophisticated than that, so the member will appreciate why we have not ever put an evaluative number on that -- nor will we. We'll go through the process of the RFI and the RFP, and then we'll see what results.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, I'm somewhat concerned. This minister will offer for sale at some point an entity that is currently owned by the taxpayers. The minister introduced the term "bid." Surely there's a reserve bid, if we're going to use the auction analogy. If this item, in all its levels of sophistication, is put up for sale, there has to be a floor below which this minister will not accept the sale.

I know that this minister has some business acumen and that that will indeed be the discussion that has probably taken place within government, so I'm not clear why the minister is not prepared to put a dollar value on the sale of that asset: "As a government, we are not prepared to accept less than X," whatever X happens to be. I think that's a reasonable valuation of what is a provincial asset. I don't think I'm asking for anything that should not be readily available.

It concerns me, if these are savings to be realized, whether this same expenditure will be borne by the taxpayer when it's time to purchase that service back. If we're selling the capability for that service to somebody outside government, our necessity for that service has not diminished in any way. We'll simply be buying the service back. Would the minister comment?

[5:00]

[ Page 4246 ]

-- and it shouldn't be -- just linked to the defined asset that we may be talking about. It should be linked to broader potential in our economy.

You can appreciate, and I hope you do appreciate, that it would be backward to try and put a number on an evaluation of that asset at the front end. The evaluation is much more sophisticated than how much cash we are going to get in our pocket in a single transaction in a single fiscal year. It's much more complicated than that. It's quantifying the benefit that might be realized in terms of Crown revenue perhaps, but in other benefits in terms of our economy, in terms of who the players are, what they intend to do and in terms of jobs in British Columbia.

So we're not going to give anything away. The member said that earlier, and that's our position. We're not here to sort of dispose of government assets in a fire sale. We're here to try to get the maximum benefit out of the systems we've developed internally, and I think our approach is the correct one to realize that.

L. Reid: I don't believe that the question I posed to the minister is that difficult. The minister is suggesting that he indeed cannot value this specific asset and would find it preferable to value the ongoing relationship. I accept that, because once the asset is sold, the service will still be required and will probably be purchased back by government. The line item now in the budget for B.C. Systems will indeed be shared across all ministries, because each of those ministries individually will be purchasing that service.

The minister and I don't disagree. We don't differ on the acknowledgement that it's a valuation of an ongoing relationship of what the ministry, the government and the province own today in the entity, but of what the future ramifications are with the necessity to purchase that service back. From my understanding of where this ministry is headed, our requirements haven't changed, so the same information, utilization or data management, if you will, are required -- with certainly more sophisticated and more refined data management as we proceed. And certainly in our discussion of the year 2000, when the millennium changes, those computer systems are going to be more highly valued in that they're going to be revamped to respond.

I appreciate the minister's comment as far as it goes, but I think that yes, this is an asset that is currently owned by the taxpayer. It is a provincial asset. If the ministry chooses to divest itself of that asset through any elaborate process it chooses -- the RFI, the RFP or whatever process it chooses -- I believe it is still possible to say that this entity today is valued at X.

We will still require those services provided to X number of ministries, valued at X. Then, as in my earlier comments on accountability and valuation, it will be for us to determine if this is a zero-sum gain or a useful decision for government. This is an expensive RFI-RFP process. Is it useful? If we're going to divest ourselves of it and purchase the service back, are we purchasing it back at a reasonable cost? We can't anticipate that, but are we leaving the door open to have to purchase it back at twice the current operating costs of B.C. Systems? I think the questions are valid, and I'm asking the minister to expand the economic discussion, if he will.

Hon. D. Miller: Good points, hon. member. In fact, given the approach we're taking, it may be that we will. . . . We have not made a decision to dispose. We're testing to see whether there's a benefit in doing that, so it really awaits the outcome of the process before we're in a position to evaluate and quantify in answer to those questions. We do pay now. I mean, all government ministries pay for services. It used to be B.C. Systems. It was brought in-house, but there is a cost to government, internal right now, for those services. It's not as though they're free or that there's no cost to them. We want to go through this very careful, searching out to see if there is indeed a benefit for efficiency in the operation of government and a benefit for the citizens of the province. We'll be in a better position once we've gone through the process.

L. Reid: My understanding is that there's currently $35 million before the Science Council from Forest Renewal B.C. Their responsibility, if you will, is to invest those dollars, to distribute those dollars across the province based on the quality of a number of proposals they've received to access that money. A concern of the Science Council is that this government recognizes regional needs and doesn't allow all the dollars to be invested in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. That's one issue the minister and I have touched on previously in this debate.

The second part of the question is in terms of the $35 million distribution. Can the minister give me some guidance as to whether his ministry -- in that these are now science dollars that have come from a particular source, a particular agency within government -- is involved in selection and designation of those dollars beyond the capacity of the Science Council?

Hon. D. Miller: Well, the relationship is between the Science Council and FRBC, and of course, the Science Council does the adjudication of those applications. But I have had discussions with Dr. Chow about that, and I think he and the Science Council understand the importance of equity in terms of distribution of research dollars. That is linked to capacity, clearly, so there has to be capacity wherever the applications come from. But it is important that there be a regional focus to that.

So I'm confident. We don't have the final say, but I know that Dr. Chow and the Science Council understand how I feel about those things. I'm sure they will allocate those dollars. I did refer earlier to Forest Renewal as one of the mechanisms we now have available to assist in research and development, and I think that flowing that money through the Science Council has been a very significant move.

If you add up the research and development undertaken on the forestry side in British Columbia, it's pretty healthy. I don't have a final balance number on that question, but I think we're actually in pretty good shape. For forestry jurisdiction in terms of percentage and money into the R and D side, we're probably in a heck of a lot better position than we were. I recall that as a Forests critic back in the late eighties, there wasn't a lot of money going in there. It has improved dramatically since that time, and it has the potential to produce a heck of a lot better results in terms of new employment opportunities, the application of technology and all those things we were talking about.

L. Reid: I want to spend a few moments on university infrastructure. I know that the minister is aware that the federal government announced in the last budget the formation of the Canada Foundation for Innovation, as an attempt to address the serious issue of the eroding infrastructure of our Canadian academic institutions. The fund is an $800 million investment over the next five years. Requests for funding must contain a match on a 60-40 basis. The net effect of this 

[ Page 4247 ]

would be an infusion of $2 billion over the next five years into our universities and teaching hospitals. Has this ministry come out in support, and are there plans in place to enter into those matching agreements?

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, we do. In fact, I recall that when the program was announced, I happened to be in conversation with Dr. Stubbs from Simon Fraser. He was quite pleased with the announcement. We've got to make sure that it's followed through. That was a short while ago, and we'd like to be assured that there are real dollars here. We do support that; we're very supportive.

As to the specific budgetary questions that might flow for the institutions themselves, that matter would really rest with my colleague the minister responsible for post-secondary education, because the capital envelope is administered through that ministry.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's response. However, I would note that the province of Ontario has just announced in its budget a fund of half a billion dollars, a significant amount, which will match the proposals to the CFI fund for Ontario universities. Alberta is likely going to match, to the tune of $15 million or $30 million. Apparently the response in B.C. has not been positive to date.

I appreciate that the minister has indicated that he wants to see the dollars first off. But I'm seeing this as an opportunity to provide some leadership. The dollars don't need to change hands, but certainly I think the response needs to be somewhat more positive if someone is indeed offering that level of support. It seems to me that the minister could stand up and be counted on that question, because the message for the dollars that need to be raised in the private sector will be that the government is not on side.

I appreciate that today is the swearing-in day of cabinet, etc., etc. But this will unfold somewhere in the next six to eight weeks, because these institutions are looking for some sign of some compliance on the part of this government prior to the fall semester. These are long-term projects -- no question. It's a recognition that universities across the country are for the most part older institutions, older buildings, and that there need to be some dramatic infrastructure dollars.

I appreciate the minister's comment, but if this is about employment and investment. . . . We agreed earlier on that there is a partnership that needs to be maintained. Perhaps it is a joint partnership between your ministry and the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training or advanced education. No matter what the title, the entity comes together to say that this is important.

If a lot of your strategy that you outlined in the business plan, which I don't have, is valid, a big part of it hinges on whether or not appropriate training opportunities are place. If you're going to take advantage to benefit as a minister and as a ministry from those opportunities, it seems to me that you would want to ensure that the institutions are providing for and meeting the needs of students in the 1990s and as we head into the next millennium. That was the reason the fund was established.

I'm not put out in any way if a number of different ministries or ministers take responsibility to ensure that that gift is recognized -- because frankly, it is a gift. If it's not your ministry, I would still like to see the ministry take some responsibility for the designation of those dollars and for the recognition that this is a reasonable investment in British Columbia. Hopefully, we could encourage the private sector to match those dollars.

Hon. D. Miller: Certainly I have no hesitation in supporting the concept. We worked very well with the federal government, the private sector and industry when we developed the centre of excellence in forest products at UBC, with contributions from the federal government, Forest Renewal B.C., the Ministry of Skills, Training and Labour of that time and the private sector. It really was a partnership.

Not to steal my colleague's thunder at all, if I could just put in a little plug for British Columbia, I'd like to do that. While there may indeed be problems across Canada with the infrastructure at our post-secondary institutions, I don't think that's the case here in the province. We have had a fairly ambitious capital program. I think UBC, through our matching program -- matching capital dollars to the private sector contributions that they raised -- had, if I'm not mistaken, the biggest building boom ever in the history of that campus, over the last five or six years.

Similarly, this province was the only province to open a brand-new university, the University of Northern British Columbia -- a $140-150 million capital expenditure. It was the first new university in Canada in 35 years -- here in British Columbia. As a result of the federal closure of the DND facilities, we've developed Royal Roads and turned that into a university.

So our record on the capital side is, I think, unparalleled. There's no province that can match it. I guess my point is this: while other provinces were cutting back on both capital and program dollars for post-secondary, we were increasing them, and it's delightful that the federal government now is going to enter the picture with some money that's available, both on the hard, capital side and on the programming side. I suspect that given our envious record on the capital side, we might be looking to the program side for utilization of those contributory funds.

Again, I've overstepped my bounds, hon. Chair. It does rest with my colleague, who will no doubt address the question if it comes in his estimates debate.

[5:15]

In terms of a commitment to ongoing research excellence in the province, it's my understanding that the networks of centres of excellence have had a 37 percent reduction in infrastructure funding. I would ask the minister to respond to that, because it seems to me that they're a good thing. We talked earlier about science solutions for problems that exist today. The centres of excellence infrastructure in this province has provided a lot of those solutions. They've done some very good things. It appears to be a significant cut, if it is indeed 37 percent. I would ask the minister to comment.

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, there was indeed a budget reduction from about $2.4 million down to $1.5 million. Again, I did talk about the budget reduction overall in the science and technology fund -- from about $26 million down to $19 million. That was significant. Determining where those dollars should be applied, we engaged the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology to seek their advice, rather than make it. . . . We presented some plans for that. . . . You know, when you don't have as much money as you had, you've got to put it in areas where you think you're going to get results.

The Premier's advisory council agreed with that specific reduction. Nobody greeted it enthusiastically, I might add. 

[ Page 4248 ]

Nobody was cheering that there was a budget reduction, but they did make and participate in some of the tough decisions that we had to make. Let's hope that even though there are reduced funds, the work can continue. Perhaps in future years, as the economy recovers and the fiscal situation in the province improves, we can see a return. But that's a question for the future. In the meantime they, along with all kinds of other groups who are funded under the science and technology fund, are living this year with less money than they had last year.

L. Reid: The minister has indeed confirmed the reduction. What alarms me is that I think this particular reduction is extremely shortsighted. If the minister was candid earlier when he appeared to agree that research was the answer to a number of these problems, this is a tremendously shortsighted initiative, in that these centres of excellence will provide the research-based applications and solutions for a number of these problems that are currently costing a variety of ministries a huge sum of money.

This is an opportunity for a reduction in health care costs and in data management costs, as examples, because these centres of excellence are coming up with more efficient solutions, if you will. So I appreciate that the decision has been taken, but it would seem to me that some accountability needs to be in place to see what has been lost as a result of this decision and to have some effective evaluative reporting on what has been given away as a result of this decision.

Either there is a demonstrated commitment to research and development in the province or there isn't. These kinds of decisions, which fritter away at the edges, damage the ability of these centres of excellence to attract top-flight people, and they damage their ability to secure private sector funding. A lot of business opportunities take their lead from government. They say: "Well, the government is not investing to the extent they have in the past. What's wrong?"

Why has the decision been taken not to proceed in what was touted as a very successful, leading-edge infrastructure? That hasn't changed, and the minister is right: the work will continue. Those people are absolutely committed to the exercise. But perhaps it would be more productive if the minister said: "Yes, these reductions are something that we're going to experience across the board, but I will ensure that there are private sector partnerships to offset those reductions." Get out and sell this program, so they don't experience a level of funding. . . . I'm not saying that all the dollars have to come from government, but commitment has to be shown by government. They have to be the leader on this question.

If there's any encouragement I might offer this minister it's to ensure that these programs, particularly the research-based programs, are not damaged in credibility, opportunity or application. They will make the difference in whether or not this province functions effectively, and whether or not there might be some reasonable return for the taxpayer, based on us finding decent solutions to problems, particularly in the area of health care.

I ask the minister to comment.

Hon. D. Miller: First of all, in terms of an interprovincial comparison, B.C. has actually done a better job than any other province in terms of consistency of funding to the centres of excellence -- I think around $30 million since 1990. That's an important factor. Going back to PACST -- the Premier's advisory council -- in determining, with a budget reduction, how we apply the funds we have. . . . They shared the view, given that there had been a good consistency of funding, that they were in a better position to take a reduction this fiscal year than others, perhaps. I think that's important, because you have to make tough choices.

Secondly, you did suggest earlier, I believe -- in terms of the kind of breakdown of available funding -- about a one-third, two-thirds relationship between research and development. If you look at how we've apportioned our budget, you'll find that we have followed your advice. So I think we're consistent with the position you outlined earlier. This was supported by PACST in terms of our impressive record in consistency of funding since 1990, relative to other provinces.

While no one likes to cut anybody's budget. . . . To use a corny old analogy, you can't make an omelette without breaking an egg. You can't realistically argue, on the one hand, that government can cut funding or cut their budget in a significant way, but when it's actually applied -- when you actually do it -- suggest. . . . I'm not trying to be provocative at all. In fact, I was delighted yesterday in my estimates debate around energy, mines and petroleum resources to have the critic say: "Your budget shouldn't have been cut as much as it was." And perhaps the member might want to take a similarly supportive position. No one likes to take these cuts.

An Hon. Member: Don't seek outside help.

Hon. D. Miller: "Don't seek outside help," my colleague is telling me.

But no, I'm not trying to make a big point about it, but I think the critics in particular fields take their work seriously, and they do a lot of work. Clearly, in understanding the sector, they end up being quite supportive. That's my sense. I know that when I was the Forests critic years ago, I used to argue for more money into this and that and the other in the sense of being an advocate for that particular sector.

But we had to make some cuts, and we did it in a way that I think is consistent with the Premier's advisory council and, indeed, with the kind of direction that my hon. critic offered earlier in these debates.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that analogy. I would only caution the minister that it would certainly not be appropriate to be killing the geese that lay these golden eggs, either. Because it's not strategic. At the end of the day, this has not been a strategic decision. This is not about being at point A today and establishing what point B might be. Indeed, in the absence of a business plan, I'm only guessing what the intended outcomes might be. It seems to me that this is one of the building blocks that the minister -- perhaps in a year's time, during his estimates debate -- could report out on in terms of what I believe will be significant lost opportunities. I don't think this was a strategic decision.

One element that I will compliment this minister and this ministry on is the maintenance of the university-industry liaison offices. Indeed, when individuals come to the table with an idea that they wish to take into the marketplace, that office in each of those institutions provides an incredibly valuable service. It's important to assist new innovators, new entrepreneurs with issues such as patent protection, financing, managerial support and the creation of a business plan. I welcome the maintenance of those programs, because I do know of many brand-new companies that have benefitted enormously from the opportunities that have been provided 

[ Page 4249 ]

to them. So if there is a good, strategic decision in this discussion about reductions, not reducing the funding to the industry liaison offices at the universities was a very good decision, and I would certainly commend the minister on that.

The concern I always raise around strategic discussions in science and technology is whether or not the overall picture is to position British Columbia on the global map. We do some good things, but I do believe that we're still missing some significant opportunities to date.

The example I will use is the Heritage Fund in the province of Alberta. They have not spent the principal, but they continue to use the interest from that account to look at research applications, to put the University of Alberta on the map in terms of hosting some very fine agencies that are in partnership with the private sector, and to look at attracting some of the finest scholars in the world, because they absolutely have the ability, the funding base, to do that.

It would seem to me that there is perhaps an opportunity for this minister to forge a partnership with the minister responsible for advanced education in the province -- colleges, universities, university colleges -- to come up with some kind of long-term plan. Again, this isn't an issue of turning advanced education opportunities on their ears every four years should government change; it's an opportunity to have some long-term investment strategies in place.

I don't know what the long-term strategy is to provide those opportunities. I would hope it continues to be something a bit more substantial than an off-the-cuff announcement of a tuition freeze every election year. To me, it's got to be bigger than that. It's got to be more broadly based in that it should say that we're prepared to invest X number of dollars and that this minister would choose to go into partnership with the private sector or not. But we should establish something similar to the entity that's available today to Alberta ministers of education and to Alberta ministers of employment and investment, who know that they have a pool of dollars that will be there forever -- with some prudent management. It seems to me that we're missing that one element.

Any of us, when we go to our own financial planners. . . . They're looking for the short-term management of your finances, the long-term management of the resource and what the long-term goal is. That seems to be missing in British Columbia, from an education perspective. From a science perspective, it's certainly missing. In my view, the long-term picture has not been adequately developed in this province. I wonder if the minister has broached the issue in discussion with his colleagues about whether or not it would be possible to put in place a fund that makes good sense for future educational opportunities -- whether that be training in Avcorp Industries or long-term, secure funding for universities -- with some sense that skills, training and labour are a package, and that Employment and Investment have a leadership role to play.

[5:30]

I also think it's important. . . . And I understand, looking at discrete decisions made in other jurisdictions or other programs, and saying: "Well, why not do it here. . . ?" But in terms of managing, you have to look at the total picture.

Go to Alberta, for example. I don't think the member would suggest for a moment that we emulate Alberta in the cuts that they have delivered to post-secondary education. In fact, I know the member would stand up and say that it would be wrong to do that here. If we were to suggest that we would follow Alberta's lead in that regard, that member would be our fiercest critic, and rightly so. If we were to follow Alberta's lead on the economic side, by writing off $2.35 billion or $2.5 billion in grants made to the private sector, that member would no doubt be on her feet as our fiercest critic. And I think she would be right.

So it's the package -- what you have done in total -- that has an influence on a particular subject or field that really is important. The member did discuss the reduction to the Networks of Centres of Excellence. By the same token, when I look down the budget line item -- which was put together with consultation with the community -- we have increased funding in some areas. The fisheries development and diversification program had a modest increase. We've maintained funding for the technology assistance program because, as the member said, it's the development. The Technology B.C. program went from almost $4.5 million to $6 million. The university-industry liaison offices were untouched; funding was maintained. University college technology transfer offices saw an increase in excess of $100,000. For the regional science, technology and innovation councils which the member spoke about, the regional aspect went from $520,000 to $600,000. The assistive technology for persons with disabilities went from $98,000 to $250,000. The B.C. Biotechnology Alliance -- a field of recognized expertise in the province -- went from $225,000 to $400,000.

So we have really been focused in our decision-making. Given fewer resources, how do we deploy them, in consultation with the sector, in a way that produces the maximum benefit? I just give a bit of a caution. One must look at the total picture. There are lots of things that might be attractive in Alberta. Certainly I'd prefer not to have a sales tax, as an individual consumer. But on the other side, I'm not sure I would have liked my health care system cut by the magnitude it was, or the education system cut by the magnitude it was, or the government giving away $2 billion or $3 billion to people who, over the long haul, shouldn't get that kind of largesse from government.

L. Reid: One of the issues we perhaps haven't touched on is the formula. It seems that it's different in every province for the number of spinoff benefits, if you will, from each research dollar invested, and what portion of a dollar or perhaps a larger sum of money is returned.

I would be intrigued to know what formula this particular province uses to establish that, because no matter what the opening I attend, there's a different variation on the theme. Certainly lots of discussion is centred around every research dollar providing a spinoff benefit of approximately 65 cents. Those dollars are particularly known to be spent on job creation. The investment of a dollar in research in a community will have a spinoff effect of at least 65 cents, at the very minimum. That seems to change, depending on the function that I attend. I wonder if indeed the minister could provide me with the detail of how that formula has been arrived at, or some contemplation as to why that would change from event to event.

[ Page 4250 ]

Hon. D. Miller: I was just searching for a document. I did read earlier into the record some information that apparently I've mislaid; in fact, it's in Hansard. I was talking at that time and quoting some statistics relative to the investment and what was produced in terms of the value to the economy and jobs, and they were very, very good. In other words, what they told me in terms of the cost per job was that investments in this sector have very good returns, both in terms of the expansion of the economy or the sector, and in terms of the number of jobs that are created.

Technology B.C., $4.4 million -- this was in the last fiscal year. Investments resulted in one job for $50,000 and returned $2.64 to the economy for every dollar spent. In the technology assistance program, $1.35 million assisted small and medium-sized businesses with 108 projects, generated $15 million in economic benefits and created 360 jobs. In fact, this is the item I quoted earlier.

You can see that's just a snapshot of two programs, but it's very clear to me that the investment. . . . What is more intriguing to me, and something that is harder, to some degree, is the return on investment in education. I think this is a fundamentally important question, and I don't think we've done enough work, across Canada or anywhere, to try to quantify the benefit. We spend billions of dollars a year educating people in our province -- primarily young people, but not exclusively. We spend significant amounts of money building new schools, college campuses and university campus buildings. It's a really staggering sum. But what's the return that we get from that investment? That is a serious question. Instinctively, I think the member and I agree wholeheartedly that investments in education have a phenomenal return, not only in terms of the economy but clearly in terms of the social issues that are also important in any society.

It's very, very clear to me that these kinds of investment are very modest. If you want to look at the total package of $19 million -- almost $20 million -- invested in science and technology in focused ways, and then look at the kinds of results in our economy, it's clear that these are some of the very best investments we could ever make.

L. Reid: The question I posed to the minister was to cite the source for that investment return formula. Whose formula is it? From whence did it come, and is it now the formula that this minister and ministry has adopted in its discussions of investment return to communities?

Hon. D. Miller: We have employed a variety of devices in terms of trying to quantify those returns. We don't have any of that material here, but I'd be happy to instruct my staff to forward any of our reports or information that deal with that particular topic and the kind of rationale developed.

It does depend on the sector. Some are easier to quantify than others. I just talked about the large one that is more difficult to quantify. There's not a consistent formula. It really depends on where you're putting your money: in the industry, the sector, the subsector, the technology. We'll send along anything that we have on that score.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that; I would be interested in receiving that information. I'm not suggesting there should be a standard formula, but I believe there's probably a range in terms of return to community -- that sector X provides X dollars, all the way up to what the highest return might be. I'd be very interested in that level of information. I'm not convinced there's a different formula for every sector; I would assume there's maybe a handful that capture all the different sectors. Again, I will be pleased to await that information.

One of the other discussions that I'm constantly engaged in, as I attend these science and technology functions around the province, is the relationship between. . .the government's commitment to science and technology and science policy. How much of this is driven by a policy directive? The minister alluded earlier to the fact that the industry just grows, and we don't want to impede that progress in any way. I appreciate that. But my specific question is: how does the minister view the connection between science policy and the growth of the science and technology sector?

Hon. D. Miller: I think there's no question that there's a direct correlation, a direct linkage. The most obvious examples probably come from the academic research that's conducted and then transferred to the private sector. MacDonald Dettwiler came from UBC; Ballard, I believe, originated at an academic institution. Many of our commercial firms in the field had their origins as a result of the kind of research -- often supported by the state, either federal or provincial, some through the private sector -- that is done at the postgraduate level. There are lots of examples I could use to quantify that.

L. Reid: To continue this discussion, does the minister engage in discussions where something like a government-funded agency such as the Science Council. . . ? Would they be asked to be directly involved in the continuing development of high-tech industry? They have certain commitments to elementary-age children, to secondary-age children, to university programs. Other than their ability to disburse dollars, do they have an expectation that they are also responsible for fostering knowledge-based industry, the high-tech sector, in the province?

Hon. D. Miller: Very much so. Again, I refer to many conversations I've had with Dr. Chow and Jim Reichert. As an agency of government -- the Science Council is an agency of the government -- they very much see their role as advancing both the broader interest in science and technology and the growth of the sector. As I informed the member earlier, I have discussed with Dr. Chow the possibility of the Science Council playing a role.

I go back to the issue that I have been somewhat preoccupied with since my time in government -- that is, opportunities for young people. We need to do more. I know the member said she was sure that if I called a press conference, the press would come. I can assure her that that is not necessarily the case. If I'm in trouble on something, they will come. But if it's good news, you can't always count on a herd of reporters showing up. In fact, quite often you can count on them not showing up, because there's no element of controversy. I think that's the challenge on the good-news side.

I'm not talking particularly about good news for the government -- another sort of government self-aggrandizement, patting ourselves on the back. I'm talking about news that's important for our citizens. In that respect, my question to the Science Council is: "Do you think you can assist us in a communications plan that gets the message out?"

I mean, why shouldn't the students in Vanderhoof -- where they have an outstanding program, by the way, at the senior secondary level. . . ? I've done a lot of work in the past with Vanderhoof. The development of the forest sciences project, the apprenticeship programs in the high school 

[ Page 4251 ]

-- there's a lot of innovation, believe me. I continue to pick up the odd article about the kind of innovation that's coming out of that school district. Actually, as a northerner, I'm quite pleased that small rural communities up there are doing some outstanding work. What was it -- the electronic classroom, the electronic bus? They were very, very innovative. They got way ahead of the Ministry of Education, I can tell you.

[5:45]

I know, or I would hope, that with her strong interest, the member would be supportive of that kind of notion, because if there are young people in this province who aren't aware of these opportunities and possibilities -- both in terms of their own career development and those kinds of questions -- then I don't think we're doing a good job, and we need to do more on that score.

I really appreciate the member's response to that, but I think we should do a much more aggressive job of communicating the successes and the opportunities that exist in this province.

L. Reid: I'd be delighted to assist the minister with a communications plan to get the good news out, because I think there are some very fine things happening in the province.

I next want to reference an article in the March 29, 1997, issue of the Economist. It's called: "Silicon, Silicon Everywhere." It's a reference to Bill Gates. He talks about the 22 other countries in the world who are developing a programmer population. He sees that as the catalyst, the driver, for clusters of large companies that can spawn some smaller companies. We tend to think of Silicon Valley; we tend to think of California, a little bit of Oregon State, a decent centre in Washington State. What this article references is all the other parts of the world that have significant populations of that level of expertise, that level of intensity, around that technology.

Canada is not on the list, but Britain is there. Bangalore, in the south Indian state of Karnataka, already takes software development work worth $280 million from Silicon Valley. Israel, which has an unusually high proportion of scientists, is home to some 2,000 high-tech firms, including leading niche players such as CheckPoint, which supplies firewall software to protect networks. Manhattan -- certainly we agree with that. But Hsinchu science park, an hour's drive north of Taipei, was set up in 1980 by the Taiwanese government with the explicit aim of luring Taiwanese technologists back from Silicon Valley.

These 22 countries in all have recognized, first of all, that there's a significant issue in having all that expertise centred in one part of the globe. Certainly it's centred in the United States. And they have gone out of their way -- made significant, concerted efforts -- to ensure that they can be players. Their initial work has definitely come from Silicon Valley companies. They have contracted to do that work and are apparently doing it very, very successfully. The Economist certainly makes that claim.

What we've tended to do is suggest that we can't participate, that we can't compete with what happens in the United States. I suggest to this minister that there are countries of this world far surpassing what we are doing here in Canada and what we are doing in British Columbia. Yet it's not something that's, first off, well communicated. There are some very fine lessons in this article, and I certainly encourage the minister to take a look at it, because it talks about the companies that we currently have resident in British Columbia.

We have Hewlett-Packard. We have some of those other large companies. Certainly Canada or British Columbia is not their only home; they have subsidiaries, if you will, in probably 20 or 30 or 40 countries in the world. But they have chosen these particular countries which would not typically be considered high-tech, knowledge-based countries. They know that their future, too, rests on whether or not they can compete adequately in this marketplace.

I encourage all members of this Legislature to pick up this article and read it, because there are some very fine things about leadership in this article. If Bill Gates can do it two and a half hours from Vancouver. . . . In terms of establishing a program or population that makes good sense but also has an incredible economic return, in the billions of dollars. . . . Britain, Bangalore, Israel, Hsinchu science park in Taipei can do work worth billions of dollars to their populations. It seems to me that British Columbia could easily participate. Perhaps what's missing today is some leadership on that question. I ask the minister to comment.

Hon. D. Miller: We actually hope to be able to release some statistical information, possibly as early as tomorrow, on the sector here. I'll see if I can't get a copy to the member in advance of that release.

But I just want to go back again to this article that appeared in today's Sun and look at the industry in B.C.: strengths, weaknesses, potential for growth, the base for growth. Again quoting Mr. Rasmussen:

"When companies are headquartered here, this is where they have their growth; this is where they take their profits; this is where the decisions are made; this is where the careers are. And you can have world-class executives living in B.C., as opposed to being headquartered in New York or San Francisco or Toronto."

Back to what we have here: a mix of companies that really, in many respects, are leading the world in their particular fields -- world-class in every respect. But we don't have the huge. . . . We're not Silicon Valley. We have the potential, I think, to become a sort of Silicon Valley. It's nurturing the growth of these companies -- which we've done, I think, arguably quite a good job of -- by assisting them in terms of the export potential and growth potential that over the long haul is the critical key to our success. But to maintain these kinds of homegrown companies. . . . There are companies here whose names are renowned; they're known throughout the world in circles where these kinds of issues are discussed. People do come to B.C. for this kind of expertise. So that's the key, in my view.

[ Page 4252 ]

I'm not certain of the timing of this, but I'll see if I can't get an advance copy to the member just prior to the release. It will give a profile of the industry, some of those statistics in terms of growth. I think that overall it's a pretty good picture, and I hope the member would share in that.

L. Reid: I would be delighted to be present for the announcement. If it's tomorrow, that would be a wondrous thing.

I do believe this province has the potential to be Silicon Valley North -- no question about that. There's a need today that has not been met. I will cite for the record the March 1997 B.C. Software Productivity Centre estimates report:

"In 1996 there were at least 880 unfilled software positions in B.C., and there may well have been as many as 1,500 unfilled positions. Producing software workers with the required technical skills is one clear need. Another is producing people with the project, management, technical, marketing and entrepreneurial savvy to lead successful software-intensive enterprises."

Reading the list of countries where significant programmer populations exist, there's no reason British Columbia can't be on that list in a year's time. Certainly we have the expertise; the minister has concurred. That's a definite possibility. I would like to see a goal when I see this business plan. List the creation of a significant programmer population as a goal of this ministry. Indeed, it is the handling of information that drives most of what happens in the science and technology sector. Data management, information management, is the vehicle for a lot of the solution that we will require as we lead into the next millennium.

I thank the minister most sincerely for his comments and his insights this evening. I truly believe that this ministry has some wonderful opportunities to do some very fine things in this province, and I trust that the minister will continue to champion science at every opportunity.

Hon. D. Miller: I just briefly thank the member for what I think are very constructive comments and for her abiding interest in this sector. I will ensure that with respect to the one-day forum that we are planning, she receives an invitation and can be a participant in that discussion; it's a very important one. It's not going to solve all our problems, but hopefully, it can give us some solutions to keep moving forward. With that, 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: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed until 6:35 and thereafter sit until adjournment.

Motion approved.

The House recessed at 5:57 p.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

The committee met at 2:35 p.m.

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

P. Reitsma: We talked yesterday about the summer employment tourist information centres, and at that time I think I was advised that although the funding had been cut by 25 percent, the number of students that were employed, particularly young people, had not changed. However, I was up north on tour a couple of months ago, and we talked to a number of the organizations, in terms of how the tourist information centres related to summer employment. They were extremely concerned about it.

First of all, there's a letter -- before I go up north -- that the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce sent to all the MLAs on February 20 regarding the provincial funding for travel counsellors -- 1997 employment, of course. The letter is signed by the chairman of the chamber's tourism committee, John Charlesworth, as well as the 1997 president, Dorothy Dyck. They indicated in the letter that they were very concerned about the provincial government program for summer employment training for the travel information counsellors. They indicated that counsellors have played an absolutely vital role in the development and growth of the B.C. tourism industry.

I wanted to quote some excerpts from that, because to them -- and, of course, to us -- it is extremely important. Growth of visitor and tourism inquiries in the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce has been absolutely phenomenal. In 1984 they served about 8,500 inquiries, and in 1997 over 70,000 inquiries were responded to. In their minds, there's no doubt that the visitor information centres throughout B.C. have experienced the same growth. They also state that it's impossible for that chamber of commerce -- and I have one or two other ones -- to service tourists without the provincial government funding the summer employment of the travel information counsellors. "This should not be allowed."

The letter was sent to the Premier and to the Minister of Tourism. Could the minister advise if she's received the letter and if that letter has been responded to?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm pleased to inform the member that all of the '97 visitor infocentres that received funding last year will also have the opportunity to have funding this year. The decision ultimately was to focus the program on youth entirely and to ensure that the 300-plus jobs were protected, as well as to provide flexibility in the change. There was a reduction of 25 percent of the funding to each of those infocentres -- making it a 75 percent funded, not 100 percent funded, summer employment program. The intention was to ensure that the number of people employed remained the same, that it was targeted to youth and that all of the infocentres had an opportunity to apply and to receive those funds again for that very important service.

[ Page 4253 ]

The Chair: The Chair would like to caution members in regard to repetition of debate. While some of the names may change, the content is the same, so I would ask members to take that caution.

P. Reitsma: The reason I mentioned some of the areas is simply that it's not one particular location but is a concern to all of the areas in B.C. This particular one, Vernon Tourism, is shutting down its south tourist information booth because, as they say, the province gutted the funding program. The particular representative said that because of the funding reduction, Vernon tourism has been forced to shut down its tourism information booth in the south end of the city next to the army camp. It's an extremely popular area, particularly because of the location, with people entering the city from Highway 97 south.

I wonder if the minister has received communication from them. Is the minister aware of the results of the cutting, as to whether that particular booth is open or if it has now been closed?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am not immediately familiar with what actually happened in the instance the member raises, but I will again reassure the House that 25 percent of funding has been cut, but it has been reallocated in such a way that those who received funding last year have the opportunity to do so this year. But I would advise the member that the infocentres themselves are community-driven, and the community has the opportunity to decide which ones remain open and which ones remain closed.

P. Reitsma: The reason I mentioned those is because I have been asked to bring the concerns of the various communities to this House during estimates, which I think is part of our mandate and part of our job, as well. This particular one in Dawson Creek. . . . When we visited them they were extremely upset, mainly because there was no consultation and no communication. They were told that the funding was to be cut. The Tourism cutbacks for the one in Dawson Creek were summer employment, of course, for the young people. Three of them are out of a job. Again, the lack of communication and consultation was something that they were very upset about. On that vein, I just wonder if the minister could advise us of what type of consultation and what type of communication has taken place and with whom and in what fashion.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm advised that the comment that the member made -- that there was no consultation -- is incorrect. The network council in fact appointed four members to an advisory committee to work with Tourism British Columbia to make decisions about the visitor info network.

P. Reitsma: The same happened in Burns Lake. Again, hon. Chair, the reason I bring it up, and the reason I've been asked to bring it up. . . . There might be some déj� vu and maybe a smidgen of repetitiveness, but it's very important to the folks up north. In that particular area, they wish to be advised; they wish to be communicated with. This particular one in Burns Lake had a cut from Tourism B.C., and they specifically mentioned to me that there was no consultation whatsoever -- and I underline that. As a matter of fact, they were advised by memo.

It's the same in Prince George -- the cuts to the Tourism budget. I talked to the folks up in Prince George. They had a booth at Highway 16. They find themselves sliding back in terms of being able to assist the travelling public. They made a statement that only one extra day of staying would be a tremendous boost -- as the minister no doubt agrees with -- and would create an additional lot of activity and repeat business. And I simply want to reiterate the concerns expressed by the folks up there. It's the same with the one in Burns Lake. They find them to be goodwill ambassadors and. . . . Well, there may be some repetitiveness, but it's very important to the people up there -- and, dare I say, in Smithers.

[2:45]

Hon. J. Pullinger: With respect to the first issue around the visitor information network, I want to correct the record. The member, I believe, has left the impression. . . . I think that perhaps the member's information is from some time ago, because the members of the network council, I understand, are very pleased with the way that Tourism B.C. -- this ministry -- handled the reductions in funding. The funding is in place and the centres are now up and running. So I want to be clear about that.

Secondly, I am not able to answer detailed questions about the Ministry of Education. We canvassed this area quite significantly yesterday. I would simply advise that we do provide input into course development, but this ministry, because of the nature of the ministry, provides input on a variety of issues to a variety of ministries, and certainly Education is one. However, I do not carry responsibility for those programs, and as such I have neither the staff nor the detail to answer questions about other ministries.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. It's just that they are tourism degrees, and I think that as of late we haven't had that for a long time. I think it's quite exciting for our industry.

Just a quick question on the PRIT. The Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism had a report in 1996, I believe, on its approach to labour force development. Was that in conjunction with the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Tourism?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Indeed, PRIT did issue a report on labour force development for the tourism industry some time ago, and in putting together that document PRIT would have consulted broadly. Certainly part of that consultation would have been with Tourism British Columbia and with my ministry.

P. Reitsma: As part of the report -- I don't know if the minister has a copy; no doubt staff will know. . . . I know we canvassed PRIT somewhat yesterday, and some information was sent to me. In fact, that's when we discovered, of course, the. . . . And I hope the minister takes the suggestions from us, in terms of the representation, which I think really ought to be looked at next time.

I wonder what the mandate and the goals of this particular study were. Were they to identify problems and solutions and go into details later?

[ Page 4254 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have that report at my fingertips, but I'd be delighted to get a copy to the member, if he hasn't got one already.

P. Reitsma: Well, that's an appropriate way to not discuss it, I suppose. But I wonder if the minister's staff can indeed shed some light on it, because I understood. . . . In fact, I'm going to ask what the goals of that particular report were. Were they to identify certain goals, certain marketing, a business plan?

Hon. J. Pullinger: What I indicated earlier is that Labour Force Development and the tourism industry -- so that would be opportunities and training, and so on, in the tourism industry. . . . I don't have that report, nor do I have anyone here from PRIT. I'd be happy to answer any of the member's questions, but I simply don't have the resources at this point to do so. That's very, very detailed information, and not specifically about my budget. I'll be very pleased to provide that information, but I am not able to do so here.

P. Reitsma: Well, I guess there's no sense in further canvassing this particular aspect of the minister's ministry. I would have thought, and hoped, that since we were talking about the tourism aspect of the minister's ministry, the appropriate people would be here -- particularly since a lot of credibility and praise has been heaped upon that particular institute. I'm a bit baffled that the appropriate people aren't here, although I'm certain that staff will be able to advise the minister what the mandate was, how it was structured and what program was going to be implemented. But do I take it that the minister wishes to refrain from going into details?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd like to advise the House that this particular report is from another fiscal year, and while I have certainly endeavoured to answer -- from memory -- what happened under another minister in another year, and while I have certainly offered to provide any information to the member in another forum, it's not reasonable, in my view, to attempt to provide the kind of detail the member wants in this forum about another set of budget estimates in another year under another minister.

P. Reitsma: I wasn't going to go into this. I'm not necessarily asking about funding. It's part of the ministry. The minister has quoted from previous reports in previous years. We talked about the SOA of last year.

If the appropriate people aren't here, that's one thing. But the report, I think, was sanctioned, because there were some concerns. They wanted a certain mandate; they wanted goals; they wanted marketing; they wanted programming. If the minister is not able or willing, for whatever reason, to talk about it, I guess the train of questioning has come to a dead-end stop. All I asked was an opportunity for some of the officials to be asked to come in. Is that at all possible?

Hon. J. Pullinger: If it's the will of this House, and if the caucus Liberals would like to have me fly someone over from Vancouver to answer their questions rather than do it outside the House, I can certainly see if the appropriate people are available.

The Chair: I would like to remind members that we are dealing with the estimates for the year '97-98, and that's what's before the committee today.

It's 3 o'clock. We're going to be having a short break while we deal with a matter in the main House.

Interjection.

The Chair: No. We'll just recess until that's completed. Then we'll come back and begin again -- okay?

Thank you. Fifteen minutes, I think, is what it will be.

The committee recessed from 2:57 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

P. Reitsma: Before the break, we determined. . . . In all fairness, if this is the minister's position, I would have hoped. . . . Although it may be last year, I'm not necessarily talking about the funding. I thought that PRIT was a very important tool, a very important organization and would have liked to go into details in terms of goals and a business plan. But obviously, if it cannot be talked about, then I don't particularly want to see people being flown in at that cost. I would have hoped, since this is an ingredient of the Ministry of Tourism, that they could have been there. But I take it that that ends the conversation on PRIT.

Yesterday we. . . . I just want to revisit this for just a moment; I didn't go through Hansard. Did I understand that. . . ? Although Tourism British Columbia had talked about a number of programs, such as Destinations, the tourism workplace training program, Tourism Careers for Youth and the food trades apprenticeship program, did the minister indicate that it's not within her purview and that she does not therefore wish to talk about the philosophy, goals, business plan and mandate for future goals?

Hon. J. Pullinger: For the record, we had an excellent debate last night -- the member, I believe, was here -- an excellent, far-ranging interchange and question-and-answer period around the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism with the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head. We did speak broadly about the goals of that organization and its activities. We talked about the board. We even talked about the history of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism. So I want to simply make the point, for the record, that I have no reluctance whatsoever to talk about the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism.

However, the member has been asking questions about a report done under another minister in another fiscal year. It is to those questions about that specific report and that specific detail that I responded. It would appear to me that we have canvassed that issue of the Pacific Rim Institute of Tourism rather well.

With respect to programs delivered by the Ministry of Education, Skills and Training, again, those are not programs delivered by my ministry. I believe the member can best find the detail he seeks under the estimates of the relevant ministry.

The Chair: The Chair would like to caution members in regard to repetition. The Chair has heard the same questions and the same answers numerous times. I also caution members that rulings by the Chair are not debatable. So on that understanding, I recognize the member for Parksville-Qualicum.

P. Reitsma: There is, I understand, a program inventory of Tourism B.C. I wonder if the minister could outline those programs.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'm delighted to answer that question. The primary or main programs delivered by Tourism British 

[ Page 4255 ]

Columbia are as follows. The Open Skies program, a version of Partners in Tourism, has been superseded. It's in transition, but there is still in place a program to deal with the regions, and that is evolving. There is the accommodations program; the Super, Natural B.C. information reservation service or 1-800 number, which we've canvassed extensively; the visitor information network; and the SuperHost programs. Those are the primary programs delivered by that portion of my ministry.

P. Reitsma: I would like to go into some detail on the record so we could get some indication of the programs. Could the minister please go into some details in terms of what the Open Skies program is about -- what mandate there is, if there is a business plan, if there are any FTEs?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I'd be delighted to do that. The Open Skies program is designed to increase consumer awareness of British Columbia as a travel destination in key Open Skies cities. Another objective is to educate the U.S. travel trade about new Open Skies routes to British Columbia. A third is to achieve partnerships and leverage dollars with the federal government, destination marketing organizations, major airlines and individual industry operators. Those are the objectives of the Open Skies program. It's been very successful.

The program itself involves consumer advertising, a campaign targeted to key Open Skies cities and travel trade presentations in Open Skies cities. The program resources -- I don't know if they're absolutely defined; I don't have a number here -- are to be determined. So we don't have a final figure yet; it's still part of the larger budget. The FTEs allocated to that program are two.

That has been a very successful program. We have seen dramatically increased U.S. visitation, increased awareness of and preference for B.C. tourism products by the travel trade and ultimately the consumer in Open Skies cities. We've also seen increased consumer awareness and package sales from San Francisco. So it has been a remarkable success.

P. Reitsma: That's three which we heard last night under the Royal British Columbia Museum -- good news, and good news all the time. So that is indeed. . . .

I might have missed this: when was the program established first? Is there a certain time limit attached to that as part of a business plan? What general marketing and marketing tools are being used?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The program was initiated under our government last year, February 1996. It does not have a defined end to it; it's an ongoing program. I have actually described the program and how it functions fairly well.

P. Reitsma: How is the success measured? In any particular way?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I have already provided the program performance measures, but I will read them again: increased U.S. visitation; increased awareness of and preference for B.C. Tourism products by the travel trade and, ultimately, by the consumers and Open Skies cities; and increased consumer awareness in package sales from San Francisco.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that, and I apologize if that portion is repetitive. But how would the ministry or the minister know that it has succeeded? Are there certain benchmarks? Are there certain counts that are taking place?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We canvassed in some great detail yesterday how tourism success is measured -- visitors' reports and surveys, etc. So that's all on the record for the member. As part of the visitors' surveys and the careful and exhaustive tallying, to the best of our ability, of who is coming here, we have indeed determined that in the cities where we are using this marketing approach, there is increased visitation from those cities to British Columbia.

P. Reitsma: Please don't take it that I'm trying to put trick questions in there, because I know that there are quite a number of components -- pieces of the pie, if you like, that make up a complete pie.

The second one that the minister referred to is the accommodations program. I wonder if the minister could give an outline of the program: what the mandate is; what the future goals are; if there is a business plan; what marketing tools are being used in terms of the FTEs; and indeed, if the measuring of success is parallel to Open Skies.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Just for the information of the member, I should say that there isn't a business plan done for every program in the ministry. It's part of the overall business plan.

[3:30]

Participation in the accommodations program is at the will of the property owner, the business owner, so it is entirely voluntary. The program consists of regular inspections dealing with things such as cleanliness, comfort, courtesy of accommodation establishments, etc. Based on that inspection, if they meet basic criteria, they can be listed in the "B.C. Accommodations Guide," and therefore as part of that publication they get the benefits of that. Access Canada inspections determine the accessibility level of accommodation: mobility, agility, hearing and vision are the focal points, and the ability to accommodate impairment in those functions. Canada Select inspections determine the star rating, based on range and quality of physical facilities and services offered by an accommodation property. Those stars, of course, appear in that catalogue of properties, the "B.C. Accommodations Guide," which is very useful to visitors and property owners alike and which is published under this program. The accommodations program also provides the input into the signage program in the Ministry of Transportation.

P. Reitsma: I noticed a little bit of a smile when the minister referred to MOTH. Of course, we've canvassed the signage very exhaustively, with results as well, I would like to add, because we were concerned -- as the industry is, of course -- to come to a very satisfactory and mutually acceptable conclusion.

On the accommodations program, how many FTEs are assigned to that particular program? Over the years there has to have been an increase or a decrease.

Hon. J. Pullinger: This year's budget pays for four FTEs for that program. All of the costs are recovered from the service.

[ Page 4256 ]

P. Reitsma: Just one step back to the costs being recovered. Is that the same with the Open Skies program, as well? Are they recovered, or is that simply a good investment in the industry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Open Skies is not a cost-recovery program; it is a partnership, as I mentioned last night, among Air Canada, Whistler, Vancouver, Victoria, etc. So it's leverage money.

P. Reitsma: A good investment, actually.

A bit of sidestepping, but part of the accommodations program. . . . I'm well aware of the "B.C. Accommodations Guide," which is an absolute success. I've dealt with the officials that do the evaluation. A couple of questions. How many "B.C. Accommodations Guide"s are being printed a year?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Approximately a million.

P. Reitsma: I knew that it was rather a substantial number, actually. I must say that certainly the travelling public appears to be relying heavily on the accommodations guide. In my own business, a small motel, many of our reservations are due to the accommodations guide. We've seen people coming into the reception area with the accommodations guide literally in their hands. So it has been an excellent tool, and it provides an opportunity for people to sit down in peace and quiet and scan the various pages and determine the place of rest for that night for themselves. We've gone through the process of evaluation. I would ask the minister if she can provide us with details on what the stringent criteria are -- she alluded to some of the criteria -- and if there is an appeal process if a property on the ministry's guidelines is deemed not to be acceptable.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There is indeed an appeal process. I don't have the details of the things that are inspected. I'd be happy to pass them on to the member if he would like it. But the regular inspections include fairly objective criteria of cleanliness, comfort and courtesy. Those are the basic kinds of things that are checked for in a fairly objective way. If any given establishment does not meet those criteria or feels that it's been unfairly judged, it has an opportunity to appeal. After sufficient time for the operator to rectify any identified problems, the evaluation team will come back to revisit the situation.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer. It's very important for the hotels, the motels and even the campgrounds, actually, to be listed in there, and I appreciate the appeal process. If a property is turned down, I take it that the owner will be advised, whether that is by registered mail or in as speedy a way as possible. That's the first question.

The second question is: upon appeal, who do they appeal to? Are they the same referees, the same arbiters, or is it an independent tribunal, if you like?

Hon. J. Pullinger: No, it's not a tribunal process. Let me just give the member a flavour of the program. Obviously it's in the industry's and the province's interest to have as many qualified accommodations listed as possible, to provide the travelling public with as many options as possible. So there's no reason to keep anyone out, unless they don't meet the criteria.

The industry is very strongly behind the process of evaluation. By providing the inspections and using the Canada Select program that grades or denotes what, in fact, any given accommodation has to offer -- from one star to five stars -- it provides further detail to the travelling public for their convenience. It also safeguards the industry from people coming and having a negative experience, which, as I'm sure the member would agree, is not something that we want to have happen. That produces a dissatisfied customer who will go back home and say what a rotten time they had in B.C.

So the industry is satisfied with the process, and there's no competitive kind of a process here. Really, it's just a matter of an objective. Do you meet these criteria? Do you have these facilities? Is this place clean, etc.? It's not a quasi-judicial process at all. Therefore there would be no need for a tribunal.

The appeal goes back to Tourism British Columbia, and the team of inspectors would go out again. As I say, it's in everybody's interest to have the accommodation have an opportunity to meet the criteria, for that to be all laid out clearly, and to have them included in the accommodations guide. So it's not a competitive process. But that is the process.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate what the minister is saying. But unless I missed it, are they the same inspectors, the same team, that will be revisiting the property? I would dare to assume that they might be different inspectors, to get a second opinion. What kind of time period are we looking at to adjudicate the second opinion?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I appreciate the member's question, and I certainly understand where he's coming from on this. The program is a self-financed program. It's done in cooperation with, and with the support of, the accommodations sector. The level of satisfaction is very, very high. There's the odd individual who complains, one way or the other: either a tourist went and found that the accommodation was not as described in the accommodations guide, or a resort owner or accommodations owner will say that they were unfairly excluded. Those instances are extremely low; they're very, very few and far between.

So to deploy additional resources to have a variety of inspectors, an appeal process or something simply doesn't make sense to the industry. Unless there's a need for it, I would not be predisposed to suggest to Tourism British Columbia that they do so. The program is working very, very well. There is an appeal process, and there is a very, very low complaint rate on either side of the scale. Unless there's a reason to fix it, I don't believe that there will be any change in the way it's handled right now.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. How many inspectors are there? Do I take it that there are about four?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are four people involved in the program, but only two of them are inspectors.

P. Reitsma: So I would assume that one inspector will visit a particular property. And I would almost dare to assume that if there is an appeal. . . . I appreciate what the minister is saying, because I think it is very low, but there ought to be an opportunity to dispute, I suppose. I would assume that the other inspector would be assigned to have a look at the property again, then probably within a short time render his decision. I would also assume that if a property has been turned down -- for legitimate reasons; I'm not disputing that -- and if it's well ahead of the season in terms of the publication 

[ Page 4257 ]

of the "B.C. Accommodations Guide," that some time, and some opportunity, would be given to them to remedy the situation.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Yes, precisely. That's the mind-set that is used in this process. I want to be very clear: I said a team went in, that there's a team. But only one of them goes in. I was in error there, and I've just been corrected. They operate independently, not together.

As I said, the system is working very well. The inspectors in the program make every effort to provide information to an accommodation which may not be up to standard, to tell them why they don't meet the standards. Then a second inspection could happen after giving the owner enough time to meet those standards. Every effort is made to accommodate the business owner, but they are very careful to not allow substandard accommodation into their program.

[3:45]

P. Reitsma: Let me assure the minister that I'm totally on board when it comes to making sure that the accommodation standards are as they should be, because ultimately the industry is going to lose people that have substandard accommodation to offer. It should be required, particularly if they want to be in the accommodations guide, to have minimum standards. I fully applaud it. I have absolutely no difficulties with that, because it simply raises the standards of our industry, and those are some of the many, many reasons that people come back again. It's extremely important -- repeat business is important.

Although a great majority of the visitors come from within B.C. -- they are staying at home for vacation and this type of thing -- we do get a lot of guests not only from other provinces and North America but also worldwide. They are ambassadors, and I have absolutely no difficulty with that.

On the accommodations guide, if I might, a million is an extraordinary amount -- and needed, obviously. It's very positive. Could the minister please provide some details in terms of the cost of the FTEs? Is it contracted out?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The accommodations guide?

P. Reitsma: Yes, the accommodations guide. If there are any FTEs, is it contracted out? What are the costs and cost recoveries?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I hope I've got this straight. This is from memory, so if there's any significant difference, we will advise you of that in another forum.

My staff recall that this program costs approximately $300,000 to run. The cost of the "B.C. Accommodations Guide" is fully recovered. So the costs there are in and out of the ministry. There are four FTEs in my ministry. The guide itself is contracted out, as are, I believe, all of the guides. At this present moment, a request for proposals is out for that, so that's why we don't have the exact costs for this year.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. If the cost of the guide is about $300,000. . . .

Hon. J. Pullinger: It's the program.

P. Reitsma: The program. Would the minister know the cost of producing the accommodations guide?

Hon. J. Pullinger: We're just checking that.

P. Reitsma: You're just checking that? Okay.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think I've got this absolutely clear. The $300,000 is the cost of the government ministry part. I want to be very clear. The guide itself is out for tender right now, so to speculate around costs for that would not be appropriate at this time.

P. Reitsma: It's not necessarily significant. I guess I just would like to know what the cost of producing the guide was last year. I appreciate that it's being tendered out. But there is a cost recovery. If the "B.C. Accommodations Guide" would cost. . . . I really don't know how much, but say it's half a million dollars of direct costs, excluding any chargeback to the ministry in terms of the four FTEs. Then we look at what the participants pay in terms of a fee to be in the "B.C. Accommodations Guide." I just wonder what those figures were last year. I don't mind about this year. But what are we looking at? Is it half a million dollars, including or excluding the FTEs?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I understand that we're quite a way along in the contracting process. If it's acceptable to the member, we will provide, as it becomes available, the detail of what the "B.C. Accommodations Guide" will cost. It's an educated guess at this point, in terms of what the recovery will be from advertising, etc., but we can provide, to the best of our ability, what we expect to have in that, too. So if it's acceptable to the member, we will provide all of that detail in writing.

P. Reitsma: That's fine. I just wondered if staff might have had those figures from last year to give me some kind of a benchmark, but they don't. Okay.

There's no leading edge to the question, other than that some concern has been expressed by participants that they fear there may be a huge increase in the cost of participating in the "B.C. Accommodations Guide." I go by memory, but I think I used to pay something like $80, plus the appropriate taxes. There are some apprehensions; there's some fear. . . . I don't know if there have been any discussions taking place in terms of what I've been told might be a substantial increase.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I am not aware of any very large increase being planned at all. However, that decision would be a decision of the new Tourism British Columbia board, which, as the member is aware, will be dominated by the tourism industry. So industry, in consultation, will be making those kinds of decisions. But I'm not aware at this time of any very large increase being planned.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate the answer. As a matter of fact, that might even be. . . . I've probably identified one source of outside revenue that might be flowing to the new Tourism British Columbia operation, particularly, of course, if it is all supported and directed by the tourism industry. That is an opportunity to increase some of the funding.

[ Page 4258 ]

Last year some concerns were expressed to me by some campground operators that in last year's guide the rates that the campground owners were to supply were exclusive of GST and PST, while the provincial campgrounds had all those taxes included. In fact, a number of campground operators -- not only in my area but in other areas as well -- found that there was a bit of unfair preferential treatment to the provincial parks, because the fee included the taxes, while the private operators had to quote the daily fee plus the taxes, which sometimes added up to be more.

Hon. J. Pullinger: That issue was raised last year, I believe, and I'm advised that it has been resolved. But because it was last year, we're depending on memory to remember how it was resolved. Again, we'd be more than happy to provide that information to the member.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that. The reply last year from the then deputy minister was:

"I can understand that the requirement to exclude the GST in the rates for private campgrounds and not provincial parks may appear unfair to your constituent. However, the accommodations program has not been able to develop an alternative method of listing rates that is both consistent among all accommodations and straightforward to users of the guide."

Hon. J. Pullinger: I apologize to the member, but as the issue is a year old, we simply don't have that level of detail. We'll be happy to provide the member with a response.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that and look forward to the response. I guess it's a bit of a burr under campground owners' saddles, this appearance of some unfair competition. It's minor in terms of dollars, I suppose. But when you multiply them -- some are 50, 100, 150 sites -- and it's added on, it makes quite a difference.

Returning now to the program inventory, the third program the minister alluded to was Super, Natural B.C. info reservation services -- that's the one we canvassed yesterday? Thank you.

I understand there's a B.C. Time to Play program as well?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I didn't include that one in the list of programs, because that one has been put on hold temporarily by the board.

P. Reitsma: The current board? Might I ask why that's being done -- in order to give the new board an opportunity to evaluate it or change it?

Hon. J. Pullinger: All of the programs are under review, and the board has determined that this is one they would suspend -- interestingly, not cancel -- for this time, anyway. That is a decision of the board, as part of their review.

P. Reitsma: The program was in force until just a short time ago, I take it. That being the case, I would still like, if possible, for the minister to advise us what the B.C. Time to Play program was all about and how many FTEs were involved.

[4:00]

The program commenced in 1996. It was designed to increase revenue from the B.C. resident market specifically during the spring and fall shoulder seasons to better utilize existing capacity. Another objective was to encourage B.C. residents who are currently going elsewhere to substitute B.C. travel for travel outside the province.

There were two components to last year's program: an umbrella advertising campaign consisting of TV, newspaper and radio advertising; and an industry cost-shared program. There have been 21 cost-shared projects since program inception a couple of years ago. There were 11 this year -- the last fiscal -- before the decision to suspend the program. There have been a broad range of projects focusing on activities such as golf, ski and circle tours, and ground, ferry and air packages.

As I said, we may see some carryover of expenditures into this year, but there are no resources budgeted for the program for this year, because it has been suspended. Therefore no FTEs are dedicated to it. Effectively, in the fiscal year that we're discussing, this program doesn't exist.

P. Reitsma: I would assume that last year they did have a couple of FTEs to administer the program.

The next one is Partners in Tourism. Have we canvassed that? We did.

The visitor information network. . .and the other one I have here is SuperHost, a very positive, very happy program. No doubt the minister will be happy -- because it sounds so positive -- to give us some happy stories about it. For the record, I'm looking at what SuperHost is about, when it originated, what the mandate and future goals are, and to go into that detail.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We canvassed that extensively yesterday. Just to trigger the member's memory, I did advise him that the first thing I did as Minister of Tourism was have an event with the Root Bear, where we announced the new SuperHost programs. So we have in fact canvassed that quite extensively.

P. Reitsma: Did we establish or ask about the number of FTEs involved?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The program resources, in case we haven't done this -- and I don't recall, quite frankly -- are $367,000 and three FTEs.

P. Reitsma: I believe that's all under the program inventory for Tourism B.C. Or are there any other ones that we did not touch on?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I think we've got them all.

J. van Dongen: I just have a few questions for the minister from a rural perspective, particularly agriculture, sport fishing and other activities that take place in rural areas.

I want to start out by asking her about the agritourism area. As I understand it, there have been some joint efforts involving the Ministry of Tourism in terms of trying to develop an agritourism industry. I wonder if the minister is aware of that. I could raise a couple of specific initiatives here. 

[ Page 4259 ]

There was a study done entitled "Economic and Opportunity Analysis for the Farm-based Agritourism and Value-added Processing Sectors of the Province." I wonder if the minister or her staff are aware of that study.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't believe that was a ministry study -- from this ministry, anyway. It may have been from Ag, Fish and Food. For the information of the member, the partnering with agriculture occurs primarily through the regional tourism associations, and as I'm sure the member is very aware, the wineries in the Okanagan, for instance, have cooperated extensively on tourism. In fact, they do, to some degree, in my area on Vancouver Island as well. Those were funded by this ministry, through Tourism B.C., through what was the Partners in Tourism program and is now evolving into a different kind of marketing funding for the regions. It's not done centrally out of Tourism British Columbia; it's done by the regions, who receive some funding from the ministry.

J. van Dongen: I'm looking at a document here from the Provincial Agricultural Land Commission. It talks about this ministry -- i.e., the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture -- together with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, undertaking the study that I previously mentioned. Maybe the minister could check with her staff. I'm curious as to whether that study was finished and what the conclusion of the study was. Does the minister have any more information on that?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The study, I believe, was funded by the Ministry of Ag, Fish and Food. The member wouldn't be aware because he wasn't here, but we have discussed the advocacy role of this ministry at some length. We fund the marketing, and we do policy development and some work on the development of the industry. Certainly we have a legislative voice in land use decisions, to the delight of the industry.

We also play very much of an advocacy role wherever and whenever we can. I believe that this would have been one of those kinds of things, where the study was actually funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and we, no doubt, had some significant input. But it would be their study. Hence, I'm sorry, I don't have it at my fingertips, nor do I have any of the detail of the costs. If the member has any difficulty locating it, we can certainly provide assistance.

J. van Dongen: I appreciate that offer by the minister. I'm pleased to hear that the ministry takes a broad-based advocacy role in promoting tourism, because I tend to feel. . . . I'm not knowledgeable in this area. But from what exposure I've had in the last two years in the whole area of agritourism, ecotourism, the sport fishing sector and those areas which all connect with the ministry that I'm critic for, I tend to think that there's a great deal of potential there. And I tend to think that it hasn't been fully exploited on behalf of British Columbia. It seems to me that the Ministry of Tourism is the logical place to develop that further.

I think, also, that it's a sector of the overall tourist market that tends to involve a lot of small operators, a lot of whom don't have any experience with marketing tourism, nor do they have the resources to market on a broader scale, whether it's through travel agencies or through advertising in the U.S. or whatever; they just don't have those resources. There needs to be someone there as a catalyst to help bring that together on behalf of British Columbia. It seems to me that that is this ministry. So I'm pleased to see that you recognize an advocacy role, even in areas that involve ministries like Ag and Fish fairly directly.

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

The minister mentioned the legislated involvement in land use decisions. And having an interest in land use, I wonder if I could just ask the minister to explain what that role is, what that involvement is.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Just to give the member a little bit of background, the Council of Tourism Associations, which is the very broad-based organization of tourism interests, both regional and sectoral -- i.e. hotels, motels, resorts, etc. -- has had, for some significant time, two top priorities. One was to have an actual voice in land use planning, because in the eighties, fishing resorts, for instance, were suddenly finding themselves in the middle of a clearcut; some of the outdoor venture tourism operators were finding that lovely areas that they used to heli-ski through suddenly became disaster areas, because of some kind of other activity; kayakers were concerned about coastal logging, etc.

The tourism associations have, for a long time, had it as a very high priority that tourism have a voice in land use issues. Prior to this government coming into power, it was pretty much the purview of the various resource ministries -- mining and forestry. Along with undertaking the land use planning that has resulted in the various land use plans around the province, 250 new parks, a forest practices code and so on, we did in fact amend the Tourism Act a few years ago. Under that legislation, tourism now has a voice in land use decisions, and is present at the tables whenever possible. We have part of my ministry that does that work.

J. van Dongen: I think that's fairly interesting, because in the discussions about setting aside parks and that kind of thing -- all those debates we've gone through -- certainly the ecotourism potential was mentioned many times as a reason to set aside parks. It seemed to me that there wasn't a well-developed industry there to capture some value, if you will, in economic terms for those park set-asides. I'm wondering if the minister would agree with that statement -- if my assessment is correct, first of all. In terms of the debates we went through on park set-asides, it's been my impression that British Columbia was not well organized and well positioned to capture value, if you will, from those park set-asides in terms of tourist dollars. I'm wondering if the minister would agree with the impression I have on that.

Hon. J. Pullinger: Throughout the eighties, as I'm sure the member is well aware, in areas like mine, Cowichan-Ladysmith, the pressure on our resources increased to a very unacceptable level. As a result, there was growing conflict in the woods. There was no land use planning.

In the seventies, Dave Barrett's government put in place. . . . I forget the name of it, but it was a secretariat designed to do what CORE did much later. That was disbanded, and the fragmented approach was continued throughout the seventies and eighties. There was no integrated approach to planning or to land use management. And government, quite frankly, fell far behind public expectations.

After we were elected government in '91, we aggressively took on those issues, as the member is aware. While none of the processes were perfect, and none of the outcomes were perfect -- because I don't think that exists -- we have got a land use plan now for most of British Columbia. It is the first and the most difficult step. And we're now in a position, as resources are available, to develop some of those resources and take advantage of them.

[ Page 4260 ]

I would give an example from my riding. My riding is heavily dependent on forestry. It also has the Cowichan River, which was second-highest on the endangered-rivers list. Through some community work that I did, we now have a volunteer but highly skilled Cowichan Watershed Council that is the voice of the river system. We also have a community forest cooperative put together in the wake of the land use planning process. Those two bodies have cooperated together. They have accessed Forest Renewal British Columbia funds. They have developed a 21- or 23-kilometre trail. It existed, but they have developed it along the length of the river. They have developed the Stoltz Pool park, which was a dedicated park under our government's goal 2 lands. What was just sort of rough, raw land that was used mostly for weekend partying is now a lovely park for the public to use -- as is the trail.

[4:15]

J. van Dongen: If I could just pursue my question a little further. . . . Have there ever been any studies done, or an attempt to quantify the value of a forest for tourism and ecotourism purposes, as opposed to cutting that forest down for lumber?

Hon. J. Pullinger: This is a great process; you learn all sorts of things. I'm learning that we just gave birth to a new process, which is in its infancy. It's a partnership that my ministry -- the land use part of my office -- is undertaking with the University of Victoria to develop a model to make precisely the kind of evaluation the member is alluding to, for tourism values. And I am also advised that this kind of model is highly innovative, as many things have been in this entire land use process. In fact, the model we're working to develop at present exists nowhere else in the world. So when we have that complete, we will have yet another leading-edge tool, which is great.

J. van Dongen: Well, I hope the ministry is cautious with how they use that leading-edge tool. I think it's good that we're trying to come to some more quantifiable approach to the trade-offs -- because there are always trade-offs.

The thing I like about the tourism industry is that it's a "clean" industry. I mean, it's always great to have dollars, particularly from outside the country -- the equivalent of export dollars -- coming into British Columbia. If we can lever those dollars through the provision of parks and forest resources, then so much the better.

I want to just ask the minister a little bit about, specifically, the sport fishing sector. Of course, that's a fairly broad-based category that can include very large operators, such as one we have based here in Victoria, but it can also include a lot of smaller operators. It also includes recreational anglers -- generally people from British Columbia but also people from outside. Could the minister clarify for me, a little more precisely than my own understanding is right now, what the involvement of the ministry has been in that sector?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Again, the ministry doesn't carry responsibility for the fish aspect; that's Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Our involvement is more with accommodations, the fishing lodges. However, because there clearly is an overlap there, the ministry is very much involved in the broad issues. My colleague the Minister of Environment and I just appointed one of our colleagues -- who is herself a resort owner -- to undertake a study of recreational and sport fishing. So that's in process, and we're partnering in that. That same kind of role, I believe, is being funded out of the Ministry of Environment. I'm not actually sure if we have any funding, but certainly we have people involved in that process.

I sit on the fish strategy committee of cabinet. Again, we function in an advocacy role wherever possible. When the concern was raised up in the Skeena area about the fees and the lack of notice, I was in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Environment. We worked together to find a process to consult with those affected and to find a solution, which we ultimately did.

J. van Dongen: I think the latter point by the minister is fairly important. Hopefully, the ministry can continue in an ongoing advocacy role to ensure that we get our time frames, particularly, lined up together with the needs of the private sector in terms of government decisions that have an impact. I'm pleased that some accommodation was made for that sector through that process.

I am aware of the industry development committee -- whatever it's actually named -- that the member for Comox Valley is heading up. As I understand it, it involves three ministries: this ministry plus the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Again, I look forward to the results of that report.

There was a study done -- I guess it would be over a year ago now -- on the sport fishing industry, which set out the very high value-added contribution to the economy, on a per-fish basis, that the industry makes. I think the ministry is also probably aware of that -- or should be.

Is there any particular segment of your ministry that's involved or that you could say is specifically related to sport fishing? Or is it just a very general advocacy role? For example, is there even a specific person within the ministry who has a unique responsibility for the sport fishing and fishing lodge sectors?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The corporate services branch of my ministry is involved in the policy-making side, and Tourism British Columbia is involved in marketing, but there is no branch of my ministry particularly dedicated to fish. It's another one of those many, many issues that our branch deals with over time.

I'm very pleased that our government, for the first time ever, has taken on the issue of fish in British Columbia -- other than in an agriculture and food fish kind of way. We've really taken on that role, as the member knows. Also, sport fishers and recreational fishers have been recognized, also for the first time, in a very formal way. I think that's good news. We have all of the people around the table, which is historic in British Columbia. As similar processes have moved to resolve many of the issues in the woods, we'll find that this kind of process serves British Columbians well to resolve many of the issues around fish.

J. van Dongen: If I could make a suggestion, it seems to me that probably all of our interests would be well served if there were even just one or two people who would have 

[ Page 4261 ]

specific responsibility for the whole sport fishing and agritourism sectors. It's one thing I'd ask the minister to think about, anyway, simply because. . . . It's one of these cases, very often, where there's everybody in charge and nobody in charge. If you have a specific person or persons with the responsibility, then I think you're going to get a better job of advocating for these sectors.

I just want to raise one other thought for the minister. I did become aware recently that the aquaculture sector is actually starting to establish tours. I'm wondering if the minister would consider bringing them into this whole fish equation in terms of promoting the sector. I realize that the aquaculture industry is currently engaged in a high-profile environmental review, but subject to that being completed -- and being completed satisfactorily for the industry -- I'm wondering if the minister would consider including the aquaculture sector in some kind of tourism-marketing thing. There are two reasons. One is that I think it does have tourism potential, but it also has potential in terms of the education of our own citizens in British Columbia.

Hon. J. Pullinger: With respect to the first part of the member's comments, I would advise the member that his comments are well taken and that the province. . . . In fact, we are undertaking a historic new role in salmon and fish management with the fish community -- everybody is involved -- and with the federal government. So we are in the process of better defining the province's role. The comments, therefore, are well taken, and I'm certainly aware of the issues that the member raises.

The other issue the member has raised is the issue of aquaculture. I'm very aware of those issues as well, both from a constituency point of view and a ministerial point of view. I am also very aware that the constituents from different parts of my ministry -- i.e., the small business side and the tourism side -- have very different interests and very different views on this issue. I will certainly be working closely with both of them over the ensuing weeks to determine where the points of concurrence might be to assist in resolving those outstanding issues once the environmental report comes back.

J. van Dongen: My final question -- or couple of questions, maybe -- relates to the economic impact, or an estimate of the economic impact, of the sport fishing sector and whatever parts of both the sport fishing lodge industry and agritourism. . . . If there are any statistics, if the minister has any sort of economic estimates, I would be very interested in those.

Hon. J. Pullinger: There was a study last year by a third party, funded by the DFO, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, this ministry and Environment. That study, I believe, concluded that the salmon fishing -- the coastal or marine fishing, sport, recreation and all of it -- is estimated at something between $750 million and $1 billion. The process of defining the value to British Columbia is obviously new. These kinds of studies have not -- to my knowledge, anyway -- been high on the agenda or prolific. So as we move forward with fish and the province takes a greater role in fish, there's a greater interest to define precisely what those benefits are.

J. van Dongen: I think I'm probably aware of the report the minister mentioned. I will simply conclude with my last request that if there are any other statistics or data that the ministry has available, I would be interested in those. The study that the minister referred to was quite specifically based on the value of a fish in one sector versus another -- the commercial sector versus the sport fishing sector -- and it did include indirect impacts. But again, I simply ask the minister -- and I don't need it today -- that if she has any printed matter or data relating to the whole agritourism and sport fishing sector, I would be interested in that.

[4:30]

I. Chong: I would just like to follow up with some supplementary questions that have now arisen, based on the minister's response to the member for Abbotsford regarding the sport fishing industry. As I understood, the minister said that her ministry is not involved with the fish -- and I understand that -- but with the lodges, only from the tourism aspect of it, and that there is an advocacy role that the ministry takes.

The question I have deals in part, I guess, with tourism. Also, it may deal in part with small business and with the environment aspect. I'm wondering if the minister can advise where her ministry would be involved in the policy or regulation on the foreshore leases for various sport fishing lodges. Is it in corporate planning or in conjunction with another ministry?

Hon. J. Pullinger: It is the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks that administers it.

I. Chong: I thought it might be, and I wanted to canvass the minister a little bit more about that. Last year we received a number of calls from individuals who operate these fishing lodges and resorts along the coast and who had some difficulties. In fact, one particular firm which had invested some $800,000 has now completely lost its investment and has come back to Victoria to try to re-establish itself. They ran into some problems, and letters were written not only to the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture but also to the Ministry of Environment and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. They certainly did try throughout to resolve the problem.

As I understand it, at the time there was a moratorium placed on issuing foreshore leases. In this particular case, they were not requesting a new foreshore lease. The case was that there was already one granted. These people came and, I think, took over someone else's lease, which subsequently expired, with no indication that it was going to expire. So a small business -- a tourism small business -- came in, continued to develop and expand the particular operation and was not able to get any assistance anywhere.

The issue I would like to raise, perhaps just to make the minister aware, is that this is the kind of problem that small business, small tourist operators are facing. They do not have the ability to know where they should be reaching out to government to help them. This is where policy in one area affects an industry in another. And that's why cross-ministerial support should, in fact, be encouraged that much more. I hope that last year was not representative of the direction we're headed, because if that is the case, it is a poor example that we're setting for small businesses.

I'm wondering if the minister can advise whether or not she, through her ministry, has had any work done on this; whether there's anyone on her staff sitting on a committee that is in fact dealing with this very issue; and whether or not she would be able to comment on it at this particular time.

[ Page 4262 ]

Hon. J. Pullinger: My deputy sits on a number of interministerial committees, as do others of the executive of my ministry. I'm certainly aware of that issue and the complexity of it, and the variety of issues that flow out of that situation and others similar to it. This ministry does indeed have input into how those issues are handled and the policy issues flowing out of them and so on. But the decision-making, ultimately, will rest in another ministry, although we certainly influence policy and so on. Those kinds of issues are very complex and therefore are sometimes very difficult to resolve, but we do have input into the broad areas.

I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that there are complexities that arise because of the interministerial kinds of issues that result. In this particular case that I am referring to, I think there may even have been aboriginal concerns, although I believe that those concerns were not raised until perhaps midway into the process.

Still, I would like to ask the minister: when someone is considering taking over an existing foreshore lease, one which is due to expire, what kind of ability does someone who takes over someone else's business have in terms of assurance? If there's a five-year lease and there are three years remaining when someone sells out to someone else and the new operator comes along, what do you require of that operator so that they know they have some certainty to carry on? Surely it would not be the case that a business could not be addressed where you have limited growth and a going-concern issue. There must be something in place so that operators know that they can go to a ministry and say: "Will I be able to continue on after this?" How else would you allow a business to be passed on from one operator to another? It's a small business issue, but very clearly a tourism small business issue. That's when people generally come to government for assistance; they don't think of going to deal with the foreshore lease. It's like a rental, usually on a building. Oftentimes when you buy out a business, you expect you'll be carrying on, and the going-concern idea is not even there. They just think that they renew their licences and continue. But if that is a problem and there's no policy that can be in place amongst all the ministries affected, how would an operator know who they could go to? Should it be the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture or not?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Without reference to any specific holding, case, issue or individual, I can say this. When any individual or group of individuals determine they want to purchase a business, I would assume, in most cases, that they work through legal counsel. I would also assume that in most cases they would look at the various tenures, whether it be lease or rental agreements for property, or for rights of some kind -- foreshore rights, leasing rights on Crown land or whatever. I assume that it would be good business practice to check those things very thoroughly before one entered into such an arrangement and that any normally cautious and careful business person would do that.

Beyond that, I guess the best answer I can provide to the member about various Crown leases and so on is that the individual would be able to determine what leases were part of any given business arrangement and, in so determining, would be able to request from that part of the ministry any further detail or policy they wanted to have. But those Crown land leases are not part of this ministry.

I. Chong: As I said earlier, I do recognize that the Crown land leases do belong in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. However, given that the government has inventoried the list of Crown land leases that are available up there and that they are primarily granted to operators, many of them small business operators of fishing lodges and resorts. . . . Somewhere along the line there is a direct link to the Ministry of Tourism so that somehow it's identified to those who wish to continue in a particular business.

In this particular case -- again, I cannot recall the exact details; it has been over a year. When I tried to canvass the minister on it last year, he was not aware and was unable to provide very much guidance on that.

The concern I have is that there are a number of operators. If you expect small businesses to come in and start a business, to develop, to expand and to continue to expand and hire people and make the capital investments that are required to keep the business flourishing, then there has to be, as I say, some certainty. If a moratorium is placed on future leases, then I would agree that that moratorium would have to be reviewed within its time frame. But where leases are there already or are just renewals because of a change of operator, it's very discouraging to know that there's nothing firmer that can be done.

I'm certainly not trying to put this at fault with this ministry. It's just that this ministry should be very much aware and very much an advocate for those businesses that feel very much they are businesses at risk, if nothing else. So I don't want to pursue this too heavily. I appreciate the minister's comments today. But it does fall in line with the corporate planning side of her ministry that deals with policy development. I would imagine that this is very much a part of the policy development, that I hope is still maintained in what is left here in this ministry.

The other question I want to canvass the minister on is based on a response she gave to the member for Abbotsford. That had to do with the relationship that her ministry and the Ministry of Environment had pertaining to the increase of angling fees and the fact that the matter has been looked at. The minister replied that a solution was found. I'm wondering whether the minister can share with us what that solution is. I've not heard what that solution is, particularly.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I don't have all the details at my fingertips; it is the Ministry of Environment. . . . There actually is a press release and a backgrounder that the member can certainly have. But, in short, the solution was to essentially defer the $10 increase for a short time -- for one year -- and make some changes around the steelhead fishing licences. There was some concern about people having to have a steelhead tag at times when the steelhead were not running, and so on. So those things have been resolved.

I. Chong: That's my recollection from when I quickly perused that press release when it came out. What I wonder, and I ask the minister to advise, then. . . . With that temporary, I guess, solution being a one-year deferment, I would imagine there is something being looked at now for the future -- something more permanent -- that will be in place and will be introduced. Is that what her ministry is left to do, in terms of tourism, with marketing gone? Is this what her ministry is involved in when we speak of policy development? Are these the kinds of issues that her ministry will now deal with?

Hon. J. Pullinger: Again, I would say that this ministry plays a broad advocacy role with many -- in fact, most -- ministries. We have a number of interministerial committees 

[ Page 4263 ]

that different members of the staff sit on, and there are different committees that I sit on. Certainly we work in an advocacy way on issues, including this one, as they arise.

I. Chong: The minister stated that they work on policy development and advocacy issues as they arise. Can the minister advise us if she currently has an inventory, for lack of a better word, of issues and things that they are currently working on that she could share with us at this time? If there have been five or six areas that have arisen about which you have an interministerial working relationship, there must be some inventory of items you're currently pursuing that we would hope we would be apprised of.

[4:45]

P. Reitsma: The minister indicated that we can talk about the resource management land use and the policy development because of the appropriate staff being there. I'll come to that momentarily.

I did wish to -- pardon the pun -- hook in to the angling fees. I know the ministry wishes, and, for that matter, must. . . . I'm not criticizing; I'm simply raising concerns that I hope are not stumbling blocks but are at least stepping stones. While it's deferred for one year, the comments we had when we went on our northern tour and the individual comments we've received here in Victoria -- and they've been genuine about it -- are about devastation to the industry. They saw it almost as the beginning of the destruction of this industry. I would hope, implore, ask and plead with the minister to play an extremely important role of advocacy as pertains to our industry. To the ministry, of course, it's extremely important. When we talked to the guides, they were devastated, particularly since there was no consultation or communication with the industry. They were told by memo and by phone when the decision was made. It was made arbitrarily, without consultation, just before the start of the season.

So while I accept that it's being deferred for one year, I would plead with the minister and the ministry that the advocacy role is played on the basis that we will stand up for you, we will work hard for you to make sure that while increases may be necessary -- providing, of course, that all increases will go directly toward perhaps conservation and the industry, certainly not into general revenue -- the minister appreciates the plight of that particular industry in those areas, because many of them make their living out of it.

It has been stated by the Sport Fishing Institute that if the same pattern holds this year in the rivers and the lakes, the government would lose far more revenue than it is estimated it will make from fee increases. So that is extremely important. It sends out the wrong message to our visitors that come from overseas. Some of the guides we talked to were almost desperate. They had committed themselves; they had given package prices -- hotels, guiding fees, transportation, you name it. They were all-inclusive. And some of them had increases of literally tens of thousands of dollars. When you see rod fees go up from $1 to $11, fishing licences up 67 percent, that isn't. . . .

The Chair: Member, please, there's a point of order.

S. Orcherton: The point is that, as I understand it, these are the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. While that ministry is a very important ministry in the province and interacts with other ministries, I suspect the member's questions in terms of licence fees would be best placed in the ministry responsible for setting those licence fees. I urge the Chair to keep on topic the issues in these debates on estimates. And as I said, the topic is the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. We seem to be wandering from time to time into other ministerial responsibilities.

The Chair: I thank the member for Victoria-Hillside for the comments. I would remind the other members to please keep the questions relative to the ministry that is in the House at the moment.

P. Reitsma: Hon. Chair, I take exception to the point of order of the member, who seems to be standing up from time to time. I should like to remind him that the minister -- and my two previous colleagues agree -- has indicated with her answers that it is indeed extremely important and that she wishes to play an advocacy role. I simply take exception to that member's point of order. His contribution should be more than that. Be that as it may, I've noted the comments of the minister to questions from my previous colleagues in terms of the importance of the advocacy role to be played by this ministry. I welcome that, and I think that's extremely important.

Since the minister indicated that she would like to talk about what's left in the ministry, the minister has mentioned a number of times -- again, I want to be positive about that -- that what is left in the Tourism portion of the ministry is resource management, land use and policy development. That being the case. . . .

Interjection.

P. Reitsma: We were talking about land use, yes. I thought the minister had mentioned land use and resource management and policy. I stand to be corrected. I wonder if the minister could zero in on the focus of this, what goals there are and what targets are going to be set.

Hon. J. Pullinger: We don't do resource management in this ministry; the resource ministries do that. What we do is land use planning for tourism and also tourism policy development. We also have some function of shared responsibility with Tourism British Columbia for the development of the industry, although most of that is done through the private sector.

Tourism policy and land use planning will remain within the ministry. They do reside in the corporate services and land use branch. That branch reports directly to the deputy minister. The branch currently holds responsibility for land use planning and also provides other corporate services to the ministry. Corporate services are things such as legislation, support, assistance with business and strategic planning and some corporate policy. The branch is reorganizing and realigning its resources to undertake the tourism policy function. That's happening now; we're reorganizing. 

[ Page 4264 ]

Obviously that whole department is reorganizing, as the major portion is now going to be a Crown corporation. I expect that within a reasonably short time, in the next couple of months, we will be fully reorganized and fully functional to take on the hived-off role, the role that has now been separated out.

We will be working very closely with Tourism B.C. on an ongoing basis. While we are separating out the policy areas to remain with government from the marketing function which is going to a Crown agency, I expect this arrangement will work very well. We will continue to work very closely together. A new business plan from my ministry, reflecting the reorganization, is in the process of being developed as well.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate that, because the thought that is in my mind, of course, is that particularly with the marketing, which is the major component, having been taken out -- that's fair enough, we support that -- through the new Tourism B.C. agency, what is left in the ministry? Indeed, are we going to need a Minister of Tourism per se? I know there is Small Business and Culture, of course. Since the Tourism portion of the ministry -- marketing -- which is really is the biggest component, has now been segregated and given to the special operating agency, would the minister expect. . . ? Although she did allude to the fact that the policies will now be made, when it comes to marketing, by the new Tourism B.C. agency, the policy development of the Ministry of Tourism now. . . . Who would that be endorsed by? Does the minister expect some conflict, maybe, or some friction, if you like -- and friction may be too strong a word -- between Tourism B.C. and her ministry? Or are the policies totally separate from the marketing portion of the tourism. . . ?

Hon. J. Pullinger: I just want to be very clear that while the marketing function of my ministry is being reorganized into a Crown agency for all sorts of good reasons and will, I think, provide us with tools and an ability to market that we previously have not had in quite the same way, I still retain full responsibility for the marketing function, for all of the dollars and for everything that happens. Whether it's directly in the ministry, whether it's in an SOA or whether it's in a Crown corporation, it matters not; I still retain full responsibility for those dollars, that function, that board and all of the things that flow from all of those things.

Land use planning was not a part of this ministry until we were government. That is a new function; it has been added on. I think it's an extremely important function. Policy development is clearly something that ought to stay with government. I expect that we will work very closely with Tourism British Columbia in their marketing and to some development function, to coordinate efforts.

I think it is worth noting that a great deal of our discussion over the last couple of days has revolved around this ministry's role in working with other ministries to ensure that Tourism's voice is heard and that Tourism is considered in the decision-making process. While it's not a lot of money, nor is a huge number of FTEs involved, it's nevertheless a very critical and very big role that this ministry plays. There are still a large number of roles -- in fact, an increased number of roles -- that this ministry will play, despite the fact that the marketing function will be in another form. So obviously we need to have a minister responsible. I'm sure the member is not suggesting we should eliminate the Ministry of Tourism.

P. Reitsma: I genuinely wish to compliment the minister. I'll be very honest. I wish to compliment the minister on the change in chemistry in terms of the importance of the ministry in an advocacy role and helping and bridging with other ministries. I'll be very honest with you. I had this impression at the beginning: "It's not my ministry. Go and talk to another ministry." I wish to compliment the minister on that -- that she recognizes it. Of course, it is indeed extremely important. Good for you.

We were talking about policy development. I hope, though, that ultimately the marketing policies probably endorsed by but ultimately developed by the new Tourism B.C. agency will be, for lack of a better word, the gospel for the ministry. I mean, that's what they're there for. I can see a bridging, helping, giving assistance and what have you. But I expect that agency to be at arm's length, although I know there are funds involved -- to keep them at arm's length in order for them to almost uninterruptedly have a marketing plan.

Might I ask, in terms of the research, who would be doing the research? Also, I assume that the total FTEs in the Tourism component of her ministry will change -- the number of FTEs. So in terms of the research, who will be doing the research? Will it still be the ministry, or will it be the new agency? And what about the staff complement -- is there's a change in staff?

[5:00]

With respect to policies, and so on, of the new agency, obviously the Crown agency will not and should not run counter to government policy. That would be unacceptable. It remains a part of government. It remains under the control of this ministry, as it should in a democratic society. Therefore I fully expect that this board will comply fully with all of the expectations and broad policy mandates of this government, including things such as job creation, etc.

But within those broad parameters, the purpose of setting up this organization, the Crown agency, is to indeed provide a more direct voice for the tourism industry, to participate in the marketing of British Columbia and also to provide the kind of flexibility that the marketing function needs.

I. Chong: I just want to change directions slightly. I know that the hon. member for Parksville-Qualicum has a number of questions he still wants to canvass, having just started a line of questioning. But when the minister stated her response, it brought to mind a question I had.

That has to do with whether her ministry is involved with taking advantage of what I would consider special celebrations, special events, that may occur on a provincial or perhaps more regional basis. Does the ministry take advantage of those things? Is that what the ministry will still be involved in, in the future?

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

Hon. J. Pullinger: This ministry is participating in things such as APEC. We certainly fund from the sport part a number of community events and so on -- culture, etc. If the member is referring to community-based celebrations, no, this ministry doesn't fund them. Quite frankly, I'd love to, but there simply wouldn't be enough money to do that.

The Chair: With the agreement of the committee, there's a request for a five-minute break. Okay, there will be a recess.

[ Page 4265 ]

The committee recessed from 5:05 p.m. to 5:15 p.m.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

I. Chong: Hon. Chair, I was asking the minister earlier, before we had the brief recess, whether or not the ministry took advantage of special events and perhaps of special regional events if there were such things. Granted, those things happening locally in various jurisdictions should be dealt with at the community level. I was wondering whether the minister is aware that these parliament buildings, which we're now sitting in, were completed and opened in 1897 and that this year is the 100th anniversary of the parliament buildings, as evidenced by the brochure that everyone has. I'm wondering what, if anything, has been planned or is in the works to celebrate the centennial of these remarkable buildings.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The legislative precinct falls under the purview of the Speaker.

I. Chong: I do understand that, and we can certainly ask the Speaker if there is anything planned. But given that it would be a celebration, that it could be a tourist or a promotional kind of event and that these buildings are a cornerstone not only of the government of this province but of the tourism industry of the capital, being Victoria, I'm wondering whether or not the ministry would ordinarily play a role to ensure that, as part of its mandate and its policy development, it would look at these kinds of special events and issues, and whether the Ministry of Tourism will be a part of a celebration to honour the dignity of these buildings, therefore showcasing Victoria as the tourism capital of British Columbia.

I'm asking these questions just to get a clear indication of the kinds of things that this ministry will still do in terms of promotion, outside of the special operating agency of the Crown. Those promotional activities, I imagine, would be done with the input of all of the industry stakeholders on the board. But this deals strictly with something that the government itself would be looking at. Would this not still be something that the Ministry of Tourism would be advocating, promoting or suggesting to the Speaker?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The existing SOA board, which we put together a year ago, has a very capable individual on it from the greater Vancouver area, who is a member of the B.C. Association of Festivals and Events. Obviously, that expertise sits at the table of the existing SOA board. I'm sure that as we put together the new board, we will ensure that the same kind of expertise is also at the table to deal with just this kind of issue.

Tourism British Columbia's role is to market. Clearly it may want to market a variety of different events, including a celebration in Victoria of this building. I would expect that if there is a celebration, it will be a community-based celebration here. There may be something within the buildings; I don't know. That's not my responsibility, although, like the member, I'm certainly interested in that.

Just to clarify again, the interests of festivals and events is currently represented at the table in Tourism British Columbia. I expect that it will continue to be represented in one way or another. The responsibility, then, of my ministry is not on the promotional side. The marketing and promotional side is Tourism British Columbia. I have policy and land use, primarily, and some responsibility for development.

I. Chong: I wasn't looking so much at the marketing and promotion from the aspects that the new Crown corporation will be dealing with. As much as we certainly have qualified people serving on the board, I don't imagine that sometimes these issues -- which are specific issues -- will come to the table.

What we're talking about here is this building. We're talking about this building, which runs this government, and therefore it's the promotion of British Columbia and the promotion of government, if you will. If no one else takes this up, I'm concerned that there is an opportunity lost.

I just want to mention to the minister at this point in the spending estimates that the 125th anniversary of B.C. last year was not highly promoted, and I think that we missed an opportunity to celebrate the 125th year. I did see the flags outside in the front but very little celebration, whether in this region, in other regions or throughout the entire province. I didn't see the kind of celebration that I would have expected.

Unlike the Yukon, who have celebrated their gold rush days and have taken advantage of a three-year span of celebration, we here in British Columbia should take advantage whenever we can, when there's a special milestone that we accomplish. Given that we have a 100-year anniversary of this building and that this is what governs us, who would pay attention to that except government itself? I bring this forward to the minister and would ask that she consider this through her ministry and perhaps convey from her ministry to the Speaker, if it's not viewed too harshly as a conflict, that we do not miss out on this particular opportunity to promote this milestone event.

I just offer that to the minister, and if she thinks that she is able to convey that on behalf of all of us here, then I would certainly appreciate it. If she does not feel that that is appropriate, I may take it upon myself to raise it with the Speaker.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I certainly appreciate the member's comments and intent. It seems to me that any significant celebration would be something that the community of Victoria might want to mount. The member may want to talk to Tourism Victoria about such an event. I think that would be an excellent approach. If the tourism community and the broader community want to celebrate this in a large sense, then of course Tourism British Columbia may at some point become involved. I have no budget, essentially, to mount a celebration of any kind. I'm sure the member would agree that in these times when we're seeing such massive cuts to things like health and education and other critically important services to people, it would be very, very difficult -- in fact, perhaps even inappropriate -- to spend any amount of money whatsoever on having fun, when those dollars really should be directed to health, education, social services and other very, very important tasks of government. I'm sure the member would agree with that.

I. Chong: The minister is correct. It's not our suggestion that we would be looking for a set amount of funding, necessarily, to be placed for a celebration. Certainly she is correct when she says that the issues of health care and education are important; they are also important to those in the official opposition. We would not want dollars to be diverted from those very, very important ministries. My only suggestion was that if there were an opportunity to celebrate and in turn that 

[ Page 4266 ]

celebration would generate additional revenues for government -- a net benefit -- then we would have more revenues for health care and education. Ultimately, I think, it is the goal of all of us to ensure that we bring in those dollars -- from elsewhere, if at all possible -- to have the necessary revenues to fit within the operational budget of this government. So all I would suggest is that this information be brought forward, if not already. . . .

Certainly I will canvass the Tourism Victoria people. They certainly may feel that it's part of government's responsibility. This is what happens, generally; you ask someone, and they say: "Well, that's what you guys should do, because you guys are the ones sitting in those buildings. It's your government buildings, and it's your celebration." I didn't want to approach the Tourism Victoria people first, only to get that response and then find out later that I had missed the opportunity here. If there is no such opportunity, that's fair enough, and I can appreciate that and will accept that. If I also reach a point of no opportunity with Tourism Victoria, then it's sad that we will have certainly missed an opportunity.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I would just propose, if there's to be a community celebration, that the member do just that. The member may also want to speak with the Speaker's office and determine if there's anything going on in the buildings by way of celebration. I simply don't know that.

P. Reitsma: Just a couple more questions in terms of the corporate policies, since the staff is here. We have canvassed the policy development, and that's fine. I don't think we have really canvassed the land use. That being the case, I just wonder if the minister would be good enough to focus on the goals and targets of the land use portion of that which is left in the Tourism portion of the ministry.

Hon. J. Pullinger: The corporate policy and planning branch leads decision-making in the areas of corporate-level policy and also legislation development, strategic planning and land use planning. Those are the functions of that area. The branch provides coordination, information, liaison and representation of ministry strategy and planning interests with other agencies and jurisdictions through its two functional units: policy and legislation, and inventory and resource planning. As I mentioned earlier, we are reorganizing. This is the status quo, so changes are coming. This branch also works to develop tourism policy and coordination liaison with other ministries and agencies, to pursue development of tourism. So that is essentially the function of the corporate branch.

P. Reitsma: First of all, how many FTEs are in that particular corporate policy and planning branch? Could the minister give some examples of what kind of land use planning is anticipated pertaining to or in terms of development?

Hon. J. Pullinger: There are essentially, in simplest terms, two functions of the eight FTEs that deal with land use -- eight out of the 11.5. These people both inventory existing tourism uses of the land base and identify potential tourism uses of the land base. So there's an identification of what there is in terms of tourism use of the land base around British Columbia, and there's an identification of what might be.

P. Reitsma: On that, I would assume that we are talking about real estate. Are we talking about Crown land? What type of base are we talking about in terms of tourism land base?

Hon. J. Pullinger: The ministry deals with Crown land and performs those two functions, and then that information is used in the land use planning processes.

P. Reitsma: I take it that part of that inventory, if you like, and part of the planning is not going to be the function of -- nor will any real estate per se be turned over to -- the new Tourism B.C. special operating agency.

[5:30]

To give the member an example, when I was Tourism critic quite a few years ago, I used to quite regularly run into people with resorts who suddenly woke up to find a clearcut happening around their resort. That obviously would destroy their business, because there was no land use planning and also no tourism voice whatsoever. It was driven entirely from the resource ministry without much, if any, reference to the other ministries.

What we have now is a process by which tourism has a voice. But more than that, there is a planning process whereby the existing tourism functions on Crown land are identified. Therefore when planning happens for any other ministry, there is an identification of what exists for tourism, and that voice is heard in the planning process. Also, because the kind of land use planning that government has undertaken since 1991 is very far-reaching into the future, there is identification of potential uses for tourism to ensure that the tourism values are protected, not only for what is but for what might be.

P. Reitsma: I appreciate it. When we talk about tourism interest, with the indulgence of the minister, I wonder if the minister could give some specific and identifiable examples. Are we talking, for instance. . . ? I know that lots of parks have been created that could create simple things like hiking and trails and even pony rides for that matter -- small opportunities. But we're talking about bodies of water -- lakes, etc. -- in those vicinities as well to promote fishing lodges, water-skiing, all those kinds of water sports. I just wonder if the minister could identify some specific tourist interests.

Hon. J. Pullinger: I want to reassure the member that what the ministry does is identify the existing tourism interests -- lodges, etc. -- for the purpose of ensuring that other land uses don't impact negatively on them. So despite the fact that our activities are confined to the Crown lands primarily, we do consider private lands in the area that might be affected negatively by other uses.

I will give the member an example. When we were going through the CORE process and the development of the LRMPs, Tourism was at the table. The visual-quality objectives 

[ Page 4267 ]

were developed with a great deal of input from my ministry, because clearly if you're paddling a kayak up the coast along miles of clearcut right to the water, that detracts from that tourism experience. Similarly, if you have a wilderness tourism establishment, and there's resource extraction that damages the tourism values, then that has a very negative impact on the tourism industry at that particular resort.

We have a GIS computer mapping facility. We have an inventory of the resources. And through those information systems we make sure that tourism interests are protected, in cooperation with other parts of government, as we undertake a variety of activities.

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

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 5:36 p.m.

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