1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
(Hansard)
MONDAY, MAY 17, 1999
Afternoon
Volume 15, Number 5
[ Page 12495 ]
The House met at 2:10 p.m.
Prayers.
S. Hawkins: I have some constituents who are joining us here in the gallery today, and I'll be meeting with them later this afternoon. They are Mr. Al Clark, Mr. Gordon Ivans and Mr. Pete Steeves. They're tree fruit growers who are very concerned about the orchard industry, and they're here to let the government know that. Would the House please make them welcome.
J. Weisbeck: Along with the same group that the member for Okanagan West just introduced are Sheila Ackerman, Nicole Ackerman, Sandy Shaw, Gerry Shaw and Brian MacDonald. They're very important citizens from my community, who are down here expressing their concerns for the apple industry as well. Would the House please make them welcome.
S. Orcherton: I notice in the gallery that Mr. Dean Fortin is with us today. Mr. Fortin works very hard on behalf of the Burnside-Gorge Community Association in my constituency. He does tremendous work there and has elevated that community association to one of the best, if not the best, in the greater Victoria area. I ask the House to make Mr. Fortin very, very welcome.
Hon. J. Kwan: It's my pleasure to introduce today Rowan Smith, a 15-year-old student from St. Andrew's Regional High School here in Victoria. He is doing a work experience this week in my office in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and is interested in learning about politics and governance, especially in the area of municipal planning. Would the House please make him welcome.
W. Hartley: I see up in the gallery today a good friend, George Berpicebich. He's a professional photographer and human rights advocate who was very helpful in helping me bring to this Legislature the debate on Burma a while back. Would members please welcome him.
B. Goodacre: In the gallery today we have with us His Worship Brian Northup, the mayor of the town of Smithers, and the town administrator, Mr. Wallace Mah. They are here to visit with government ministers to bring them up to date on the issues in their area. I'd like the House to please make them welcome.
Hon. D. Lovick: Madam Speaker, it's my unfortunate and unhappy responsibility to advise the House of the untimely passing of a man well known to many of us in this chamber -- namely, Mr. Gerry Stoney. Gerry Stoney was the president of the New Westminster and District Labour Council for many years and then went on to become president of IWA Canada. He had been fighting his battle with that great killer for many years and, alas, succumbed much too young for that to happen. He was a fine man who left, I think, a very significant imprint on industrial relations in this province and made huge contributions. If I might, Madam Speaker, I would ask if you might be kind enough to offer our condolences from the chamber to Gerry's family.
The Speaker: I'd be happy to. Thank you, Mr. Minister, for that information.
G. Abbott: On behalf of the official opposition I would like to join with the hon. minister in also sharing our concern about the passing of Mr. Stoney. As the Forests critic I had the opportunity to meet Mr. Stoney a couple of times during his years as the head of the forest workers, and he did a strong and commendable job on behalf of that organization. Certainly we'd want to join in bringing those thoughts to Mr. Stoney's family.
[1415]
The Speaker: Thank you very much, members. On behalf of all of you, I'll be happy to do that.
WHALE HUNTING AND ABORIGINAL TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Today the brutal and agonizing spectacle of the killing of gray whales by the Makah whale hunters has been seen around the world. British Columbians want to know that hunting will not be on the treaty bargaining table, no ifs, ands or buts -- not for commercial, not for customary and not for ceremonial purposes. Will the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs commit today that under no circumstances will the hunting and killing of whales be on the negotiating table in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. G. Clark: I want to be clear. For the record, we've given instructions to our negotiating team that they are not to sign a treaty or an agreement-in-principle that contains provisions for whale hunting. Even though this area is a matter of federal jurisdiction, because the treaty process is a tripartite process and because the provincial government is at the table, we will not sign any agreement nor entertain any discussion about going back to the past and allowing any whale hunt in British Columbia by aboriginal people.
The Speaker: First supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: On this side of the House I'd like to say that we welcome those comments from the Premier. Let me say, however, that there has been some confusion created over the weekend, when the Premier's Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said that he certainly wouldn't undertake to have any negotiations with regard to commercial uses but that it might be necessary to negotiate with regard to customary or ceremonial uses. I want this to be clear and unequivocal. I ask the Premier today: has he instructed his Minister of Aboriginal Affairs that under no circumstances -- not custodial, not customary, not ceremonial -- will the killing and hunting of whales be allowed at the negotiating table in the province of British Columbia?
Hon. G. Wilson: There is no confusion at the negotiating table. Whale hunting is not on the table. It has not been brought to the table by any first nations, and neither do we anticipate it to be so.
[ Page 12496 ]
The Speaker: Second supplementary, the Leader of the Official Opposition.
G. Campbell: The confusion that has been caused here -- the Premier was clear
last November that whale hunting would not be on the table -- is from this Minister of
Aboriginal Affairs
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please. Let's hear the question.
G. Campbell:
Hon. G. Wilson: The only confusion that may exist in the members opposite is the
fact that marine mammals are federal in jurisdiction. We happen to not believe that there
is a legal right, either. It is up to the federal minister, hon. member, to
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
Hon. G. Wilson:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. G. Wilson: The issue is not on the treaty table; it has not been brought to the treaty table. And the province has made it clear that we will not negotiate it at the treaty table.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, please.
MINISTER'S CHARACTERIZATION OF PEOPLE LEAVING B.C.
C. Clark: Last Friday the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs said that people who move to Alberta looking for work are like chickens running away, buggering off. I have a letter from one of those people. He's a 26-year-old forest worker who is unemployed in British Columbia. He sent out 900 r�sum�s, and the only responses he has gotten are from Alberta. Why would the minister call someone like this a chicken for going to find work in Alberta when there are no jobs for him here in British Columbia?
[1420]
Hon. G. Wilson: The member makes reference to a quote I was making from Monty Python's Brave Sir Robin, which I know that that member, from her days as a young Liberal, used to watch frequently.
Hon. Speaker, what I said was that people in British Columbia need to stand to build a
province, that we on this side of the House are building an economy and building a future
-- and we are building a future for British Columbians. Those people
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members
Hon. G. Wilson:
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.
C. Clark: Yeah, I get it, hon. Speaker. The NDP
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order!
C. Clark:
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. The House will come to order.
C. Clark: Josh Rudolph is 26 years old. He has worked in British Columbia since he was 14. He doesn't want to leave. Unfortunately, if he stays, all he can look forward to is a welfare cheque and a minister that calls him chicken because he can't find a job at home. Why is the minister lashing out at people like Josh Rudolph when it's his government's economic policies that have forced people like Josh to go find work in places like Alberta?
Hon. G. Wilson: Let me extend an invitation to Josh to phone members on this side of the House, where he will learn that there have been 58,000 net new jobs. If Josh would stop listening to the members on that side of House, he might realize that there's a very real future in British Columbia. So come and talk to members on this side of the House -- and he will have what he needs for his future in B.C.
G. Plant: The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs can try to hide from the facts, but the facts are that last year over 20,000 people left British Columbia looking for jobs in Alberta. Instead of looking for solutions to stop this crisis, the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs takes cheap shots at the people who are the victims of his government's economic policies. My question for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is this: if he wants to take a progressive step forward in fixing what's wrong in British Columbia, will he stand up right now and apologize to everyone that he insulted with his remarks?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. G. Wilson: What utter nonsense from the members opposite. What utter nonsense! There have been 58,000 net
[ Page 12497 ]
new jobs into this province announced in the last year. Louisiana-Pacific and Tembec have come in. Telus has moved its headquarters over to British Columbia. The economy is building here. The only members who put out a negative, negative, negative message about this province are those members opposite. They continually do it, and in so doing, they drive people away from this province instead of bringing them forward here and helping to build this new province.
The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Richmond-Steveston.
G. Plant: Now the Minster of Aboriginal Affairs has learned the first principle of NDP politics: it's not their fault that there is a recession in British Columbia; it's the official opposition's fault. The minister doesn't get it. When he stands up and accuses of being chickens the people who leave this province because of his economic policies, he hurts and insults them. Will the minister stand up now and apologize for what he said?
[1425]
Hon. G. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, I will never apologize for inviting people to come and work with this government -- to work with British Columbians to build a province. We have seen an investment in Western Star Trucks. The members opposite say: "No good. We don't want that." We have seen Tembec coming into this province. The members opposite say: "No good." They don't like that. Louisiana-Pacific -- the members opposite said: "Oh, that's not enough. That's small potatoes."
The only people who constantly send out a negative message about British Columbia are those members opposite. If anybody needs to apologize, it's those members -- not the members on this side of the House.
G. Farrell-Collins: Those 20,000 people -- those 20,000 British Columbians and their families who left British Columbia to go to Alberta and other jurisdictions -- are not imaginary people. They didn't leave from imaginary towns in imaginary parts of British Columbia. They're real families and real people, and that minister has the gall to stand up and accuse them of chickening out and buggering off and abandoning British Columbia. Those are people who want to be in British Columbia but can't stay, because of the economic policies opposite. Will the minister stand up and apologize for those comments?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members.
G. Farrell-Collins: It's a pretty inauspicious launch to a leadership campaign, when the future leader of a party stands up and insults British Columbians who have had to leave their province because of the disastrous economic policies created by his government.
Will the minister go to communities like Gold River? Will he go to places like Logan Lake and tell the British Columbians that are going to have to leave next week and next month and next year that they're a bunch of chickens and are buggering off -- for not having faith in the NDP's ability to turn around the economy? Or will he go there and apologize to them for those outlandish comments?
Hon. G. Wilson: It really is a tragedy when the members opposite can come up with this in question period. They've got 15 minutes to question the members here on real and tangible issues. It is bizarre in the extreme that they would spend an entire 15 minutes trying to question this.
But for the people of Gold River and those other resource-dependent communities
ACCESS FOR SMALL CONTRACTORS TO HIGHWAYS WORK
G. Abbott: The biggest thing that's bizarre in this province is the policies of this pathetic government that we've had for eight years. That's the most bizarre thing.
One more bizarre instance. Last week I met with 30 non-union contractors in the
Shuswap, some of whom have up to 35 years of work on a day-labour basis with the Ministry
of Transportation and Highways. Now they've been told that they must unionize with HCL if
they and their 150 employees want to work on the Trans-Canada Highway corridor right in
their own back yard. To the Minister of Transportation and Highways
Interjections.
The Speaker: Members, members.
Come to the question, please.
G. Abbott: They are local; these 150 are local.
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. We'll hear the question.
G. Abbott: Why is this NDP government forcing local businesses out of business in order to force the unionization of the highway construction sector?
Hon. H. Lali: The members opposite
[1430]
The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Shuswap.
[ Page 12498 ]
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order in the House, please.
G. Abbott: A neighbour of mine in Sicamous, Clayton Hoban, owns Hoban Construction, a small highway construction firm that's done business in that area for 17 years. Now he's going to be calling in the auctioneers and liquidating his assets because he can't get work under this government's closed-shop HCL model. Can the Transportation minister explain to the owner of this small Sicamous business why he and his 15 employees are being shut out of government contracts just because his employees don't want to join a union?
Interjections.
The Speaker: Order, members. Come to order.
Hon. H. Lali: It is really tragic when you have that pathetic opposition sitting on those opposite benches who are talking about giving jobs to people in Alberta; we've got those people, sitting on the opposite benches.
Under HCL, for the first time in Transportation and Highways projects, you've got people who are from visible minority backgrounds getting jobs, women getting jobs on these projects under HCL, people who are also from the aboriginal population of this province -- and also training and apprenticeship. All of these people are being hired for the first time on transportation construction projects.
And those people again want to go back to the way things were 30 years ago and make sure that people from Alberta are getting jobs here instead of the local people in that member's constituency.
Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Fisheries. In this House, I also call Committee of Supply; for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Energy and Mines.
The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ENERGY AND MINES
AND MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FORNORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
On vote 25: ministry operations, $35,483,000 (continued).
[1435]
R. Neufeld: Last Wednesday, when we left off, we were nearing the very end of the
northern commissioner
The minister wrapped up arguments saying that, in fact, the reason that no money was
put into telecommunications infrastructure in the north was because of the federal
government deciding to spend their money elsewhere -- that being Douglas Street. In fact,
if I go back to Hansard, that's where I find it. I just wonder
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain what was in fact signed off, but I'd be happy to -- in fact, I will -- arrange a briefing with the provincial staff who are on this file so that I can walk the member through all of the projects that we had wanted to do in British Columbia. We were trying to strike a balance so a reasonable amount of the infrastructure money was spent in rural British Columbia.
There were some difficulties with the program. I'd just remind the member, going back, that when it was initially announced, the federal government said: "This is a one-year program only." All disbursements had to be made in the fiscal year in which the program was announced. We therefore -- knowing that you can't go out and ramp up that quickly, if you take my meaning -- searched for projects that we knew we could flow the money to in the fiscal year, as originally prescribed by the federal government.
We also argued with the federal government that it didn't make sense, that we ought to be given a bit more time to try to encourage communities, local governments and other groups to get some applications in. Given the criteria of the funding -- the one-third, one-third, one-third provisions -- we had to tailor our approach to what we thought was doable and had the most impact right around the province. I think we did a major transit initiative in Kelowna, if I'm not mistaken.
But my point that I was trying to make last week was this: we, in good faith, put forward a list of projects that we thought represented a pretty good balance around the province. I was particularly concerned because -- if my memory serves me correctly -- there were some 30-odd communities around British Columbia that didn't have telephone service. I thought it was important that we try to allocate a little bit of that money -- not a lot, a little bit of that money -- to try to improve the position of these small communities.
What ultimately happened was that, at the officials' level, I was informed there was a notional agreement on the list of projects between federal officials and provincial officials. Yet we reached an absolute impasse when dealing with Mr. Anderson. It was fairly well reported at the time, unfortunately -- and that's a sure sign that things are breaking down. But Mr. Anderson was adamant about that. As a result, some of those projects did not proceed. So I'd be happy to provide the member with a detailed briefing on all aspects of that issue as soon as we can arrange it and at a convenient time for the member.
[1440]
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that. I'm not trying to make an issue out of it. What I would like to do is have the information that the minister talked about. He's correct in saying -- as I understood it -- that the money had to be expended that year,
[ Page 12499 ]
and Douglas Street is just being done this year. Those kinds of things, all of a sudden
Actually, I want to pursue it a bit too. Not that I have any influence -- I can guarantee you that -- but I certainly do want to see some of the infrastructure upgraded in the north, regardless of which part of the north it is -- for the whole north. That was my wanting to get the information from you a little bit more so that I could do that.
Hon. D. Miller: Just to complete
R. Neufeld: I look forward to that briefing and that information.
Just a couple more questions with regard to that same issue. In your spring issue of "Report to Northerners," there is a blocked-off part that talks about $10 million -- or a certain amount of money, I should say -- to the provincial learning network, northern British Columbia and upgrading technology. Can the minister maybe just give me a brief outline of where that money is going to be spent? Is it across the whole north? Is it specific to one area? Is it the north? Is it more the interior? Or is that $10 million spread across the whole province?
Hon. D. Miller: The $10 million, I believe, applies broadly across the province.
The reference to telecommunications came about -- and I think I said this in the House last week -- as a result of a discussion held between me, the Minister of Finance and Mr. Backhouse. The Minister of Finance and I talked quite a bit. She said: "Look, there is not a lot of room, but I'm interested in seeing how I can allocate a little bit of money that might be useful in the regions and particularly in the north. What are your and Mr. Backhouse's views of what might be an appropriate area of expenditure?" It was really Mr. Backhouse who led, saying that if there were any resources at all, telecommunications was an important area. So without predetermining the scope of the spending or indeed the discrete areas where that might be deployed, the Minister of Finance kindly agreed -- and I thank her for that -- to include that reference, and an allocation that obviously now requires further discussion.
Again, I'm quite happy, once I've had the opportunity to do that with the Minister of
Finance, to discuss with other northern MLAs areas where they see priorities. All of that,
of course, depends on just how much is available, but I think -- looking at the broader
issues around telecommunications -- that completion of the PLNet obviously will improve
the situation for northerners. But I do think that there are significant issues around
telecommunications where
[1445]
I indicated last week that the provincial government had made a submission to the CRTC
hearing in Prince George at some point last year. They were worried about competition
coming to local telephone service and about what the impact might be on small communities
because of the high cost of putting the infrastructure in place and the low population
base. Our recommendation was that the CRTC establish a discrete fund and that a piece of
the revenue obtained by telecommunications companies go into this fund. That fund could be
used, I presume, right across
I don't believe the CRTC has made a ruling on that point yet. I could check on that. In fact, if the member or other northern members want to lend their support to that approach or that method, if you like, then certainly we would appreciate any assistance. I do think there is a looming problem. The member knows exactly what I'm talking about. I see three northern members sitting across the way, and while they know that there have been benefits as we've moved to become a much less regulated society, I think they understand as well that there is a price to pay in the remote regions.
I am in danger of filibustering my estimates here, but I think this is an important issue and one that I do speak about quite a bit. You know, hon. member for Peace River North, of the difficulties your constituents are having in having to now take over and operate airports. You know that presents a huge financial burden for places like Fort Nelson.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I'm speaking just of airports, because I want to try to make a point which I think is important. Municipal governments now have to take over airports. Most if not all of those are money-losing operations, and very little can be done to actually revert those -- in other words, to make them profitable -- without putting in airport improvement fees, which we're starting to see now around the province. My guess is that you'll have one in Victoria before too long.
We know that the service
Under the old regulated system that we had 15 years ago, they would have received approval from the Canadian Transport Commission to service the route, and the fares would have been regulated. It wasn't a simple matter, then, of simply saying: "We're abandoning it. We're going to walk away from it." They had to go back to the CTC and seek permission.
So have northerners benefited from deregulation in transportation? Perhaps. But is there still some unfinished business -- some big prices to pay? Yes, definitely.
My view is that phone service is somewhat the same. The member is aware that it costs a lot of money to put phone
[ Page 12500 ]
service into some of those small communities. They don't have the economic base to afford that, so we're trying to help, through infrastructure grants and the like. But when it comes to competition at the retail level -- at the local phone level -- is there another burden that northerners are now going to have to face? Competition, at least in the initial stages, is a pretty tough fight -- it's one in which it's really a question of who blinks. Companies going into that kind of competitive environment go in knowing that they're going to lose money, and it's a fight to grab the business.
I think there's lots of issues that
B. Penner: Hon. Chair, my colleague from Matsqui is not able to be here today -- I believe he's under the weather. On his behalf, I'd like to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
B. Penner: There are students visiting today from Pacific Christian School in Abbotsford. Their teacher, Sonia Penner, is here along with six students and six adults. I understand that so far today, they've enjoyed a visit to Victoria and they've seen some of the other sights, and I hope that they'll be impressed with what they see taking place here in the Legislature. Would everyone here please make them welcome.
[1450]
R. Neufeld: I don't disagree with some of the issues that the minister talked about
-- the high cost of phone service -- but it is important
In my case, in Fort St. John, they downloaded some of the worst roads through the community and said: "You fix 'em." So I think it goes both ways -- just to remind the minister that it happens at the provincial level. I'll only mention that one -- there's a number of others.
In any case, the explanation about where it would be spent leads me to my next
question. The minister said that it would basically be rural B.C. -- I guess that means
anywhere out of the Golden Triangle -- yet when one reads the spring report, it doesn't
lead one to believe that. It would lead one to believe that the full $10 million is
regional, that being in the north. Maybe what I'll do is just
I guess if we're talking regional -- if everything out of Vancouver is regional, then
I'm not exactly sure
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. In addition to that, I will try to gather the information in terms of the spending that'll also take place with not only PLNet but other initiatives as well.
R. Neufeld: Thank you. I guess we've received -- at least I have -- two reports
now in the mail in the north -- "Report to Northerners" from the minister's
office
Hon. D. Miller: They come out of my budget. I believe the cost all in -- you notice we've gone to a newsprint format -- was, if I'm correct, around $10,000 to $11,000. So we think it's important to try to just put out a report that allows people in the north to feel kind of connected.
R. Neufeld: I'm just wondering where the budget comes from, because I don't have
a lot of problem with the report, other than mentioning some things a couple of times. But
I guess it will come
The other one was a letter that was sent out from the minister on March 31, 1999. It said: "Dear Northern Resident." I had this sent to me from the minister's constituency. To my knowledge, no one in my part of the north received this letter. Was this just a letter written to the minister's constituency? It's dated March 31, 1999, and it says: "Dear Northern Resident." It talks about a whole bunch of things and is signed by the minister.
Hon. D. Miller: I sign so much. Perhaps the member could either read some excerpts to refresh my memory or give me a copy.
R. Neufeld: I'll just send him over a copy, hon. Chair, and he can let me know a little bit later.
I don't have any other questions about northern development. My colleague the member for Peace River South has some questions about the northern commissioner.
J. Weisgerber: Yeah, I do have a few questions with respect to the Northern Development Commission and the northern commissioner's functions. The minister will recall that I was in support of the northern commission concept when the legislation was introduced in this House.
[1455]
During the debate around the legislation establishing the commission, I observed that one of the challenges for the commissioner and the success of the commission would be the cooperation, or the ability to get cooperation, from the line ministers and line ministries. I wonder if the minister can tell me or describe for me the relationship between the northern development commissioner and the deputy ministers in the line ministries in the province. Perhaps I'll give the minister a sense of where I want to go. Does the commissioner meet with the deputy ministers on a regular basis? Does he meet as part
[ Page 12501 ]
of a deputy ministers' economic council? What is the relationship between the northern development commissioner and the senior bureaucracy in the relevant line ministries?
Hon. D. Miller: There's no formal organizational chart that I can share with the
member. But we were conscious, in setting up the commission, that there needed to be an
ability to work with the line agencies, and for that reason we've structured the reporting
in the act
J. Weisgerber: Perhaps the minister can advise me of the level at which the northern development commissioner has been established within the bureaucratic framework. Is he an assistant deputy minister? Does he report to the deputy minister? Would he be more senior than an assistant deputy minister? Where in the organizational chart does the commissioner fit?
Hon. D. Miller: He would be at the deputy level.
J. Weisgerber: If indeed, then, the northern commissioner is the equivalent of a deputy minister responsible for northern development, would it be reasonable to expect that he would have open access to deputy ministers' meetings? Would the northern development commissioner have to make some formal application to sit in with the deputies on a given morning? Or could, in fact, the northern development commissioner simply show up as a matter of course and take his place along with the other deputies in those regular weekly or biweekly meetings that take place in this government -- and in all governments?
Not wanting to take anything away from the minister or previous ministers, we know that a lot of the decisions are made at the deputy minister level. We know that a lot of the obstacles can be overcome at that level, with cooperation from fellow deputies. So I'm wondering: are there constraints on the deputy minister, if he happens to be in Victoria on a Tuesday or Wednesday or Thursday morning, simply popping in and participating along with the other deputies?
Hon. D. Miller: Well, I don't know about constraints in terms of actually attending the meetings, but I want to respond and try to point out a couple of what I think are important points.
When we made the decision to proceed with the commissioner, we were conscious of the mandate, if I can use that term, that we received at the Premier's summit on northern development, which was that they wanted something that could be identified as being northern. They did not want a new bureaucracy. We listened to that, and we crafted the commissioner through legislation with, if you like, a degree of autonomy -- a separate piece of legislation. It was never our intention to set up a ministry of northern development, and in fact, we haven't. I'm the Minister Responsible for Northern Development, but I don't have, if you like, a bureaucracy or an agency that carries out that function on my behalf. We do have staff assigned that liaise. So the commissioner has got that degree of autonomy. It's a very small group; there are not a lot of employees. Unless there's a particular problem, which I'm happy to jump on, then I think we've got the structure set in an appropriate way.
[1500]
I hope the member realizes what I'm trying to say -- the kind of nuance here -- with respect to a line agency versus a commission headed by a person at the deputy level. Clearly, deputy ministers regularly consult me on issues that are important to the north. I'm sure that if there were significant problems, I would have heard about them, either from the deputies or from the commissioner himself.
J. Weisgerber: My concern is based on the experience we had with regionalization and with the difficulties of the people charged with that regionalization process -- some of whom worked for me as one of the ministers responsible -- being thwarted at the bureaucratic level when there was an initiative that needed to be corrected. All I'm trying to identify early on in the process is the mechanism by which this commissioner might circumvent the kinds of obstacles that I know of from personal experience and that others attempting to do similar work have come up against. So that's the reason for my questions along that line.
Hon. D. Miller: I appreciate the member's questions. I think I understand why he's asking. I think we had a fairly extensive discussion during debate on the legislation, and I talked about my own experience looking at previous attempts -- sincere attempts; I'm not being political when I say that -- both by the Barrett administration and, I think, by the Vander Zalm administration to have a mechanism whereby people in the regions could be heard and the government was in a position to respond to their issues.
I don't think there's a perfect model, but we did go through a lot of discussion about the model that we eventually chose. The Barrett model was flawed in that the minister didn't have the authority; other line ministries did what they were going to do anyway. As a result, I think that Mr. Nunweiler, the MLA from Prince George at that time -- who was a very decent individual -- often felt frustrated in trying to deliver on what northerners wanted him to do.
So we did in this instance try to clearly indicate that the focus of the commission was economic, that the commissioner could not possibly become all things to all people or be responsible for whatever happened in any ministry. I understand the member's question. I think we've got a model in its chain of command, if you like, or organizational chart, that ought to work. I think that the best way to overcome the kinds of difficulties that arise is, when you see them coming, to sit down and try to work out reasonable solutions. As I said, to date I've not been apprised of any significant issues involving the commissioner dealing with other ministries.
J. Weisgerber: I'm not aware of any particular problems that the commissioner has had in that respect. If I was, I would certainly bring them forward. I agree: I don't think anybody wanted to see a new line ministry created as the ministry of northern development, but rather they were looking at the commission model.
I think I heard the minister say that the commissioner couldn't be all things to all people. I'm troubled from time to time when I hear people wanting to go to the northern devel-
[ Page 12502 ]
opment commissioner to talk about health care issues and to talk about social issues or educational issues or a host of other social concerns -- entirely legitimate but, I think, outside of the mandate of the northern development commissioner.
[1505]
During the debates last year I expressed the opinion -- and at that time the minister appeared to agree with me -- that the real challenge for the commissioner, aside from sort of cutting through the internal difficulties within government, would be to, early on in the commission's life, identify some hard successes, some projects that the commissioner could with some pride point to and say: "Because of our commission and the work that I and the other members of my staff have done, we now have this project in this community, employing this number of people and generating wealth for the province" -- or whatever it might be.
[J. Cashore in the chair.]
I'm not aware that any of those successes have yet been achieved. If there have been any and I've missed them, I would certainly be happy to hear about them. If there are some that are near but still not signed and there is information available about those, I'd be interested in that as well.
But I am as convinced today -- perhaps more so, with the conflicting demands on the commission and the commissioner's office -- of the need to focus on what I think northerners in Prince George were talking about when this concept emerged. And that was somebody who was able to go and talk to prospective investors -- whether they be British Columbians or companies from Alberta or companies from Washington or heaven knows where -- to bring new investment dollars, domestic or otherwise, to work in northern British Columbia. I wonder if the minister could give me a sense of how he sees that element of the commission's mandate falling into place.
Hon. D. Miller: I did share with other members, last week in estimates, a list
of issues that the commissioner had been working on
I don't think the commissioner will always be able to stand publicly, sort of claim credit and say: "If it hadn't been for the commission, this wouldn't have happened." But I think the work of the commission on an ongoing basis will be integral to achieving some success. I received letters -- I can't recall their details now -- from individual companies who say that their issues have been resolved as a result of Mr. Backhouse's involvement. I'm speaking generally here. What I would like to do is perhaps have Mr. Backhouse directly develop that kind of information flow to you. There is a requirement for a report in the legislation. I can't recall the details of that, but there is a requirement for a reporting to this House, and again, that should provide more information and more detail on the work of the commission.
I think I used the term last week that it's a bit of a game of inches. Economic
development work tends to be that way. I think there have been some successes on a small
scale. Some of the relationship-building, I think, is important -- the recent announcement
by the commissioner that they've signed a protocol with the North Central Municipal
Association and those kinds of things. The relationship with economic development
commissions, both formal and even those ad hoc
[1510]
But I'm being a bit random here in my comments. The work has gone on, and we'll try to make more specific information available to the northern members.
J. Weisgerber: Let me finish by saying that what I would like to see more of
with the northern commissioner
I mention that because it's a project that I asked the commissioner to look at particularly and to go and meet with the principals. When he becomes aware of the specifics, then I believe that at his deputy minister level, he's uniquely positioned to come back and say: "Look, this is a very real impediment to investment in our province. I think we could resolve the issue, perhaps in conjunction with B.C. Rail or perhaps in conjunction with Hydro or any of the other Crowns or with line ministry functions."
I'm not being critical, but, very candidly, I want to see the commissioner spending less time with the municipal people and with the economic development people. There's a role for that work, but I'd like to see him out there, banging on doors at the very highest level. This is a person who has the prestige of a significant commission from the province of British Columbia, who I believe could market our province at a level that perhaps only a minister of the Crown might do and perhaps, in some cases, do more effectively than a minister of the Crown could do.
Hon. D. Miller: I certainly appreciate the input. I think this member has thought a lot about what we need to do to try to improve economic opportunity. If the commissioner is not listening, I'll certainly pass that message on. I hope that the member -- and all northern members, quite frankly -- continues to reinforce his views on what will work, because, again, regardless of affiliation, I think everybody wants the same thing.
[ Page 12503 ]
R. Neufeld: I guess, having gone through the discussion last week about the same
issues, I should put it on the record, to remind the minister, that the fall "Report
to Northerners" states very clearly that the northern commissioner will report
directly, and all his issues will be fast-tracked to cabinet -- it's called a
"pipeline to cabinet." So I'm hopeful that
[1515]
One quick comment. The minister talked about L-P and that the commissioner had an involvement with the L-P deal in the Peace country. Did I misunderstand, or is that correct? If he did, at what level? And what involvement would he have?
Hon. D. Miller: I think I used the term "very peripheral" with respect to that.
R. Neufeld: One last question. The natural resource community fund -- which, of
course, is not in your ministry
Has that fund -- other than for Cassiar -- been used to help any community in the north, which you're aware of, that relates to the northern part of the province that you now are responsible for? Has one dollar of that fund ever been used in any community other than Cassiar?
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not certain. There may have been some expenditures around Granisle. I thought there was around a study that was done by the district of Stewart, but my assistant deputy minister tells me that's not the case.
Quite frankly, trying to explain that natural resource community fund has been, over the years, a bit of a challenge. I have done this. I've explained it. I've been grilled on it by the likes of Kevin Evans. It didn't come off too well in that interview, though I thought I won the argument.
The fund was established
In other words, other
[1520]
Other sources of funding are available for the kinds of studies that have been done in some communities. Other support programs are available, and the natural resource community funding, in some ways, has become -- you may want to take this out and beat me up on it -- a bit anachronistic.
R. Neufeld: Actually, I just wanted to know whether any other community -- and I
wasn't aware of one either -- received any funding from that fund. Really, to me
We'll go into the Crown, BCR. We'll leave the rail division until last, and I'll just start with BCR Ventures. We talked briefly about Willow Creek coal earlier during estimates, so I don't need to get into it unless there is something that the minister wants to tell us about Willow Creek coal -- other than that everything seems to be kind of on hold until something changes with the market for coal. Are there any other things that BCR Ventures is presently involved in, other than the Willow Creek coal?
Hon. D. Miller: No, that's the only project.
R. Neufeld: BCR Properties. There is some concern -- and I've spoken a bit to Mr. McElligott about this issue -- from people who are in the private investment field and properties and those kinds of things about competing against a Crown for business out there. And I can appreciate that to a certain degree.
Some of the issues we're talking about -- Vancouver Wharves, for instance
Basically I want to get the minister's comments on it. I know that it's been brought to my attention by a number of people who are seriously concerned that BCR is moving into a wider area of development of commercial property. Maybe the minister could briefly explain it to me.
Hon. D. Miller: I've also been in receipt of correspondence from individuals as a result of the Langley announcement. I'm not certain how to distil the argument, necessarily. I mean, B.C. Rail is a commercial Crown, and I guess you could argue that everything they do competes with the private
[ Page 12504 ]
sector, if you accept that premise. Really, the member is saying that there ought to be a demarcation line somewhere. I just don't know where you'd put it.
[1525]
I think that the most important thing, from my point of view -- the one I'm obviously
most concerned about
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I understand the process that's being used, but I wanted to get on the record that there are some real concerns out there about this type of thing.
The other issue I want to ask the minister about, as it relates to investment
Hon. D. Miller: I'm not sure where the member read that, but let me try to put it this way. B.C. Rail does not get into the housing development business. It may be that some lands that are owned by B.C. Rail may be part of a package with the private sector, who would do that. But it's not B.C. Rail's intent to get into the housing development business.
R. Neufeld: It would be fair, then, to say that this could be a partnership -- that BCR Properties Ltd. is in negotiation with someone who is going to build a 200-unit condominium complex. Would it be fair to say that?
Hon. D. Miller: I think it probably may be easier for me to simply reiterate that it's not B.C. Rail's intention to actually get into the business of residential development. It may be that it's property that B.C. Rail owns, and other private sector property owners might in fact be involved in some discussions where developers might wish to acquire land for the purpose cited. Apart from that, I would undertake to have whoever the individual is in B.C. Rail who is most informed on this particular issue meet with the member to more fully inform the member on what's happening there.
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that offer. Maybe one question that comes out of that, and then I'll leave that alone. Have there been any sales of assets, of BCR property, in the last year, either through a partnership with another firm or an actual sale of land?
Hon. D. Miller: Just dealing with land -- yes, there have been.
R. Neufeld: Could the sale of land
[1530]
Hon. D. Miller: It's land that's owned by B.C. Rail, though not part of the core lands required for the rail business. The revenue obtained does fluctuate on an annual basis. Again, I would endeavour to arrange a more comprehensive briefing on which specific parcels and where, and those kinds of things, for the member.
R. Neufeld: Can he tell me what happens to that money if land is sold? If
there's a substantial amount of property that's sold that BCR owns, does that money stay
within the BCR Group of Companies, or is it
Hon. D. Miller: No, it stays within the B.C. Rail group.
R. Neufeld: So then BCAL does not handle any of the sales for the BCR Group of Companies. If there is property sold, it's handled within the B.C. Rail Group of Companies completely. Would that be fair to say?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, BCR Properties takes care of those issues. Again, I go back to your opening question. As an operating company with discrete divisions -- property, ventures, etc. -- B.C. Rail is constantly looking for ways in which they can maintain revenue -- in fact, I'd say, make significant reinvestments back into British Columbia, whether it be the hundred-odd million for Vancouver Wharves or the kind of ventures that they have entered into with the private sector. All of that goes back to try to create more opportunity and more wealth and, clearly, to maintain the economic position of B.C. Rail.
R. Neufeld: Talking about Vancouver Wharves
Hon. D. Miller: No. If you like
R. Neufeld: Taxes in lieu. The UBCM brought forward a concern that actually the taxes in lieu would be dropped dramatically this year. Is that in fact the case? If so, can the minister tell me the magnitude of it, please?
Hon. D. Miller: The real issue is that we've not expanded them; we've kept them at the same level.
R. Neufeld: I want to do a little bit around grain transportation in Dawson Creek -- the CN and B.C. Rail part of it. I know we discussed it a little bit last week, but the member for Peace River South indicated that he would like to ask some questions around that specifically, because it is his constituency. I yield to the member for Peace River South.
[ Page 12505 ]
[1535]
J. Weisgerber: For some time I've been interested in the issue of not only grain transportation but agribusiness development in the Dawson Creek area. Given the layout of Dawson Creek with respect to industrial land, the zoning and the prevailing winds, it's logical that most industrial expansion -- whether agribusiness or otherwise -- would wind up on the east side of Dawson Creek, east of the B.C. Rail interchange on the CN line.
I'm greatly concerned, and have been over the last months, with CN's plans to short-line some of its northern lines. Given those concerns, along with various announcements and bits of information around the future of the trestle at Pouce Coupe, I know that I have in the past raised with the minister, during discussions around B.C. Rail, the possibility of acquiring that section of B.C. Rail which lies within the province of British Columbia, particularly the track between the Pouce Coupe trestle and the Dawson Creek interchange. I wonder if the minister can advise me whether there's been any progress in that area and what the status of those negotiations with CN Rail might be.
Hon. D. Miller: Again, not to belabour the broader issue, because I think the
member understands the short-line issue and the potential for severing the rail link into
Dawson Creek
I think it's very unfortunate, really. I had a vision, and that vision was to try to
capture Alberta Peace River grain, funnel it into Dawson Creek and from Dawson Creek down
B.C. Rail to the CN line at Prince George and then out to the modern grain terminal in
Prince Rupert. That was my vision. We were moving along nicely until the CN decision to
short-line. Unfortunately, while there's a very good, strong economic argument and studies
done by the Northern Alberta Development Council, all of which say that if we're going to
sell grain, the cheapest way to get it to the marketplace is the way I've just described
J. Weisgerber: The study done by the Northern Alberta Development Council, as I recall it, was very strong in its argument that the best way to ship Alberta Peace River grain out of about 90 percent of the Peace was to truck it to Dawson Creek and ship it by B.C. Rail from Dawson Creek to the west coast, whether it be to Prince Rupert -- and I share the minister's hope that it would be Prince Rupert -- or to Vancouver.
Here my knowledge is probably less complete than it should be, but the major grain-handling elevators in Dawson Creek are on the CN line to the east of the interchange. It's my understanding that that gives them primary control over rate-setting, routing and all of the things that go with that. So I don't think it's a matter of maintaining a rail link with Beaverlodge or Grande Prairie, as much as, within that reasonably short track area, having control for B.C. Rail. That's what I would like to see. I want to see us, perhaps through the northern development commissioner, be able to go out and make this strong argument supported by the Northern Alberta Development Council. Perhaps, before I get too far down that train of thought, I could ask the minister to clarify that.
[1540]
Hon. D. Miller: I should also inform the member, by the way, that we do have an agreement-in-principle with CN that we will take over all the switching, including in their Dawson Creek yard.
I guess, really, one could surmise that if -- and the member referred to studies that
suggest that trucking would be an economical way to get Alberta grain to Dawson Creek
Either way it happens, I don't particularly care. What I'd like to do is increase the utilization of our rail infrastructure and our port infrastructure in northern British Columbia -- I would think for the benefit of both B.C. and Alberta grain farmers.
J. Weisgerber: Certainly I have no argument with that concept. I think the reality of the geography of the existing rail lines doesn't really support that process. The rail lines in Alberta, in the Peace, run primarily north and south, with the exception of the line that runs from Grande Prairie through to Dawson Creek, which is kind of southeast-northwest. Beyond that, it seems to me that it's in CN's interest to funnel grain from the major grain-growing areas, which are the large inland terminals at Spirit River and Fairview, and that CN has absolutely no interest in sharing that traffic with B.C. Rail.
I realize this becomes a complex issue, and I wouldn't want to take the time that's necessary to explore all of those possibilities. I do have an ongoing concern, though, that CN may wind up abandoning that trestle at Pouce Coupe, which I understand is a several-million-dollar wood trestle. I'm hoping that B.C. Rail will have started some discussions with CN which would see, if there's going to be a severance of that line on an ongoing basis, the track linked to B.C. Rail come under B.C. Rail control, as opposed to some ten miles of tracks essentially wagging the dog with respect to the traffic that's generated on the eastern parts of Dawson Creek and in the B.C. Peace -- in that region.
[1545]
Hon. D. Miller: The member is correct in terms of the Alberta line. There are really two lines. If you perhaps try to
[ Page 12506 ]
visualize a tuning fork at the bottom, the lines actually do connect. There's a major connection there called Watino Bridge that requires a significant amount of capital to upgrade, and CN clearly is not going to do that. Similarly, if their interest is in feeding Alberta grain into their system in Alberta, they don't see their commercial interest necessarily as funnelling that grain into Dawson Creek. It's a bit unfortunate. I mean, B.C. Rail can't substantiate making an investment where there's no return -- even though I understand what the member is saying.
We're open with respect to wanting to work with CN. The conundrum is this. All railways
try to maximize their tonnage, particularly their long-haul tonnage. All of them do that.
They act in what is arguably their own best interest, trying to secure as much movement on
their rail lines as possible. There's nothing wrong with that as an objective, if you're
just running a rail line. Indeed, B.C. Rail has the same mandate. But where we were able
to craft an agreement in Prince George and Dawson Creek was that
I guess my message is this. While I understand the imperative of running a railway and
wanting to ensure that you get the revenue so that you can get a return to your
shareholders, I worry about national objectives -- in this case, I guess, the provincial
I mean, we seem to have thrown on the scrap heap all of those policy bases we used to
have in this country. We used to worry about our national port system; we used to worry
about the movement of a significant resource -- the grain resource -- to the coast and to
the market. I spoke earlier, and perhaps went on at too great a length, about some of the
costs we've paid for deregulation of the transportation system. I tried to provide a
warning as to some of the things that we're going to have to deal with in
telecommunications. I guess, really, the balance
We're going to continue to focus on northern B.C. I haven't given up, by any means. I want to assure the member of that. If there are ways in which we can achieve that broad objective, we're going to continue to work very hard to see if we can't do that.
J. Weisgerber: Well, it's an interesting debate, and I think it's probably one that the minister and I have had before and one we probably don't disagree on. If indeed railways are only going to maximize profits -- if that's the only objective for railways -- then they might as well privatize them. There is absolutely no reason for a government to manage a corporation if its only objective is for profit. It's better to privatize it.
[1550]
Having said that, I think the federal government did make a serious, fundamental mistake in taking that approach with CN. Surely there have to be larger public policy issues that government -- whether it be the provincial government with B.C. Rail or the federal government with CN -- can look to railways for. The same, I believe, applies with B.C. Rail. I think that the compelling argument against privatization of B.C. Rail has to be its ability to deliver on public policy objectives, whether that be northern development or maintaining service into specific communities or regions of the province. That has to be the argument. I'm worried that the federal government has now taken this privatization initiative with CN. CN operates only to its own advantage, not to the advantage of regions of the province or industrial segments within the country. I think we're a poorer country as a result of that exercise.
Perhaps it's the pendulum having swung too far. Perhaps for so many decades the Canadian Wheat Board and all of the grain transportation infrastructure was too closely involved with grain transportation. I think now it's too far divorced. There's nothing that you or I can do about that except with respect to British Columbia, and it's only in that interest that I have the specific interest in that particular bit of track that CN has in northeastern British Columbia. I'm really just looking for an assurance that there is some dialogue or some ongoing expression of interest in place so that if CN decides to make a policy decision with respect to that track, we're there front and centre with our interest clearly having been established.
Hon. D. Miller: I'll say this. We're always open for business, and we do
understand and appreciate the public mandate. In other words, B.C. Rail is a Crown
corporation. We're also cognizant that while that public mandate is a serious and
important one, fundamentally B.C. Rail also has to ensure that it remains a profitable
Crown corporation so that it doesn't become a burden on the general taxpayer. That balance
is being met, in my view, fairly well. The member and I
J. Weisgerber: Not wanting to swell the heads of either the minister or the B.C. Rail officials that are there with him, I too believe that B.C. Rail is doing a good job of balancing those interests. I don't have an argument in that area. Again I raise this thing. It's an issue that I have an ongoing interest in, and it's one that I simply want to ensure that B.C. Rail, in its many other endeavours, doesn't lose sight of.
R. Neufeld: Last week it was brought to light in question period that there were
some huge expected losses in jobs in the forest industry in British Columbia, in fact,
projected by the Ministry of Forests themselves. I forget the number
G. Farrell-Collins: Eighteen thousand in two years.
R. Neufeld: Eighteen thousand jobs in two years. That's obviously going to have a huge impact on BCR's car loadings. It's a reverberating effect through the whole economy of the province. I just wonder if the minister could brief me a bit on how the loadings are at the present time. Are they expected to
[ Page 12507 ]
be
[1555]
Hon. D. Miller: There's no question that the reduced shipments not just of forest products but other commodities as well have had an impact on B.C. Rail. I think that about four sawmills along the line were closed; I can't name the particular ones. It's a bit of a worry. I guess the question is: have we bottomed out? There is a sense that we have, but there's nothing appreciable at this stage on the commodity shipment side that says we're going like that.
My own sense is that there's been a bit of a bottoming out. I think that it obviously takes some time to produce results. With L-P and, hopefully, Slocan as well, who are currently going through a public hearing on their PA licence, I think it's fair to say that, given the forest resource in the northeast, there will be an improvement over time in the volume of products that are manufactured in the northeast and then shipped on B.C. Rail.
R. Neufeld: I appreciate that there are some new plants that are planned but
still not producing. Would it be fair, then, to say that the 18,000 jobs that were
projected to be lost within the next year or two in the forest industry alone are not
located on the B.C. Rail line? Are they actual
Hon. D. Miller: Well, no. I hope I didn't convey a false impression. It's not
that I'm not concerned about B.C. Rail; I am. As to the specifics, again, I'll try to -- I
hope the member will appreciate this
Really, I think all British Columbians ought to agree that that's reasonable. We've seen in other regions of the country that have experienced some very severe difficulties that there is a role for the federal government to play. Certainly Atlantic Canada -- on an ongoing basis, really, but more particularly over the last decade, on the fisheries -- has been the recipient of a significant amount of federal assistance. We saw, with the collapse last year of both the hog and the grain markets, the federal government put up $400 million, I think it was -- it might even have been higher -- and make that available to provinces. Now, I think the caveat on that particular program was that they wanted provincial governments to match those expenditures.
So here we have the federal government playing a role in Atlantic Canada when industries are in decline. We have the federal government playing a role in the prairie provinces when the market, both in price and volume, for those commodities went south. And we were simply trying to say, as a provincial government, that our forest sector here in British Columbia was undergoing the same kinds of rather gut-wrenching and traumatic economic upheavals and that we thought it was appropriate for the federal government to play a role here as well.
[1600]
As to the forest sector itself
The coastal industry, on the other hand, repositioned itself a number of years ago -- I think with the encouragement of previous governments, not just ours -- to be more responsive to other market opportunities, as a strategy -- a good strategy. But I don't think anybody would not recognize that the Asian downturn has had a severe and traumatic impact on the coastal industry. It needs to look at itself in terms of: where is the future in the coastal industry?
I don't think any of these are easy questions. It's interesting, when you do posit some ideas, how quickly they generate all kinds of comment -- most of it negative. It leaves you wondering sometimes just what it is that we ought to be doing. I've seen a lot of those ideas put forward in the past, and every one of them -- or most of them -- got creamed. So it's kind of an interesting challenge as to what it is that we ought to be doing in the forest sector. I've expressed my views, and I've taken a few shots as a result of it, but all of that was intended to try to offer up some new ideas. If the approach we've taken over the last 20 years needs some fine-tuning, then maybe we ought to have some courage and look at fine-tuning it.
R. Neufeld: I don't want to belabour this too much longer, but I know that when
I read the report, I immediately thought of what would happen to BCR's revenue and railcar
loadings. It's a serious issue that
I want to go on to another issue quickly -- the proposed Alaska-to-Washington rail line. I don't have my notes in front of me, but I wonder: has there been any discussion between B.C. Rail and the Alaska government as to any issues around this in the long term -- actually bringing the rail down? I know that was a dream years ago, when rail was planned to go through to Cassiar, into that rea of the province. I just wonder if there have been any discussions around that with the Alaska government.
Hon. D. Miller: No, there have not been. Harking back to the previous set of
questions, I guess, if I could go back and search for an analogy, it's perhaps not unlike
the government of '86 to '91, in terms of their desire
[ Page 12508 ]
but I do recall him saying that the federal government should pony up for FRDA 2 to the tune of about a billion dollars. I guess that, historically, Ministers of Forests from British Columbia have always tried to approach the federal government when they thought it was reasonable to have some federal participation, and this government is following in that honourable tradition.
[H. Giesbrecht in the chair.]
R. Neufeld: I'm sure that the member had many good discussions with the Minister of Forests in those days.
I want to go on to the heritage train, just to get some clarification. Obviously there are some issues around that; there are a number of issues.
[1605]
The member for Matsqui sent me some correspondence that he had with the minister and with B.C. Rail on the policy of getting rid of assets -- asset disposal. I know that last year, in fact, the member for Matsqui asked questions at about the same time -- May 21 -- about the policy of B.C. Rail on asset disposal. The minister at the time said that he would get a copy of that policy and forward it to the member. I just want to ask the minister again this year if he would care to forward that policy -- one year later -- to the member for Matsqui, so that he can have a read of what the policy is.
Hon. D. Miller: I'm certainly sorry to hear that the member for Matsqui is under the weather.
Interjection.
Hon. D. Miller: We're used to being under the weather a lot in Prince Rupert.
As I once remarked to the member for, I think, Oak Bay-Gordon Head, I'm not sure what the policy is, but I'm sure they're following it. But the answer is yes, we'll try to get that policy. If indeed it's available, we'll send it over.
R. Neufeld: Thank you. So I can assume that the member for Matsqui won't be after me in the near future about not receiving the policy.
Two other issues around the society and the dinner train issue are the policy of purchasing cars out of the U.S. instead of working with the society and, secondly, the cancellation of the highly successful parlour class service. Maybe the minister would like to comment on both of those, please.
Hon. D. Miller: We did canvass this issue last year. I actually have not even looked at it since, and I've forgotten a lot of the details. Let me try to blanket the issue by saying this: I did look into it very closely. There were allegations back and forth; in fact, there may even be legal issues. Having looked at all of these issues, I came away with the view that B.C. Rail had conducted themselves properly in an aboveboard way consistent with the kind of good business principles that we would want in a Crown corporation. I say that without hesitation, despite the fact that there may be ongoing issues that individuals or societies have with B.C. Rail. I refuse to get further drawn into that dispute, and I think that the benefit for British Columbians and for B.C. Rail has been very good.
I think the dinner train is a good tourist attraction. It generates revenue for B.C.
Rail. I've not had the opportunity, despite the very kind invitations of Mr. McElligott,
to go on the train yet, except to look at it in the yard. But I would like to at some
point, because I hear it's just a delightful trip. Any issues that the National Railway
Historical Society or any individuals might have with respect to B.C. Rail
R. Neufeld: One last question about it: is this case actually in court? Is there a court case pending against B.C. Rail from this society?
Hon. D. Miller: I can't answer specifically. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the society and Mr. McElligott.
R. Neufeld: I want to ask a little bit about the debt of B.C. Rail. In 1992 --
when your government came to power, actually -- B.C. Rail's debt stood at $256 million,
rounding it off. Today it's at $591.5 million -- or it's expected to be by the year 2000.
That's over double the debt. In fact, it increases the debt of B.C. Rail by about $335.7
million. I can see by the net debt summary that the increase in debt for the projected
year is another $17 million. I wonder if the minister could tell me whether he feels
confident -- and this is no
[1610]
I want to get a sense from the minister whether he feels that that kind of debt load is
something that B.C. Rail can carry comfortably on their own into the future. Are you
anticipating further large increases to the debt? As I spoke about earlier, it's over
double under two terms of the NDP administration. I think it's sizeable. If the minister
could answer that question and also what the $17 million of new debt actually is for
Hon. D. Miller: It's a good question, and really, I will try to give an answer
that explains the
My general sense is that B.C. Rail is a well-managed Crown corporation. It's not just because Mr. McElligott tells me that that I stand here and say that. Others in the business sector who look at these kind of things generally give Rail some pretty decent marks for their management of the enterprise. You have to look at that need. If Rail, many years ago, said, "We are just going to run a railway and nothing else," perhaps I'd be standing here today and we would not have a commercial Crown at all. Instead, we do have one that has made some significant investments and is prepared to make
[ Page 12509 ]
further investments, if the return is something that adds to the bottom line and if they're prudent investments and they're supported by the board.
I don't have any particular concerns about the fact that the debt level is what it is, but I do have an ongoing concern, particularly in the north. I'm not really trying to be alarmist at all. Certainly the prospect of, for example, the failure of northeast coal causes me to get pretty nervous at times. That, unfortunately, is not within the purview directly of the provincial government. If there were to be a cataclysmic event of that nature, then clearly it would have consequences, but who can look into the future? In the meantime, I think the company is looking at areas of investment that make sense, that fit with the business plan and the overall scope of the business and that produce revenue to retain the commercial viability of B.C. Rail.
R. Neufeld: That answers one part of the question. Could the minister maybe
Hon. D. Miller: We will get a detailed note to the member on that question.
R. Neufeld: Thank you.
There has been a fair amount of speculation and discussion about the dividend payable to the province by B.C. Rail. Could the minister tell me what the dividend was for last year -- 1998 -- from B.C. Rail to the government and what the government is expecting from B.C. Rail in this coming year?
[1615]
Hon. D. Miller: I think the budget documents say the dividend is $31 million for
'99, if I'm not mistaken. The corporation paid $40 million in 1998. When we look, overall,
at the dividend and assume, for example, that they ought to have paid a regular dividend
of about $10 million a year
Last year was not normal, in that WesTel was sold. There was clearly a capital value realized on that, and so the dividend last year was higher than it normally would have been.
R. Neufeld: Is there a rule of thumb around the government deciding how much of a dividend it's going to request from the company? Obviously B.C. Rail doesn't say, out of the goodness of their heart: "Well, this year we're going to give them $40 million" -- or, last year, $31 million. Is there some process that the government actually goes through? I hope it's not just tied to the sale of assets. I heard the minister say -- and we all know -- that WesTel was sold last year for, I think, $60 million or something in that neighbourhood. But if they sell X amount of property or something, does the government get a certain percentage? How is that determined?
Hon. D. Miller: It's not too clear just how far back
You might argue that historically $10 million a year was notionally a target, but for
several years there was no payment. So those are issues that there has been some
discussion on, and I can advise the member that there's ongoing discussion about how you
would not formulize but set up some kind of policy base with respect to B.C. Rail's
dividend. I don't know that you could nail it down absolutely hard and fast. For example,
if there were a decision by future governments to dispose of a significant asset of B.C.
Rail's, would they, looking at that, say: "Well, we think there ought to be a larger
dividend payment to the Crown"? I suspect that some Finance minister would look at it
and say: "Yeah, but
So we're trying to deal with a more discrete policy framework around dividends. It's not been finalized yet.
F. Gingell: Just to remind the minister: perhaps a lot of the province will reinvest in the early years in redemption of a whole series of redeemable preferred shares. I think the public accepted that that was sort of a permanent cap. I don't think you should add it on again now as something that is distributable. B.C. Rail went out and borrowed a whole bunch of money in the 1970s in the form of redeemable preferred shares that were tradable. I'm sure people on the board will remember that. Profits were reinvested to repay that debt -- done on a permanent basis, not just on a temporary loan.
[1620]
But anyway, perhaps the minister and the CEO will remember that we got into a discussion in 1997 relative to the presentation of financial statements. Unfortunately, circumstances didn't allow me to enter into the discussion in 1998. But I was critical at the time, in '97. In my opinion, B.C. Rail did not meet the standards of a public company in the disclosure of financial information dealing with geographic and departmental or different business organizations. And the defence that was made in estimates, which we had in the small room, was that B.C. Rail was a private company and not a public company, and that to me is absolute nonsense. There is no more publicly owned company than a Crown corporation. I mean, to suggest anything different is an insult to the taxpayers and the citizens.
Now, as a result of that discussion, I wrote a letter to B.C. Rail and asked them to
have this matter referred to the audit committee, from which I've had no response. And
that's two years ago. I really do consider your defence that it is a private company to be
completely unacceptable. That's just
Hon. D. Miller: I do recall -- if not in absolute detail -- some of the
discussion we held at that time. I think I probably confessed then -- and confess now --
that when it comes to the intricacies of reporting and accounting, I'm not your man, if
you like. But the member did raise
Interjections.
[ Page 12510 ]
Hon. D. Miller: I confess that I don't how to fly a plane either, and I probably
have one or two other deficiencies that I haven't noticed. I do like debating and
conveying ideas to the public, but anyway
I understand that that issue was put to both the external auditors and the audit committee. I understand -- although I don't want to absolutely confirm anything here -- that they may have disagreed with your contention. We do have an annual report that is due soon, and I would be delighted to provide an opportunity for the member and others who might be interested to continue a level of discussion around these questions.
I do, though, sincerely believe that B.C. Rail
There are some significant hurdles that we face in moving forward. But, having confessed that I'm not an accountant and don't understand these issues that well, I'd be happy just to confirm that we'll provide a forum where the member opposite could have further discussion.
F. Gingell: I would like to suggest to the minister that B.C. Rail is somewhat secretive. The people that they compete with and do business with and cooperate with -- CP, CN, Burlington Northern, whoever -- are all set to a different set of standards. It isn't just B.C. Rail; it is the right of taxpayers and of members of this House to have an opportunity to evaluate these wonderful investments. I was on the Fraser River Harbour Commission for what seemed like forever, and I know a lot about Vancouver Wharves and the issues that Vancouver Wharves have gone through. I understand these things. I don't think that's private information. The harbour commission publishes their financial statements. The National Harbours Board does, in a very broad way. They're dealing with the various business operations and dealing with the geographic issues. I sincerely welcome your offer, but I do think that we as legislators have a responsibility for the thing that we speak about most, which is accountability. Without information, there is no accountability.
[1625]
Hon. D. Miller: I take the member's counsel, Mr. Chairman. I was reminded of a
"Calvin and Hobbes" cartoon that I have posted, of all places, in the washroom
of my constituency office in Prince Rupert. It's a delightful cartoon in about ten panels
that has a discussion going on between Calvin and Hobbes, where one of them is lamenting
the fact that we know more about the private lives of "famous individuals" than
we do about most matters of public policy or public importance -- which I think is true,
actually. The solution they came up with was one that I don't know would work in practice,
which is
Interjections.
Hon. D. Miller: Maybe there's more to it than I've given credit to, but I keep
it there because it does remind me that in fact
R. Neufeld: I can only assume from that last response that the minister is going to start opening up the process a little bit more and letting all British Columbians know what really takes place as a matter of public policy and what's going on in the province.
I want to ask a few questions around the value of BCR and group of companies. Is there a book value of BCR and its group of companies that would include all of its assets, including land and track and rail and wharves and you-name-it -- everything that the BCR Group of Companies owns and operates?
Hon. D. Miller: Yes, the audited financial statements represent the values.
R. Neufeld: When will those audited financial statements for this last year be available?
Hon. D. Miller: They're at the printers.
[1630]
R. Neufeld: With the B.C. Rail officials here, can you give me some sense of what it says the value is? Is that easy enough to do?
[W. Hartley in the chair.]
Hon. D. Miller: I can, although I would prefer
R. Neufeld: That $1.6 billion, in round numbers -- I'm not wanting to get right
down to the
Hon. D. Miller: Yes. Obviously there are other entries on top of that -- cash, receivables and those kinds of things. But yes, in terms of the asset base, it's about $1.6 billion.
R. Neufeld: So with the $590 million debt, obviously there's about a million dollars' worth of assets that are on the books. I just wonder, with the government's moves in the last while, if there has ever been any discussion by the government with B.C. Rail about privatization -- about the sale of those assets. Has there been discussion in the last year or two years with anyone on the privatization of B.C. Rail and its companies?
[ Page 12511 ]
Hon. D. Miller: No, although I must inform the House that occasionally a little message will fly into my office saying that there's some interest. But no, we have not had any discussions whatsoever.
R. Neufeld: I want to explore that a little bit further, because I have heard a few things that are a bit different than that, and maybe the minister can clarify those for myself and British Columbians. I'm told that actually there are some serious discussions going on at the present time about the disposal of B.C. Rail and the B.C. Railway Group of Companies. One of the names that comes to light is the group of companies that owns Burlington Northern. They have some serious interest in BCR, simply because it would add to the infrastructure that they already have across the U.S., all the way over to the east coast and which actually comes up into the Vancouver area. I'm told that they have some interests in some of the coal deposits in northeastern British Columbia and that they are looking seriously at wanting to purchase B.C. Rail.
But if the minister is telling me unequivocally that there is absolutely no discussion, then I will take the minister at his word that there are no discussions with either the CEO of B.C. Rail or the minister and that no one else in cabinet has had any discussions. I've also been told that one of your cabinet colleagues has been discussing the fact that B.C. Rail is on the verge of being privatized as we speak. That comes from some of your colleagues on your side of the House. It may seem funny to you, but it makes British Columbians wonder just what's going on. So I'd like to get that assurance again that none of it, in fact, is true. Or, if there have been any discussions, please let me know.
Hon. D. Miller: I can say without hesitation, unequivocally, that the last time there was a discussion around privatizing B.C. Rail, it came from the Leader of the Opposition. I think he learned his lesson over it. There's been a dramatic retreat on the other side from that policy. Neither I nor Mr. McElligott -- or any of the officials at B.C. Rail -- have had any discussions whatsoever with anybody about privatizing the rail business.
I don't know about Burlington Northern. I thought I knew what was going on in northeastern B.C. around coal. I've had some discussions with other people besides Teck, and I hadn't heard that before. I guess that in the future, if some government decides they want to pursue that course of action, you might get an interesting bidding war going. But no discussion whatsoever.
[1635]
R. Neufeld: I thank the minister for that. You never know whether what you hear is true or not or, if you read it on the bathroom wall, whether you can relate it or not.
I have no further questions with regard to your estimates -- unless any of my colleagues have any questions. I see everyone saying no.
With that, I want to thank the BCR people who are here today for their input, from the official opposition and myself as critic. Having been a recipient of B.C. Rail services for quite a number of years in northeastern B.C., I know that they are a well-run company, and I have the utmost respect for that. I also want to thank your officials from the northern commissioner's office, your Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines and yourself for your forthright responses to our questions. I think it was valuable time that we spent, for the most part.
With that, I don't think I have any further questions.
Hon. D. Miller: I would also like to thank the various officials who supported me throughout the estimates, but particularly note that I think the tone of the discussion we've held in these estimates has been very good. The last time I had that cooperative a discussion, actually, was when I was Forests critic and Mr. Richmond was the Forests minister, which shows that perhaps it is long overdue. I really would like to thank my hon. friend the critic for the tone of those discussions. I only got mad once, and that's when some stray wandered in and tried to make a point that was inappropriate.
Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could call the vote, then move the next one.
Vote 25 approved.
Hon. D. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that "stray" is parliamentary. So if I have offended anybody, I would like to withdraw before they get offended. We'll take it up in another forum, actually.
Vote 26: resource revenue-sharing agreements, $1,200,000 -- approved.
Hon. D. Miller: I would call in this committee the estimates of the Ministry of Women's Equality. Perhaps we could allow some time for the minister and her staff to come into the House.
The Chair: Member for Peace River North?
R. Neufeld: Yeah, just some clarification. We understood that it was the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, unless it's just been changed. I think it's Women's Equality in the small House -- but a bit of confusion. We'll get it sorted out, because the critic is here, ready.
The Chair: Thank you, members. We have everyone here we need now, then.
[1640]
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION,
TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY AND
MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS
On vote 11: ministry operations, $1,717,327,000.
Hon. A. Petter: I am very proud to be able to present the second annual estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology. This has been a relatively new ministry, created last year. In its first year the ministry has, I believe, made some great strides towards the goal of improving advanced education and skills training in our province, a vision that is designed to enhance our growing reputation as Canada's education province.
These estimates bring together post-secondary education programs, skill development programs, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, the Information, Science and Technology Agency, the Crown corporations secretariat,
[ Page 12512 ]
the B.C. 2000 project and the office for disability issues, to name not all but most of the operations covered by these estimates.
Before proceeding, I would like to start by acknowledging the efforts of the skilled and dedicated staff and professionals who work in the ministry and whose effort has enabled these programs to be as successful as I believe them to have been. Those staff are not often enough recognized, but their effort is crucial. They are the reason why a ministry such as this is able to deliver the programs as effectively as this ministry is able to do. The House will no doubt have the ability to see some of the staff that come through during the estimates process, and I would simply point out that behind each and every one of the individuals who show up in the House, there are literally tens -- it's not a large ministry; maybe hundreds, but not much more than that -- of others who are dedicated and who are working with respect to these programs.
I just want to speak, very briefly, but a little bit philosophically, about what this ministry is about and what we're trying to achieve, as a government, through this ministry. The fact is that we are approaching a very critical time in our development as a country, and I would argue that the issues that we confront are not different from those that are confronting many other countries around the world. The fact is that we are entering a phase in our development as a country -- along with other countries -- in which the knowledge-based economy is becoming a reality and in which people's opportunity to share in the benefits of the economy is becoming increasingly dependent upon their access to knowledge, their access to skills and their access to training and post-secondary education. That being the case, we run a real risk of becoming a society of haves and have-nots, based upon access and lack of access to the skills and knowledge that are necessary to participate in, partake of and share in the benefits of a knowledge-based economy.
I would argue, as we move forward into this new economy, that if we are to maintain the social progress that we've made in the twentieth century towards creating a thriving middle-class, towards breaking down some of the barriers between rich and poor, and towards providing a meaningful opportunity -- through a social safety net and other initiatives -- for people to share in the benefits of society, the thing we must not lose sight of as we move forward in a major new economic environment -- one in which people are increasingly being pressured by their access to knowledge; in which people are increasingly being dislocated from traditional workplaces and work environments into new workplaces and work environments which are more competitive; and in which they are pushed more and more, based on their knowledge -- is that it's absolutely essential that we make sure that we provide the support to each and every citizen who has it within their grasp and their vision to be part of that knowledge-based economy, and that we provide to those citizens every opportunity to do so and every kind of support.
[1645]
If we are to ensure that equality of opportunity means something in this society, if we're to ensure that equality of opportunity can translate into some meaningful quality of outcome, we have to make sure that people -- particularly young people, who are at their most formative stage -- have the tools to gain the knowledge to be full participants and to share in the benefits of this society.
What I fear is that if we don't do that, if we don't put our efforts strongly in that direction, we will end up in a society in which there is a highly educated and technically literate elite that will set itself above the rest of society -- an elite that will be able to, by virtue of its access to private education, private health care and private police, retreat increasingly into an environment in which it is set apart from society as a whole. That would be a huge step backwards, essentially back towards the kind of breakdown that existed in the nineteenth century between haves and have-nots, which the twentieth century and the emergence of the welfare state, labour laws and the like helped to overcome.
If we're to avoid that step backwards, we've got to now put our efforts into education -- to making sure that everyone has access to education. Basic education today -- unlike when I went to school and certainly unlike the case in the mid-part of the twentieth century -- is no longer simply a secondary or primary education. A high school education is no longer basic; post-secondary education is now basic.
As we developed, in the twentieth century, a commitment to universal access to basic
education -- meaning primary and secondary education -- we must now
I wanted to put that larger context before the House and before the opposition, because I think it does frame my thinking and that of the government around this issue. This government has made an extraordinary commitment to post-secondary funding and to access to post-secondary education. Lest people think that is an accident, I want members of this House to know that it is no accident. It is part of a concerted effort to keep the doors of education open wide, to ensure that the post-secondary education that is now basic is as accessible as possible to every British Columbian who has the will and energy to put in the effort to gain that education.
For that reason, we are one of the only governments in Canada that has consistently increased funding for advanced education, providing budget increases every year since 1991. We've done that, as members of this House will know, in spite of the fact that the federal government has taken millions and millions of dollars out of post-secondary education. About $100 million less is transmitted to the province by the federal government today than was the case, certainly, five years ago. Despite that withdrawal of funding from the federal government, we have increased funding year after year after year and reallocated it from other areas, because we do see this as an area of priority. We do see this as a signature area of commitment to young people and to our future in this province. We've allocated $250 million more to post-secondary education in the past seven years -- an increase of 24 percent. We've done that, as I say, in spite of the fact that federal funding was being withdrawn at the same time. So we not only had to make up the increase, we had to make up the shortfall in terms of federal dollars.
We are continuing that pattern in this year's budget, for this year's estimates, by investing an increase of $24.6 million for post-secondary education this fiscal year, bringing the total budget for advanced education in B.C. to more than $1.3
[ Page 12513 ]
billion for this fiscal year. By doing that, we are going to be able to create 2,900 new, fully funded student spaces around the province, bringing the total to nearly 16,000 new spaces since 1996 and keeping us on track to meet our goal of 20,000 new spaces to be created by the year 2001.
I'm very happy to say that those spaces have been created throughout the province, and they have been created without increasing tuition. As members know, this government -- again, in a way that is out of step with much of the thinking in Alberta and Ontario and other provinces -- has kept tuition frozen for four years in a row, while other jurisdictions have increased tuition substantially. That's further evidence of our commitment to access -- to opening the doors wider. More spaces, frozen fees and more support for students' assistance all mean that enrolment has increased by 10 percent since 1992 in this province. If members want to put that into some context, elsewhere in the country enrolment has dropped by 4.4 percent throughout that same period.
[1650]
So we've been swimming in a different way from other governments. While other governments have been following down the federal river of funding cuts for post-secondary education, we've been swimming up the river -- up to higher standards, more access and more resources. As a result, we've gone from the second-highest fees in the country to the second-lowest, and we've gone from the second-lowest participation rates to the second-highest. What I'm particularly proud of is the fact that those participation rates have increased twice as fast in the rural areas of the province -- in areas outside the lower mainland and outside of greater Victoria -- than they have in those urban centres. That's a sign of our commitment to bringing education closer to communities and closer to people -- through the University of Northern British Columbia, through an expansion of the college system and through university colleges that have been created out of the college system in recent years.
That's the kind of commitment that this government has made. It is a signature of this government, and it does set us apart from other governments. I'm very proud of it, because I do think it's very much tied to the question of what we are going to do as a society to ensure that everyone has access to the tools to be full and active and meaningful participants in an increasingly competitive economy -- one whose major criteria for success will be based on access to knowledge.
We've also taken efforts in this year's budget and in last year's budget to increase research at our universities. Last year we announced a $100 million knowledge development fund to help public post-secondary institutions invest in research infrastructure, and that funding is continuing throughout this year's budget. Announcements are to be made shortly on some of the successful applicants for that funding.
That funding is matched by funding from Canada, by the Foundation for Innovation, as well as from the private sector. Together with that matched funding, it will enable us to invest some $250 million in the enhancement of research infrastructure in B.C. over the next five years. That's a critical investment in our research capacity, because that will translate into the jobs and opportunities of tomorrow. We've been very careful that the B.C. component of that funding -- the criteria -- is tied to the creation of jobs and opportunities that will benefit us here in B.C., not be exported out of the province. It will in fact result in growing opportunities here at home.
What we've tried to do is improve our post-secondary system, keep tuition rates low but provide additional resources to the system so the system can remain excellent in terms of the quality of programming and the accessibility of programming at one and the same time. There is a tension there -- no question. Some provinces have decided, essentially, to give up on the accessibility side of the equation and throw in the towel and say: "Okay, we'll provide excellent programming for a diminishing number of students." We've chosen not to do that. We've tried to ensure that our excellence is maintained for the maximum number of students, and our participation rates continue to rise.
Now, I also need to reference some other activities that the ministry undertakes through another of its divisions. The skills development division has been a major player in terms of the success of B.C. Benefits, reducing the income assistance caseload and the dependence on government assistance through its training activities. It's helping an ever greater number of people succeed with the transition from welfare to work by providing job search, employability and skills training to youth and adults who receive income assistance.
Thousands of new people are now getting jobs instead of welfare because of these increased training opportunities and a new pre-application process that gives job search assistance to people applying for income assistance. I think everyone in this House agrees that the best form of assistance that government can give is to provide people with the opportunity and the tools to get a job and to be able to become self-sufficient. That's exactly what we've tried to do through this initiative. Of course, it is part of a larger commitment through the B.C. Benefits family bonus and other initiatives to help people take a step up, get off of welfare rolls and not lose benefits in the process -- and to get the training they need to become full and active members in society.
As a result of smaller caseloads and better cooperation with the federal government, we will continue to serve comparable numbers of clients as in 1998-99. We're going to be able to do it with a somewhat reduced budget -- reduced by about 6 percent -- because the ministry has been very successful in achieving efficiencies in administration, in working through the arrangements we have with the federal government to avoid duplication in cost but to deliver a higher equality and higher measure of delivery to its clients.
[1655]
The division also plays an important role in supporting the government's economic renewal agenda through its industrial adjustment services, co-managed with the federal government. These services assist firms and communities in economic transition, and that obviously is something important at a time when some communities are under severe stress, particularly in the resource sector. It also provides assistance to firms in sectors that are planning for growth, such as the hospitality, film and technology sectors -- sectors in which we've seen huge growth and huge new opportunities and which account for a rather extraordinary rate of job creation in this province over the last year.
The division also plays a key role in partnering with the Premier's Youth Office and other agencies of government in providing the government's Youth Options B.C. initiative to provide thousands of young people with the opportunity to gain skills and find work -- in some cases summer work, if they're students, and in other cases permanent work. All 12 youth options programs met or exceeded their placement targets last year.
[ Page 12514 ]
One of the programs of which I'm particularly proud -- because it was piloted last year, its first year under this ministry -- was the Youth Community Action program, in which youth were given the opportunity to volunteer in community projects that would benefit their communities and give them tuition credits towards post-secondary education and experience in the process. There really was a triple win from that program -- a win for the community, a win for the students in terms of the tuition credits they received and a further win for the students in terms of the experience they gained and the opportunity to build their resumes and to gain entry into the workplace through those work experiences. This year we have moved from a pilot phase into a permanent programming commitment around this program. For that reason, we will continue to provide $3.4 million in funding this year and are able to expand the target to 1,200 placements.
The Student Summer Works program also continues to be very successful, and that program, too, will continue this year. It will receive more than $8.9 million for 5,100 placements across the province.
These are just numbers, but rest assured -- and I think most members realize this -- that these translate into programs that help real individuals who are looking for opportunities. And, through these programs, they not only gain opportunity for themselves, but they gain an opportunity to contribute to business, through the support that's provided to business to hire young students, and again, the experience in the business environment that can enable them to gain future jobs and to grow our economy.
The Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, ITAC, was created by this government just over a year ago with a mandate to revitalize work-based training in B.C. Designed by training stakeholders, ITAC is an industry-driven partnership between business, labour, government and education -- in training. It will oversee work-based training for over 23,000 British Columbians this fiscal year. It is a very ambitious agency that is planning to more than double the number of British Columbians in industry training and apprenticeship programs by the year 2005.
This budget provides more than $1.4 million in new funding to expand and diversify industry training programs throughout B.C. -- an increase in ITAC's budget indicating our confidence and our support for ITAC, for the need to do more in the way of skills training and the need to direct students in that direction and provide support for ITAC in providing that training. We recognize that in the past, we have not always done a good job of capturing those students whose focus may not be on academic attainment but may well be in the areas of skills and trades, and who otherwise would fall through the system.
Through ITAC and through other initiatives, like the career technical centres that the Minister of Education and I have worked on in conjunction, there has been a major initiative by this government to focus on skills training, to value that form of training, to give to students -- starting in high school and right through post-secondary -- a sense that there is a place for and an importance to this kind of training and that we want to support it. ITAC is certainly evidence of that. The new funding for ITAC will create over 2,000 new training spaces across British Columbia -- a 10 percent increase in ITAC's work-based programs. They will expand high-demand apprenticeships, college entry-level trades training programs and new industry training models, particularly for small business throughout the province.
This ministry is also responsible for the Information, Science and Technology Agency, recognizing that the ministry is designed not only to provide policy and delivery around post-secondary education but to provide the linkage between that and what is an emerging and very dynamic sector of our economy -- a very exciting opportunity for British Columbia -- and that is the high-tech sector. In fact, the high-tech sector in B.C. has grown over 70 percent in the past eight years, employing over 42,000 British Columbians today. That rate of growth is more than double the rate of growth we've seen for high-tech in the rest of the country.
[1700]
B.C. and Alberta lead the country in terms of high-tech growth, and I think the activities of this ministry and of ISTA can assist in further developing and building our high-tech economy. We've been making some tremendous strides in that direction, I believe, through the initiatives we've undertaken, such as that of convening a high-tech strategy forum amongst key stakeholders, providing support for high-tech industries in a number of ways.
I've already mentioned the knowledge development fund, which will assist in that regard. ISTA also plays a critical role in advancing the growth of high-tech industries by helping in the creation of innovative agreements with private sector partners. It also supports high-tech research and development through its administration and support of the Science Council of B.C. and B.C. tech fund. This year we will continue to support these programs and provide numerous grants to enhance academic research and help new businesses expand their operations, market their products and create new jobs.
ISTA also has the challenge of coordinating government efforts to deal with the year 2000 concerns around computer systems and what happens when the digits turn from 1999 to 2000. A lot of dire predictions were suggested in recent years around that phenomenon worldwide, but I think that thanks to the efforts of ISTA and of others in coordination -- the private sector and the public sector, not only here but elsewhere in Canada and around the world -- there is a growing level of confidence that we will be able to meet the challenge of the year 2000 and the Y2K issue. It doesn't mean there won't be problems along the way, but those problems should be manageable. I know that members opposite have an interest in this issue and, I believe, have been briefed on the issue. I'd be happy to discuss it further during the course of estimates debate.
I'll just touch on one other area before concluding, and that's the office for disability issues. In addition to my duties as Minister of Advanced Education, Training and Technology, I also have responsibility for disability issues. B.C. is the only province with a cabinet portfolio of this kind. B.C. has the highest per-capita percentage of citizens with disabilities in the country, and this figure is expected to rise as our population ages.
This office is a very important one in terms of providing a policy focus to government around disability issues, breaking down the barriers that people with disabilities face and ensuring that we do not, through our policies, needlessly create barriers or obstacles to people with disabilities to succeeding and achieving the success that they can -- in almost all instances -- if government is sensitive to their needs and prepared to accommodate those needs. I think "accommodation" really is the watchword here.
[ Page 12515 ]
The office has a full slate of initiatives for this fiscal year, which include new policy and legislative directions. They include such things as a new transportation safety standards policy, a policy on access to government information for people who have reading disabilities, new legislation to protect individuals with disabilities who rely on some type of service animal, and innovative directions that will encourage persons in receipt of disability benefits to explore employment options. That's the kind of work that goes on quietly within the ministry's office for disability issues. I think it's an activity that is not noted often enough; we don't shine a light on it. But I want to credit that office for the work that they've done and draw it to members' attention.
In summary, it's our intention to maintain our course this year -- and to build on the record this government has achieved in the area of post-secondary education particularly -- and our commitment to access and to ensure that a high-quality education is available to all who need it and that in providing that high-quality education, students do not have to suffer crushing debt loads but can achieve that education in a way that is affordable and that enables them to continue on into the workplace.
In addition, we remain committed to promoting a high-tech economy in which we can, as a province, excel and become a world leader. In fact, I believe we're already well headed in that direction. We're making efforts to ensure that we're Y2K-ready. We're providing the kinds of skills and training opportunities that are necessary for people who are currently on social assistance to become more self-sufficient and to have access to the job market. We're doing it in a way that is humane and that effects a smooth transition for those individuals, without having to sacrifice some of the benefits that they receive on social assistance, so that the move from social assistance to the workplace is truly a step up, not a step down. We're promoting the rights of persons with disabilities and will continue to do so.
[1705]
I'm very proud of the work of this ministry. I said at the outset that that work is only possible because of the dedicated individuals who work for this ministry. They are an extraordinary group; they are extraordinarily dedicated and talented. I have benefited tremendously from my relationship with them, and the province has benefited tremendously from their vision, their efforts and their talents.
With that, I will sit down and be happy to entertain any comments or questions that members opposite may have.
J. Weisbeck: I thank the minister for his comments. I'd also like to thank the staff for their briefings. Thank you very, very much for the information that I received -- some of the documents I requested.
About a month ago I hosted a high-tech conference. One of the things I spoke to the
students
If we look at our own province, the demand is obviously accelerating, as well, for
post-secondary education. When the youth realize what's happening in our resource
communities
I was wondering about how we're going to keep up with all of this. I recently read a
book that I want to refer to. It's a book written by David Foot: Boom, Bust and Echo
2000. I understand that the minister's read the first edition; this is the latest
edition now, 2000. I don't know how much has changed. I think that probably what they've
done is added another cohort. It's called the millennium-busters or something -- another
group of children that are born around the millennium. It defines these three cohorts as
the baby-boomers, who were born between 1947 and 1966 and which form a very, very large
part of our society
But when I read this book, I realized that this should almost be compulsory reading for anybody involved with any sort of planning -- particularly in health and in education for sure. In health you can see what's happening now with the aging boomers and the impact that it's going have on our health care system in the next few years. I thought that we certainly must know what our market is before we're able to plan effectively. Traditionally, in the past, the 18-to-24-year-olds made up the university population. But as the population ages, increasingly larger numbers of older students are seeking higher education. In the 1990s across the country there has been an increase in students 25 years and older.
[1710]
Not only are the students getting older, so are the teaching staff. Some statistics that were in this book are -- and I want to deal with this later on in the estimates: 61 percent of the faculty members at nine universities were born before 1945; 36 percent were born between 1945 and 1960; and only 3 percent were born after 1960. Obviously this is going to have a very large impact on the staffing of our universities.
As we've noticed in the last few years, we've had to go out and attract students. That was partially due, possibly, to some of the government policies, where they've sort of demanded some increases in enrolments. But this gentleman
[ Page 12516 ]
states that at the millennium, universities won't have to attract students. They're just naturally going to be there, when this large population starts to arrive at the universities -- the larger population being the baby-boom echo, which is these people who were born between 1980 and 1995. So without having to advertise, the enrolments will rise because of this larger generation, ensuring that campuses are going to be very, very busy at that particular time.
If B.C. follows the Canadian trend, Canada's elementary schools and then high schools in the millennium will need fewer resources, while the post-secondary institutions will need more. After reading this book, I thought: what's in the future for post-secondary education? He has a couple of suggestions, and one of them is that we should have better utilization of our facilities. He commented that these facilities sit vacant for three months of the year and quite a number of hours through the day. He's commenting: "Why not increase the usage by keeping them open 12 hours a day and 12 months of the year?"
He also commented that universities and colleges are going to have to adapt their teaching methods to their clientele. The older student is more experienced, more articulate and more self-confident. He's more apt to complain about what he's getting, and the older student is probably less interested in theory and more interested in application.
The Angus Reid poll in 1998 sort of proved that. They noted that 35 percent of those polled chose a college diploma in a technical occupation, 24 percent chose an apprenticeship in a skill trade and 18 percent chose a university science degree. So the aging of these boomers is going to produce more mature students who want both an intellectual challenge and an applied approach. We're going to require a lot more flexibility within the post-secondary system.
I would like to ask the minister: having heard my comments about demographics, what
sort of analysis has the province done to determine what our market is? What is the
demographic analysis of the potential students of this province
[1715]
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's comments, which, I guess, are far-ranging and probe a lot of important issues. First, with respect to whether or not the demographic pattern and trends that he refers to -- and that are referred to in the book he quoted -- are typical of British Columbia, I guess what I'd say is that there are some differences about British Columbia in terms of the fact that as a result of in-migration, we have tended to attract an older population base than would perhaps otherwise be the case.
We've attracted a number of people to this province who come here educated. In fact, I believe we are, by recent studies, the most educated province in the country. Some substantial portion of that is attributable to the fact that people who gained their education elsewhere subsequently migrated here. There are some differences in terms of the demographics and the pattern. But, in general, I would say that some of the phenomena and some of the concerns that he refers to, which flow from that, are ones that are also prevalent in this province, and we need to keep our eye on them.
How are we responding to that? How are we planning for that? We obviously plan with an eye to these kinds of demographic trends in mind, both short-term and long-term. The fact that we have increased the enrolment in recent years to the extent that we have is in part a recognition of some of the demographic patterns. In fact, we've increased enrolment beyond what is required by population alone, because we have two objectives. We have the objective of being able to accommodate the increasing number of students who require post-secondary education simply by virtue of the growth in the student population. Then we have the objective of increasing participation rates to get more students into the post-secondary system than previously would have been the case. That's why we have gone from the second-lowest to the second-highest participation rates and have seen huge increases in participation in the non-urban areas.
I guess that's another look at the problem that isn't fully covered in the book that he discussed -- that is, the demographic breakdown geographically. One of the barriers B.C. has had to face, which has not always been the case in other provinces, is the fact that we have fairly substantial geographic barriers which have made it more difficult for people in rural communities to gain access to post-secondary education without becoming uprooted from those communities. We've tried to address that by bringing education much closer to those communities, and I think that's been very successful. I give credit to previous governments and the community college system, and I believe this government has built a lot upon that.
In terms of the utilization of facilities, we have asked colleges and universities to look at the need to accommodate more students by looking at better utilization of facilities rather than expanding facilities. I think we're aware that as demographic patterns change, the pressure from increasing numbers of students can put a huge capital cost on institutions that may be unnecessary if those institutions simply change their patterns of providing education. We've asked institutions to do that, and they've responded to that by extending program hours and by absorbing a greater number of students within existing facilities. They've managed to be more efficient and to deal with some of pressures that the member refers to.
So those are a few very general comments. There is also the demographic pattern amongst faculty, which I think is a matter that has been raised by me and with me by university and college administration. The fact is that we're going to see major turnovers in faculty as those faculty who are approaching retirement age in a large mass hit that threshold. I think we can deal with that by working strategically, perhaps through early retirement and other measures, to smooth out that impact and by allowing for a turnover in faculty that is more regular than if it were just simply: "You hit 65 and you're gone." So there's a greater, more strategic approach to rollovers in faculty.
The other thing I'd say is that it provides an opportunity as well, because as more senior faculty leave these institutions -- normally at higher rates of pay -- it means that there are opportunities to hire new faculty and to take some of the captured resources from that and direct them back into programs or into augmenting research funding and the like.
[ Page 12517 ]
J. Weisbeck: There's often a reference to flexibility. I wonder if the minister would comment on what flexibility means to him as far as offering programs and access to education -- just a general comment.
[1720]
Hon. A. Petter: Before I respond to the question, I apologize for an oversight of not introducing some of the staff who joined me as we entered into this discussion. Seated to my left is Gerry Armstrong, deputy minister; to my right, Robin Ciceri, who is assistant deputy minister in the post-secondary education division; and behind me, Rod MacDonald, who is assistant director of the post-secondary finance and information management branch in the post-secondary education division. I appreciate their assistance.
I think that flexibility can take any number of different forms, but the kind of flexibility that I would welcome and do support within the system is flexibility that is consistent with the goals I set out at the beginning of this debate -- that is, goals to increase access and responsiveness in the system to meet student needs. For example, our community college system is, I believe, more flexible in the sense that it can accommodate part-time studies much more readily than most university programs in the past have been able to do. We see a far higher number of part-time students in British Columbia than we do in other jurisdictions. Sometimes we suffer on the statistics because of that, because they're not counted in the same way as full-time students. But I think it's a tremendous success that we have throughout this province a large number of older students studying part-time who, but for part-time studies, would not be studying at all.
Flexibility can also take the form of encouraging students to pursue programs that
But those students come out with not only a Dogwood Certificate but a year up and a
sense of motivation towards skills training and trades that would not be available but for
those career technical centres, which I think are providing an important link between a
body of students who previously might not have found their way to a skilled trade
I think of flexibility in the form of the way we can deliver programs around the province more effectively through technology, like the provincial learning network. So it's a pretty mixed bag of things that I think enable us to be flexible. The key for me is: does the flexibility enhance the quality of education and the access to that education? I think the three examples I've given all do that.
The provincial learning network will enable a college to deliver a program to any community that has an elementary school within it, without requiring people from that community to come to the college. The college will be able to come to them with that programming. That will move our educational programming forward and enable the delivery of programs to communities that previously were removed from educational programs and will now be brought into the loop through the provincial learning network.
I offer the member those three examples. There are many more. But I think those three, by way of example, may assist in giving a sense of the kind of flexibility that I value and that we are promoting within this ministry.
J. Weisbeck: I guess that when I was thinking of flexibility, I was thinking about some of the governance structures as well. I always refer to Royal Roads, which claims that it can respond quickly to changes that are required out there. Now, obviously, we're coming to the time when you have to be able to respond very quickly. Do you think the current governance structures in the universities and colleges will allow this flexibility? Has there been any thought to making some sort of change so that they respond much more quickly to what's needed out in the marketplace?
Hon. A. Petter: One of the advantages that we have in this province -- and the Maclean's magazine article from last year that the member is probably familiar with, which talked about the college system in B.C., sort of featured some of this -- is that because we have a number of competitive models, we don't have to rely just upon the government setting policy or upon governing structures. We can allow those structures to compete and demonstrate their worth through their ability to be responsive and to adapt.
[1725]
The fact that we have universities on the one hand, with senates and traditional
governing structures, competing with colleges that have education councils and different
governing structures, and we have an Open Learning Agency that provides distance
education, and we have universities that operate on a different set of assumptions than
traditional universities, like Royal Roads University and the Technical University
So what I welcome is the diversity in the system. What we've tried to promote as a government is a broad range of governance mechanisms and models -- such as universities, university colleges, colleges, institutes, Open Learning Agency and others -- that can all be out there trying to do their thing, competing with each other and cooperating with each other in a way that enables those that can be most responsive to rise to the occasion and capture the opportunity and enables those that are perhaps less responsive to rethink and retool.
J. Weisbeck: I'd just like to move off now to the document "Charting a New Course." It has now been almost three years since this was introduced. I understood that there is a review happening right now. I know certainly that OUC, in
[ Page 12518 ]
their newsletter, had pointed out the fact that they'd had a review committee together.
I'd like to know whether this is a sort of provincewide initiative or whether that's just
something that OUC has done. If it is
Hon. A. Petter: I'm just trying to determine what exactly the member is referring to. The thought is that he may be referring to the provincial standing committee, which was established pursuant to the "Charting a New Course" mandate to review the implementation of that mandate and to focus in on different issues from time to time, through subcommittees and the like. So there is a provincial standing committee process which is designed to do a number of functions -- to encourage collaboration, for example, and evaluate and improve effectiveness -- but which essentially is there as an ongoing steering committee for the new course that's being charted through this document. I think that may be what the member is alluding to.
J. Weisbeck: I thought it was something different than that, but if that's the
case, thank you very much. I would like to have your comments, though
Hon. A. Petter: It's my sense -- and I think that it's borne out by those in the system -- that this has been a very successful initiative. It has encouraged a sense of collegiality and commitment and commonality amongst the various institutions that are part and parcel of "Charting a New Course," on the one hand, while not requiring them to sacrifice their individuality, on the other hand. We've seen major steps forward in terms of articulation, so that students credits are transferable; and prior learning assessment, so that people who have the skills are not required to take courses that would simply have them replicate those skills but can get through and into courses that will in fact advance their skill levels.
[1730]
There is cooperation taking place amongst the institutions on issues like funding. In fact, there's a major funding formula review process going on amongst the institutions in which they themselves are trying to work out some of the issues that previously would have been worked out by the ministry and visited upon them. What we've said to them is: "Well, you go and tell us, essentially, how you think these issues should be worked out." There has been a level of collaboration and cooperation and cohesion that's been achieved, I believe, without sacrificing the creativity or individuality of these institutions, which gives us the best of both worlds and would not have been possible without "Charting a New Course."
J. Weisbeck: I referred earlier to staffing. There are a couple of documents I have received that I found quite interesting. It all started a number of months ago when we visited UBC, and they were talking about their dilemma of something like 45 percent of their senior staff leaving in the next five or six years, or whatever it is. I was passed a document from Simon Fraser, and it talks about a significant retirement bulge over the next few years. They spoke about how the competition for replacement faculty will be intense at institutions in Canada and around the world. They show that in the province of British Columbia, there will be 1,170 retirements over the next ten years -- about 36 percent of the teaching staff will be retiring. It is significant. In actuality, it says that there's no single year in which a disproportionate number of the complement will be leaving the system due to regular retirement. If you look at the graphs, it's a very, very gradual outflow of staff.
I found it interesting, as well, that Dr. Jack Blaney wrote an article for the National Post. They called it "The War for Ivory Tower Talent." He speaks about how we're basically at the cusp of a crisis, the crisis being that we're losing a lot of our staff. He says: "It began with an erosion of research equipment and staff, including post-doctoral fellows, graduate students and technicians, together with our weakened position to recruit and retain top faculty."
So he's saying that research is increasingly done elsewhere and that many of our best
students and graduates are heading south. He comments that the problem is serious.
"Canada's investment in research and development is half that of the United States
He commented that the U.S. wants to maintain its competitive economic and productivity
leadership as it will lead to
"
. . . Canada needs to nurture and support its home-grown talent. If we do not, others will buy our best and brightest, as they are doing now. A generation ago we were described as a branch plant economy. Now our universities face the risk of becoming a branch plant academy. Over the next decade hundreds of faculty will retire from universities across North America. This sets the stage for a major escalation in the war for university talent. We should see this not as a threat to our academic institutions, but as a great opportunity for building upon and renewing our strengths."
I guess a comment the minister made earlier sort of stuck with me. He commented about senior staff retiring -- let's say, for example, at $100,000. That gives them an opportunity to hire someone with fewer dollars and take that extra money they're saving and put it back in the system. I guess that worries me. The comments made here are that we may have to take that money we're paying senior staff in order to attract some of the brighter minds.
[1735]
Dr. Blaney got a committee together to look at this problem. He had a report done for him for the renewal and retention of faculty. He comments here: "Because the age profile of academics is strikingly similar throughout North America, it is anticipated that retirement rates could well be between 30 and 50 percent in the coming decade." So that sort of falls into the other one. He says: "Competition will be fierce."
This report is quite a lengthy report. I'll just read the conclusion.
[ Page 12519 ]
"In this report we have suggested changes to our policies, our priorities and our practices at many levels within the university. It is our belief that such changes are necessary to position us for what is becoming an unprecedented challenge in our ability to recruit and retain outstanding faculty. We compete not only with universities nationally and internationally, but also with organizations outside our traditional academic
. . . strengths and our ability to think innovatively and seek new approaches."
So there's obviously a big concern here about
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question. I don't think I have used the word "cheapest," because it does has the connotation that the member worries about. I have talked about accessibility, and I've always discussed the need to maintain accessibility to programs that are of high quality. I don't accept the view that programs can be excellent if they are not available to all the students who could benefit from them, on the one hand; nor do I accept that programs can be excellent if they have a large number of students but the quality isn't there. It's a matter of doing both. Excellence must reflect that.
With respect to the particular challenge of faculty renewal, first of all, let me say that there is a faculty renewal task force that has been established, chaired by President Blaney from Simon Fraser University, which is looking at some of these issues that the member refers to. There's no question that there is a challenge not unique to this province -- not even unique to this country -- as those faculty who were hired in the last 20 to 30 years come to retirement age.
However, let me say that I also think there's a huge and exciting opportunity here. One of the problems we've had is that there has been a whole generation of people going to university, for whom there have been no real opportunities to continue on to research within the university system. There haven't been professorships or tenure-track positions available for many years in many disciplines for young people coming up. This renewal will create a culture in which, once again, students will be encouraged to think not only of going back into the marketplace and in the private sector but of continuing their research and becoming part and parcel of the academy.
I think we're going to have to effect that culture change, but these numbers will help us to do so -- and that's a good thing. That means that young people will start to think of career paths that lead in a number of different directions, including the direction of continuing on and staying within universities and continuing research within universities and teaching within universities.
I did refer to the fact that as this bulge of professors starts to leave universities, that will open up positions for new entry-level positions and potentially generate some resources. But I did reference that one possibility was to put those resources -- the difference -- into research. And I said that very consciously, because I'm aware that if we're going to attract high-quality talent of the kind the member refers to, we have to make sure that we have the support for faculty members. That may mean increased pay. But if the member talks to faculty members, as I have, I think he'll find that they value even more the opportunity to do good research, the opportunity to upgrade facilities, and the opportunity to have teaching assistants and research assistants. So if we can take some of those dollars that are freed up and put them not just into more remuneration but into that kind of support, I think we will help to attract and retain excellence in our faculty.
I think that the B.C. knowledge development fund, the $100 million we've invested, is
going to have a big impact on attracting and retaining faculty. Let's face it: a lot of
faculty could go out and make a lot more money in the marketplace. They choose to stay in
universities
Interjection.
Hon. A. Petter: Well, who knows?
[1740]
J. Weisbeck: The member for West Vancouver-Capilano is going to get started on some
questioning, but I think it's getting fairly late in the day, so possibly I'll just
This particular question is from Raveena Sidhu from the University of Victoria. She asks this regarding funding: is money distributed on an equal per-capita basis? In other words, will students in one university be allotted the identical amount of funding as another university? And how much money is given for college and vocational students in comparison to university students? If there is a difference, what is the rationale behind the disparity in funding?
Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question. The answer is that the funding for different institutions is set according to the best estimate of the average cost of providing programs to the students at that institution. Having said that, within the university system it's uniform: $7,000 per student, I believe, is the funding that was provided this year. Obviously some university programs will be higher than that; some will be lower than that. But on average, that was deemed to be the average cost of providing a space to a university student throughout the system. Within the college and institute sector, I believe the average funding level is a bit lower -- something in the range of $6,500 or $6,600 per student.
But again, it varies depending on the institution and the kinds of students. In some cases where institutions have been able, for example, to convert summer programs into permanent programs, the cost of doing that has been lower. At Royal Roads, where they're targeting programs for continuing education, they've been able to provide those programs at a lower cost and recapture more through private sector contributions and tuition and the like. So it does vary, but the answer to the student is that by and large, we try to set it as fairly as we can according to the cost of providing education to an average student in the program at the institution. In the case of university students -- as I understand it, this is a university student -- the number of students in universities this year has increased more than it has in previous years. The average was
[ Page 12520 ]
$7,000, which is the amount that I had been informed by universities they regard as providing them with the funds they need to cover the costs associated with university students.
J. Weisbeck: This question is from Jennifer Barnett from the University of Victoria as well: if education is supposed to be one of the NDP's top priorities, how can Minister Petter justify maintaining tuition freezes and the current level of funding combined with the increases in the total number of seats available across the province while wait-lists grow longer, class sizes are increasing, and courses and programs are disappearing from college and university calendars?
Hon. A. Petter: The answer, quite simply, is that in addition to increasing student spaces, we've substantially increased the post-secondary budget for those institutions so that we can maintain excellence according to the two criteria that I mentioned previously: excellence in terms of the quality of the programs and excellence in terms of accessibility to the programs. If you have excellent programs and students can't take them, they're not much use to those students. I want to make sure we don't shut out middle-income and lower-income students. On the other hand, we want to make sure that all those student have excellent programming, so we've increased the budget by $24.6 million.
Within that is funding for new students at an average cost which is lower than the incremental cost -- that is to say, institutions are fighting to get more students at this funding formula, because every student they add, in the case of a university, doesn't cost them $7,000. That would be the average cost, but the cost of adding a new student is substantially less than that. We are assisting colleges and universities by providing full average funding for students who come at a lower incremental cost.
[1745]
In addition, we've added funding specifically to deal with cost-of-living adjustments: $1.2 million last year and $1.5 million this year. So the answer is that we put a hot priority on education that does not require students' accessibility to be traded off against accessibility of programs, as some other provinces, regrettably, have done -- as in Ontario, where the cost of tuition is going through the roof and those few students who can afford the education may get an excellent program. But how can it be excellent when so many students can't afford it?
With that, hon. Chair, I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply B, having reported progress and resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply A, having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. J. MacPhail: Hon. Speaker, just before we adjourn, it is with great pleasure that I note the person sitting behind me. The member for Delta South has returned, and it is wonderful to see him not only back in this chamber but backing me up as well. So I would ask the House to make him welcome.
With that, I move that the House do now adjourn.
Motion approved.
The House adjourned at 5:47 p.m.
The House in Committee of Supply A; E. Walsh in the chair.
The committee met at 2:39 p.m.
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FISHERIES
(continued)
On vote 33: ministry operations, $19,332,000 (continued).
[1440]
D. Jarvis: I just wonder if I could ask a couple of questions of the minister with
regards to aquaculture -- more in the line of finfish aquaculture. I think that deep down
he is probably in favour of it, but I
I think that, as a province, if we're looking for opportunities to create employment and work and maybe have some relief from the problems that we're having with the salmon fisheries, maybe we should be considering the diversification of finfish as well as the salmon. Up to now, it's been rather difficult to do, but I understand that our scientists are now able to breed the cod and all the rest of it -- or are having some success with it, anyway -- and that we are probably the only jurisdiction in the world right now that is having real success at that. I know the provincial government has put some money in, but I think the majority that's gone into it has been federal money. But I'm not too sure about that myself.
Seeing that we are so successful at it, the diversification of finfish could be
monetarily
Fisheries Renewal B.C. has not made any decision on it, and I think they're aware that the moratorium does not apply to finfish other than salmon. I find it difficult to see why we haven't taken this great opportunity to go ahead and create a
[ Page 12521 ]
very big industry. If there's no money coming into this province for aquaculture as long as we have this moratorium going, they're going to take their money elsewhere. Our scientists will go to either Maine or Chile or someplace like that to start breeding fish. We have now, I understand, created a black cod aquaculture project up on Vancouver Island, in Nanaimo there. But they're in a position now, I understand, that if they don't get support from one of the governments or someone -- they need the support of the government, especially on the moratorium aspect -- they cannot draw in private investment money. With the moratorium in British Columbia, it's just not going to come.
I was wondering if the minister could tell us what his
[1445]
Is the government aware that there is great capital out there? There's a money market out there ready to come into British Columbia if we get approval. I was wondering if the minister could give me some of his opinions on this.
Hon. D. Streifel: I kind of wrinkled up here, because I could probably spend the rest of the afternoon on future policy. But the hon. member from Abbotsford knows how much I avoid dealing with issues that aren't directly in front of us.
What I will do for the member is compliment him on his comments. I think they're relevant, and I think they're important to note. I think that where I did find a question in the member's comments, it was: "Where does the minister stand on these issues?" I'll tell you: squarely on the side of research and development, so that we can take advantage of expansion and the opportunity to expand our horizons and maybe defocus some of the argumentative side of what finfish aquaculture is.
I believe the member's statements and I support them -- that there are bonuses to be found in diversification and other issues, whether it be halibut or whether it be sablefish. To correct some of the member's statements: we do have a significant amount of money and a financial stake in the development of the ability to breed and grow out sablefish. The folks that hold the wild harvest licences for sablefish would probably take an opposite position -- that we should stay out of it -- because they make a tremendous amount of money. It's concentrated in a few hands, and they'd just like it to stay that way, thank you very much.
But I think there is an opportunity to move on these issues. That's part of the
rationale and the reason for me to go out there and meet with folks in the community: to
see what we can do to diversify, to develop other business opportunities, other growing
opportunities and other industry; and to kind of defocus on the problematic side of where
we're at. If that helps
There is opportunity in crayfish, as we're seeing in Port McNeill and the old copper mine site up there -- except I'm not supposed to say that. The folks said to not talk about the old mine site -- especially the copper mine site -- because they get nervous that it's not well received. But I think it's a tremendous use of an asset that's now defunct and purposeless for what it was originally built for and now has the opportunity to, I guess, spark the fuel of some entrepreneurial spirit and to diversify parts of our coastal community economy.
I also recognize that there are future possibilities in prawns and char and trout and in other uses of developed technology, and I think that's very important. I really would caution the members, hon. Chair, that I'll do this as much as I can, but I really don't want to go further than that down future policy, because we're very close to the line on order here.
D. Jarvis: I won't pursue it very much further, but can the minister perhaps give me a hint as to where the hangup is? We know that there is lots of capital out there ready to come in. The federal government is putting capital in, and the British Columbia government is putting it in. This kind of diversification does not even really come into the Fisheries Renewal B.C. jurisdiction in the sense that other than salmon, there is no moratorium, so why is there a holdup on it? Somewhere along the line we've got to reach out and put everything together. As the minister says, he's appreciative of the fact that there is a value out there. So could he perhaps give us a hint?
Hon. D. Streifel: The member's question is: "Where's the hangup?" I kind of went through that last time. It's a very sensitive issue, both for the pros and the cons in this issue. I have tried to be public on this one and say that both of those extreme factions should take a pill and chill out a little bit on this issue and focus on what's possible and on what we have to do to resolve this. That's been my position.
[1450]
To clarify the member's positioning on Fisheries Renewal, they have been involved in tilapia farming. They've got $100,000 in that. They've been involved in partial financing of the crayfish operation in Port McNeill. So, yeah, they are involved in it. When the rest of the opportunity comes around, I am sure Fisheries Renewal will respect the decisions and move forward. At this stage, the hangup comes from outside forces, if we read the headlines of the day and follow the advertising campaigns of those that are against and the reaction of the industry, as I referenced last week to the members opposite -- the reaction of the industry to the spawning in the Tsitika and the dumping of the dead fish in Sooke.
Those are hurdles that we have to overcome, and I call on the industry to do their share, to help promote themselves with a public image that's acceptable to British Columbians. As long as we're addressed by those issues and in total denial, the decisions become more and more problematic. That's really where the real hangup is. It's found in the ongoing layering of denial of real problems rather than focusing on a commitment to solve those real problems so we can go on.
I expect that if the waters don't rise too high this coming week -- Thursday, I guess it is -- I'll be addressing the B.C.
[ Page 12522 ]
Salmon Farmers Association at their meeting. I expect to be bombarded with these
questions, and I'll give them the same answers. They don't need me to be their advocate;
they need me to be somewhat of their guide, so we can establish some realistic guidelines
that fit this province and the attitude this province has within the environmental
question: fit them into how we make a business grow; help us establish what we would like
to see as a national standard; and then overlay that on an international standard, so we
can be fully and totally comfortable that we're doing the right thing. If that suits the
member
D. Jarvis: I can appreciate the minister wanting to have them, as he's called it, chill out to a certain degree, as long as he's aware that the money market will only last so long out there. A lot of these private concerns are starting to feel the pinch now. Let's hope that we come down to some answer in the near future.
I just thought I'd ask the minister another question -- to get off that topic, because he doesn't feel comfortable with it, and I can appreciate why. I got home this weekend, and I was bombarded by fly fishermen -- freshwater fellows.
Hon. D. Streifel: You too, huh?
D. Jarvis: Now, I guess you're up to speed on all the circumstances surrounding
the Pitt River and the removal of the gravel up there. I was just wondering if
Hon. D. Streifel: Boy, this is where I get to give the member opposite some advice. Energy and Mines is up on the floor, I believe, in Committee B.
A Voice: It's over.
Hon. D. Streifel: It's over?
A Voice: Well
The Chair: Through the Chair, members.
Hon. D. Streifel: Sorry, hon. Chair. I respect that. I should know; I said that often enough while I was there.
But it's really a question that's in the realm of Energy and Mines, Environment and federal DFO. They're the ones that are charged with sorting this out. My responsibility is somewhat on behalf of the fish, but not necessarily in a preservationist manner in this issue. I really don't want to throw into the debate what I feel here, given that we're dealing with the one of the last, largest wild coho runs on the coast. The answer's probably considered self-explanatory.
[1455]
J. van Dongen: I would just like to go back to finfish aquaculture for a minute. I just have a few more questions for the minister on that topic.
I understand from the industry that they are looking at an interim implementation plan -- or what they call an interim implementation plan -- of the salmon aquaculture review, starting with working towards a performance-based code of practice for the industry. I wonder if the minister could tell us to what degree his ministry is involved in that and the state of discussions on a code of practice that would be an improvement over existing rules and regulations.
Hon. D. Streifel: Again, it gets kind of difficult, because it's all wrapped up -- as the hon. member would know -- within the realm of moratorium and moving forward and acceptance of the EAO report. Primarily, I guess, we're working with MELP on issues. My ministry is responsible for licensing, and the environmental impact stuff is really within the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. But we do kind of work together, because you have a bit of overlap. A place can't operate without a licence, nor can a licence be given without a tenure on these issues.
So the future of the industry would look somewhat like it is today, with the industry working with us to develop a code of conduct based on recommendations which in fact would be about the toughest in the world. The EAO report that was done is used as a benchmark around the world when considering finfish aquaculture issues. But it would be an issue that would be overlaid with MELP and us -- and, I suppose, DFO to a lesser degree, because they're the ones that are currently in court with the Suzuki Foundation, or getting there. But it's kind of grey, hon. member, because we haven't established anything yet. I can only talk about what the frustrations are, as I laid out the other week, because we haven't established anything.
I would like to say that it will be this, but in fact if the member references that the industry is getting ready to move on this on its own initiative, I would applaud that. It is the kind of indicator we need from the industry that they're willing to work with the public on this issue -- and particularly the environmentalist public -- to show that they are capable of cleaning up their act so we don't have Sooke-type fish dumps and these kinds of things. I take that as an encouraging comment, if the member says that the industry's ready to go on its own.
J. van Dongen: Certainly that's my sense of it -- that they're interested in looking at some of these things, based on the environmental assessment office's report. Maybe they are just in the early stages. Certainly I would encourage the Ministry of Fisheries and the Ministry of Environment to work with the industry in that direction.
I also just want to canvass briefly the issue of renewals and relocations of existing salmon farm tenures. I wonder if the minister could just give us some indication of the state of the industry with respect to that. What percentage of the existing tenures have expired? And what discussions going on in terms of renewals?
[1500]
Hon. D. Streifel: Currently there are 11 tenures that are operating on a letter of authority from BCAL. We have undertaken to move at least one in the recent past, Blue Heron, to the Bear Bluff site. Going in the door, it was relatively controversial. But in fact it was accomplished with little or no extended controversies around the resiting of that. We have
[ Page 12523 ]
quite a bit more work to do on this issue. I expect that the near future will show us moving in relatively vigorous fashion around licensing on the authority that I have as a minister and the authority that the Minister of Environment would have under that ministry, in order to clean up some of the problems around resiting and allocations of this industry.
Again, I would say that one of my interests here is to preserve the critical mass that exists, in order not to lose employment and, in effect, to send the signal that we can maintain employment as we kind of move into a better regime of licensing, siting and environmental ethic.
J. van Dongen: In response to the minister's answer -- if I could ask first of all a specific question about the Pacific National Group and their farm, the Blue Heron farm -- my understanding was that, yes, there had been an agreement made to relocate to a different site, but that this site also was considered a temporary site. I wonder if the minister could just clarify that for me. Will that be a permanent site for that operation?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm always ready to be corrected. But it was my understanding that it was a permanent site. We will do further work and communicate that to the member for clarification.
J. van Dongen: I have one additional question with respect to that site. I only ask about this site because it's kind of a flagship case. I have no particular interest in this site versus another, but these people did take the government to court. There was also concern by a first nations group. Could the minister elaborate, either now or later, as to the status of that aspect of this case?
Hon. D. Streifel: One of the issues around this that was raised by the Ahousaht, of course, was monitoring. How would they as a first nation get the resources to help monitor, so they can be assured that their fears aren't realized? The ministry has supplied them with $20,000 and personnel to support the efforts of the central region board and working group to assist the Ahousaht with their concerns. It seems to have damped down the problems right now.
I have full expectations that it will be a permanent solution. Once folks gain some comfort around fish farming, gain the knowledge and are within the comfort zone that there's not something being forced here -- that they will be supplied with the resources to help monitor and help reassure their own communities that the industry is relatively safe, when sited properly and under certain circumstances -- then in fact most of the concerns go away. I expect that's what has happened here.
Any further development -- we'll certainly communicate it. I've tried to be as open as I can around the whole issue of fish farming. Whether it's stuff from our ministry or addressing the criticisms from outside, I've tried to be relatively open with this to keep the information flow going. I think we've accomplished a great deal in damping down the extremities of the argument, so we're interested in doing more of that.
[1505]
J. van Dongen: In addition to the 11 farms that are now operating under a letter of
authority from BCAL, are there
Hon. D. Streifel: We don't know exactly what the tenures will look like in the future. I'll try this with the member. We recognize that for the industry to develop -- for the industry even to exist -- they need some security in tenure. They also need to know that there's got to be some security in licences. So one of the things that I'd like to see happen here is -- the licence and the tenure are somewhat coincidental -- that one doesn't leverage the other. I would think the industry would probably support that. Still caught up within the moratorium are the exact details.
I have my staff working with the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks on solving some of the problems which exist now that we can fix under and outside the moratorium. We will be primarily looking at some stability and signals to the industry that we're serious about the stability question, so we can then work with them to grow the other technology that we really need in this province to move to another level or another launching platform for the next generation, I guess -- the next phase of this industry. That's really what we're trying to set up to do.
J. van Dongen: Well, I'm pleased about two things the minister said. First, he wants to maintain a critical mass for the industry, and I think that's important. Secondly, certainly the industry has indicated to me that it is interested in longer-term leases. I think they are kind of like the cattlemen on our forest rangeland; they'd like to see 20-year tenures if they can get them. Certainly I would encourage the government to continue to look at trying to provide stability and some length of tenure for the industry.
I'd like to turn now to just a few issues in the recreational fishing sector. At this time last year, when we were in estimates, the minister had indicated that the ministry was in the process of developing a provincial sport fishing strategy. I think that at that time we had seen a public consultation involving, particularly the tidal and anadromous species, a public consultation that took place in 14 different locations in British Columbia. I'm wondering first of all, on that aspect of the provincial strategy, what has transpired in the past year. What are the plans for the future?
Hon. D. Streifel: It's a timely question by the member. Probably -- to cut him off, once we've finished the anadromous -- the member, I'm sure, will be interested in what we're going to do in fresh water. So maybe I can try a little extended answer. It'll help us go in that direction.
The report that was done by the hon. member for Comox Valley has been released, and we're moving on that. Of course, we have a provincial hatchery program that really supports the sport fishery. We are going to overlay a lot of the work that was done by the member for Comox Valley onto a freshwater sport fishing strategy, because there are an awful lot of similarities. The size of the fish is a little different, but the economic benefit can be as large or larger on the freshwater side. So we're going to learn from that and overlay some of that.
[ Page 12524 ]
[1510]
We're putting out a call for groups to work with us on the freshwater side. We really
need to improve the freshwater consultation. The freshwater sport fishery strategy will be
funding
Fisheries Renewal has included in its business plan the opportunity to look at the freshwater sport fishery from an economic basis. As I referenced in my opening remarks, the reason that British Columbia took authority over freshwater sport fishing was that it was to be a revenue generator -- both tourism and licence fees. We've kind of lost sight of that. They're not fish to be petted; they're fish to be used for a purpose. That's what our hatchery program is dedicated to: their release-to-catch program.
The Sport Fishing Advisory Board review. B.C. Fisheries is working with DFO to expand the role of the Sport Fishing Advisory Board to provide both levels of government with advice on tidal and anadromous sport fishing issues. Has that been announced yet, Paul? No leaks.
In fact, some folks would say that there's been a bit of a change in attitude in this past year by this minister, and this ministry and even government, around the value of the sport fishery. With the collapse of the salmon season last year, one of our folks, John Willow, hit the ground and did a very quick report on the financial loss impact. The initial work showed that we lost about $200 million. A lot of people went hungry, and they were just little folk. They were folks with small businesses. We took exception to that and said: "It's not good enough." How have we protected ourselves in the past? We separated out some of the sectoral arguments. If commercial is down, then the sport should go hungry too.
In fact, I think people realize now that everybody needn't go hungry while we sort out
this salmon circumstance. I'm not suggesting that we should sacrifice one sector for the
other or favour one over the other, but when there are opportunities to participate in a
sport fishery, as Parzival Copes recognized in his report, there's no reason that the
folks that make their living there should go hungry -- any more than there's a reason for
the commercial sector to go hungry. What we have to do is
We have about $1 billion all told, I keep getting told, from the salt side and the
fresh side. I think it's an admirable goal that we should try to improve that by half or
double it, without putting too many stresses on the resource. It's going to take every
effort that my ministry can bring to bear on this. The groups that we work with, including
Fisheries Renewal and the groups they work with so well
J. van Dongen: Certainly the minister has opened up a number of areas here. First of all, in terms of the work that John Willow did in estimating some of the negative impacts on the saltwater sport fishery and an estimated $200 million loss as a result of last year's federal decisions, what was the result of that work? As I recall, there was some consideration of that by the federal government in their programming. Or has there been no consideration of that by the federal government?
[1515]
Hon. D. Streifel: When we released the report, we recognized and referenced that this was a very quick thumbnail sketch of what had happened, and we asked the federal government to come and work with us to do a deeper study so that we know what we're dealing with and how to plan for the future and protect ourselves from devastating events like this. We have had no uptake -- nada, zero, zilch, nothing -- from the federal government, other than the grief counselling they've offered to the folks that ran those businesses and that were in danger of losing them. That's all that's been offered up.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the initiative to broaden the scope of the Sport
Fishing Advisory Board to include both a provincial dimension
Hon. D. Streifel: We're trying to partner up with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to deal with the steelhead and anadromous species caught in freshwater circumstances. We don't want to create something new -- a whole bunch of new bureaucracies. We're trying to work with them, partner up and apply that. It's not an inland lake and stream fishery. You know, there are other interests there, and it's in my interest to put together some partnership groups out there to deal with that as well, as we move ahead. The Sport Fishing Advisory Board is the freshwater side of the anadromous species -- steelhead salmon stuff in the rivers.
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that clarification. I think that's probably a good initiative -- to try and put that together.
I have a paper here dated March 1999. I hope this isn't one of those things that hasn't been announced yet. I know there's an effort within the ministry to try and develop some methodology to come up with some more viable or credible benchmarks in terms of the economic impact of, in this case, the sport fishery. I think that one of the things we struggled with historically was having good data with which to compare the economic impact of the various sectors. I wonder if the minister could just tell us what stage that effort is at. And is there a target date for having a new methodology in place for generating data to measure the economic impact of both the saltwater sport fishery and the freshwater sport fishery?
Hon. D. Streifel: The direct answer to the member's question is that shortly after the turn of century, we expect to have the mechanisms in place to do this. This was a theme, as well, that was brought up at the Cariboo-Chilcotin Premier's economic summit by the lodge operators and those that make their living off the sport fishery up there. They also want to get
[ Page 12525 ]
their oar in the water, so to speak, on some economic indicators and offer advice to
us. But for our purposes, we expect to have a practical, credible economic assessment tool
to somehow measure
J. van Dongen: In terms of the freshwater fishery, then, is the ministry at the present time tracking the situation with respect to the recreational lodges on the freshwater side? I think we made some reference to it last year, and the minister indicated that all of that responsibility is in the Ministry of Environment. From an economic development perspective, is this ministry aware at all of what's happening to those lodges -- economic trends, that kind of thing?
[1520]
Hon. D. Streifel: In a way, yes. BCAL and MELP have authority over the pricing policy of the land tenures. It's my responsibility to spend $7 million per year to put fish in those lakes so the lodges have a reason to exist. We do a tremendous amount for the lodges through my ministry's activities -- some ten million to 14 million fish stocked per year. Without that program, frankly, some of those lodges wouldn't exist.
That's a bit of an argumentative position. I would prefer to take the other side of it,
where we began in the Cariboo-Chilcotin summit, by talking about: "What can we
do?" If you only want to reduce the land costs that could be an offence to the public
-- if that's the only issue -- we really have a narrow avenue of discussion in front of
us. If you want look at us and with us at a strategy that enhances the sport fishing
opportunities so that you can pick up your access days and maybe have a look at who your
competitors are, what style of lodges is offered here and what style of lodges is offered
in Oregon or Montana, where there'd be competitors for these
For us, what can we do to build some of these community partnerships, to have more of a reason to come to a region to fish and to utilize the lodges? That could be about bringing on more lakes or bringing on a better fishing experience on those lakes. That's the kind of discussion I would prefer to have, because the other one just says: "Oh, you charge us market value for our land. It isn't fair." That doesn't float well when you go to the communities that say: "All right, I don't want to pay my property taxes anymore, because it's not fair." It's an issue that has a public interest. If we can solve the problems of the lodge owners without offending that public interest, then I think that's a valued argument or point of discussion. That's what I'd like to see happen.
I'm willing to work very, very closely and intensely with the sport fishing sector, primarily around these lakes and rivers and streams. What we can do we will do. I don't believe we have yet filled out and fleshed out our possibilities around this fishing experience. I addressed that in the Cariboo and in fact with the British Columbia Federation of Fly Fishers on Saturday night in Penticton as well. There's a huge interest out there for these folks to participate with us and see where we're at. I think that's where the future lies.
I welcome opportunity and input from the member opposite. If we want to discuss one
issue -- the lease cost -- is that the only issue? How about access? We did the
J. van Dongen: Well, I agree with the minister that there's more than one
dimension to the issue, but I think that certainly the
Hon. D. Streifel: We haven't experienced a decline in the freshwater side. We're still hanging around 400,000. I keep hearing other numbers -- about 600,000 angling days of effort or something. I don't know what that means, so I'll accept this number of 400,000.
[1525]
On the saltwater side, I'm not surprised it's down, with the ongoing announcements, again, from the federal government that say all the fish are gone. It's totally irresponsible, and it interferes with our ability to plan. Now, I would look for some help from the members opposite to get the folks in Ottawa just to chill down a little bit and say there are fish out there, and we can have a fishery. We just have to work at it, maybe do it a bit differently. But we're not experiencing the same thing on the fresh side. It's my goal to really increase the freshwater activity and experience.
J. van Dongen: Just a couple of specific situations with certain species. The kokanee situation in Okanagan Lake -- is this ministry involved in that at all? If so, what is the government strategy on that particular species?
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't know if the member opposite saw the movie Forrest Gump; he made his fortune off shrimping. That's what we intend to do on Okanagan Lake to try to get rid of some of those mycids in there. We have a 37-footer in there seining to try and reduce the population of shrimp. We're dumping some money in there that's really R and D to see if we can reverse the mistake of the 1960s in dumping a food source in there that ended up competing with their intended diners. But through that activity, we hope we can increase the population of kokanee in the Okanagan Lake system. We've been very successful in some fish management in other lake systems for other reasons. But this one, we're aware of it. We're working on it, and we'll see what the future brings.
J. van Dongen: With respect to the Gerrard rainbow trout in Kootenay Lake, I think there was a concern, about a month
[ Page 12526 ]
ago, about a local native band wanting to go out and fish that species, which, as I understand, is very limited in numbers. I wonder if the minister could update us on the status of that situation and what the government's position is in terms of native people wanting to fish that species.
Hon. D. Streifel: For now, that circumstance has come to an end. This is one minister that's rather pleased. It doesn't always fully fall under my jurisdiction. But one clarification: it wasn't necessarily a local native band; it was from over the mountains.
The big bright spot there, for the member's interest, is a very large return of these fish -- about 350 in there. That's one of the success stories we have with fertilizing Kootenay Lake; it brought back the kokanee. The Gerrards are on their way back, too, in fairly significant numbers. I don't know if the member opposite ever tied into one of those Gerrard rainbows, but it's quite an experience. I have, and it is really quite an experience. It's a fishery that we can steward, preserve, enhance and have a very exciting inland fishery that in every way, shape and form rivals the saltwater salmon fishery.
J. van Dongen: Well, I'm pleased that this situation appears to be resolving itself. But are there any other situations throughout British Columbia where there may be competition between recreational fisheries and native people for either recreation or food purposes? Are there any other conflicts at the present time for recreational fish resources?
Hon. D. Streifel: There's nothing cooking right now, as far as I'm concerned, in the same way as the Gerrard rainbow in the Lardeau River. So if the member knows of one, maybe he can enlighten us, and we'll try and get ahead of the problem.
J. van Dongen: No, I'm not aware of any, minister. But I just wanted to canvass the subject.
If we could turn now to
[1530]
Hon. D. Streifel: Slight debate with my officials back here
It's slightly down from last year: '98-99 was $732,551, equivalent to five FTEs; '99-2000 is $505,246 -- still equivalent to five FTEs. Some of the document preparation and media stuff that we've done is where the savings have come back in -- not in loss of personnel.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister -- in terms of whatever small changes there may have been from year to year, this year coming up versus last year -- maybe highlight what those may be in terms of priority? I notice that there's some shift in terms of funding. Corporate services -- there's some reduction there and a bit of an increase in policy, planning and liaison. I wonder if there are any specifics there that the minister might care to mention.
Hon. D. Streifel: We saved a bit of money, for the members' information, in management services. The Ministry of Transportation and Highways does the work for us, and we kind of did a bit of consolidation. We save a few dollars and don't suffer any personnel losses in the long run.
The other question, I believe, was referenced around policy and planning. The increase
in budget is to support our ongoing work around our steelhead initiatives, our
data-sharing initiatives with different groups, as well as the feds, and our Aboriginal
Fisheries Commission, and our enforcement initiatives around some of the stuff on
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: Yeah, we do. So, in fact, we do some stuff like that. It's to pick up that side of our ministry and support it, so we can actually conclude the work we begin.
J. van Dongen: The transfer of some administration to Highways
[1535]
Hon. D. Streifel: The FTE numbers
J. van Dongen: I want to turn now to the issue of the division of responsibilities between the Ministry of Environment and the Ministry of Fisheries -- primarily involving those two ministries. As the minister knows, this issue has a bit of history in that it was initially reviewed by Claude Heywood, who I think was a former deputy minister. Then at this time last year the ministry was considering or already had hired Frank Rhodes to do another study on that issue. That study was done -- a fairly comprehensive study that was tabled with the two ministers.
The next major event, I guess, was the B.C. Wildlife Federation meeting -- the AGM -- where both ministers basically made an announcement. I'm not really clear on the announcement, first of all, nor on whether or not it's considered the permanent solution to this issue. If we could just ask the minister to tell us as clearly as possible: what is the decision by the government at this point in time on the alignment of responsibility between the two ministries?
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, I'm glad we were successful in confusing everybody at that meeting. The member was paying close attention -- I recognize that -- and still he didn't get it. Frankly, I'm not sure that I fully grasped it at the time, because there was no change to my ministry. So, all right, it's someone else; it's MELP. At the risk of treading into MELP territory on this issue, I'll try to get some clarification for the member.
[1540]
[ Page 12527 ]
All the wildlife and habitat issues under MELP are coming together under one ADM, so it's really accomplishing what was sought, but under a line in the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks. That should more effectively coordinate and process information and define or deal with policy issues. Whether it's permanent or not -- I can't answer that. It's not within my realm to break out ministries and ministry responsibilities; that's completely within the Premier's Office.
But our letter of administrative agreement is still in effect with MELP. I'll forward a copy of that to the member. That clearly sets out what the jurisdictional boundaries are. When we bring that up to look at it ourselves, it may give us an opportunity to review it to see how it fits under the current alignment, where MELP has changed their administrative line but not their jurisdictional line.
Neither my jurisdictional nor my administrative lines have changed. That's why I didn't release anything: there's really no change. It was primarily a deal that was structured with George Ford and the interest groups to see, at this time, if it will work. The future is up to somebody else.
J. van Dongen: If I could ask the minister a specific technical question
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm on safe ground here, because I never asked Frank Rhodes
what he had in mind. So among the group of us over here, we're speculating on what he may
have had in mind. In fact, the member hit it right on the button: it's probably a little
bit of both. The regional people, of course, are in MELP, and headquarters people are in
Fisheries. But the other stuff -- the wildlife and the conservation officers, the police
and all of that -- is still under MELP. But it's all coming together under an ADM, because
it's scattered throughout MELP, as I understand the current structure. They're bringing,
from the quadrants of the Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks under that one line
[1545]
We expect
I'm not sure that enough weight was given to where we are in policy, economic development and that structure, which is really what our focus has been. Like I say, I never had the opportunity to discuss it with Mr. Rhodes, but those are some of the complicating factors. Some folks out there have this expectation to create an outdoors recreational ministry. That, currently, isn't the purpose of this ministry, nor was it the vision when this ministry was put together. Those kinds of changes, of course, will be in the Premier's Office in the future.
Currently, I think, the structure may work quite well, with the Ministry of Environment
actually focusing
J. van Dongen: Two issues for me, besides the fact that I think the Rhodes
report was a fairly comprehensive report and certainly pointed to a fairly high percentage
of jurisdictions that did bring all of these areas into one ministry
Hon. D. Streifel: To shorten the answer: all of the above. The member is right. In order to make this situation function appropriately and effectively we have to have the highest level of consultation. It actually begins minister to minister, deputy to deputy and ADM to ADM sitting together on deputies' councils. In fact, there's even some cross-pollination, where I have access to the MELP deputy and ADMs, as we did this past week at 108 Mile Ranch. I sat with Jon O'Riordan and discussed a number of issues.
There is a lot of direct
[1550]
It can get a little complicated, but it's not only this ministry that does that. In fact, the reason that a lot of this stays the same -- as I get reminded by Bud Graham -- is that there is another world of industry interest out there as well. Forestry, mining and others wanted to retain their access to Environ-
[ Page 12528 ]
ment, Lands and Parks because of the whole jurisdictional issue and water issues and these kinds of things where they have that control. This seems to be at this time the best delineation for streamlining and accomplishing the goals that not only the fish and wildlife recreational enthusiasts but also the fish and wildlife commercial users want to achieve, as well as the rest of the industry and, in fact, municipal governments. They all have a body of interest in this.
I'm hopeful and expect that this will work and that through our consultative efforts and our joint working efforts at the administrative level -- from the minister on down -- we will be able to deliver the one-window opportunity and streamlining of access for the folks out there that have to deal with our ministries.
J. van Dongen: The minister made a reference to other sectors besides the fishing sector. I am aware of the Council of Forest Industries and their concern about having a single-window entry and single-window service. Certainly I think that's an important goal, to be able to provide that service, but it seems to me in reading the Rhodes report that that was certainly possible. I thought that the way the Rhodes report made the division was actually fairly logical -- keeping water management in the Ministry of Environment and separating out all of the other issues. I think that if his recommendation had been followed, it was still possible to develop within that recommendation a single-window service for the forest industry and the mining industry, etc. I do want to underscore the concern of a lot of our interest groups out there, and I think there's a fairly unanimous body of opinion on it, as I think the minister knows. I hope that the government bears that in mind as it attempts to execute on the decision that it made.
In terms of the decision that the government has made, I think it's also important for the government to put something out in writing. I don't think there has been any press release or any official announcement in writing on this. I think it's important for all of the public to be able to understand clearly what the decision is and some of the rationale. I think it's very important for the government's own staff -- both the staff in the Ministry of Fisheries and the staff in the Ministry of Environment -- to have a good, clear understanding of what the government's decision is and what its expectations are in terms of operations down the road. I wonder if the minister could make any comment on the prospect of having some kind of written, official announcement on the decision.
Hon. D. Streifel: That's a fairly fair comment, and I will pass it on through the channels to the minister. I expect that my staff will take it up with the Environment staff to see if we can get some clarification out there publicly.
[1555]
J. van Dongen: I appreciate that. As I said, I think it's very important. I've seen staff in both ministries -- I think a lot of people have -- struggle themselves. The more clarity we can give to direction, the more effective they can be in delivering on government programs.
In this section, I want to ask the minister about the role of the special adviser to the Premier, Dennis Brown. He's been so quiet lately, but I assume that he's still in the employ of the Premier. I wonder if the minister could clarify his position and role today.
Hon. D. Streifel: I would reference the member to raise that issue in the Premier's estimates. He doesn't report to me. From my perspective, there is no change.
J. van Dongen: Well, that's a safe answer for the minister. I'm just going to ask one more question on that. Is the special adviser to the Premier involved in some of the issues that the minister is involved in, such as the aquaculture moratorium and sorting out the configuration of the ministries? Has he been involved in any of those discussions?
Hon. D. Streifel: At the risk of extending comment on this, although I recognize Dennis Brown and his value on international salmon issues and issues such as that, he is not involved in any of my issues. Nor does he work for me around aquaculture or the jurisdictional issues between us and MELP. He doesn't report to me at all.
J. van Dongen: I thank the minister for that answer.
I want to turn now to the subject of Fisheries Renewal B.C., one of the minister's more interesting subjects, I think. I'd like to start out by asking, first of all, a simple question about the budget. I'm aware of the recent press release which announced $10 million of projected spending for the coming year. Fisheries Renewal is now in the third year of its mandate -- the third fiscal year. It had a very short year the first year. If we look at the legislation, it was originally funded with $22.7 million from Forest Renewal B.C. It's in the third fiscal year contemplated in the legislation. Could the minister tell us: once the $10 million projected to be expended this coming year is expended, what would be the remaining balance of that $22.7 million of initial funding for Fisheries Renewal B.C.?
Hon. D. Streifel: Well, the member would know that it was a three-year allocation from Forest Renewal. Last year Fisheries Renewal was successful in partnering with Hydro, with a $7 million allocation -- $5 million for general purposes and $2 million for some of the priorities of Hydro. This year there is an announced $8 million from Fisheries Renewal and $2 million from Hydro, so it totals $10 million. It is primarily on the salmon habitat stuff.
That leaves around $3 million in the budget for the following year. We're in the active task, of course, of seeking out other funds, other partnerships. I have an expectation that Hydro will pony up again next year, and that would be the third year in a row we would be adding to it. Fisheries Renewal B.C. has done some wonderful jobs and formed some wonderful partnerships, and I would like them to share their expertise and their value in the community in other fields. In order to do that, we need to partner with others. I would look for other corporate partnerships, as well, as we move forward on this issue.
[1600]
The member may know that the Premier just recently, in trying to unravel the circumstance around support for coastal communities and the lack of federal support, asked them to come on to Fisheries Renewal. I have presented to the federal minister, on countless numbers of occasions, the benefit of the federal government uptaking the Fisheries Renewal model with us and bringing their expertise, their network and their cash to the table. So we're in active pursuit of that as well.
J. van Dongen: Well, I knew there would be some outstanding balance, and I think that's probably good in terms of transition, depending on what the funding will be in the
[ Page 12529 ]
future. Can the minister tell us if there's been any active consideration? I'm not asking for commitments or announcements. I know it's in the area of future policy, but has there been any discussion at this time about other funding alternatives, such as the landing fee or other similar sources of funding for Fisheries Renewal B.C.?
Hon. D. Streifel: No, not at this time.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the board of directors of Fisheries Renewal, my understanding is that there's one and possibly two vacancies on the board at the present time. I wonder if the minister could confirm that. I'm also aware that Don Millerd has, as I understood it, stepped down from the board. I think that his involvement on the board certainly brought an important perspective to the board in terms of economic development and that kind of perspective. I'm wondering if the minister is considering replacing him with a similar person with a similar background to fill one of the vacancies on the board.
Hon. D. Streifel: We haven't made a decision on who yet. I'm virtually at the end of the line waiting for the federal government to come on board here. I will be working with the board and with others to fill those vacancies. We haven't made any decisions. There are two vacancies, as the member referenced.
The board's probably a bit impatient for us to get on with this. I think we've waited
long enough for cooperation from the federal government and the federal minister. We can't
wait until the end of the day. This board is far too valuable for us. They have far too
much potential for the future to let them go with vacancies. So I will be making those
decisions in the near future. But the context, the type, the who, what, where, when
J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to hear that the minister is considering filling those vacancies. As I referenced earlier, I certainly think that Don brought a certain perspective to the board that was useful along with all of the other perspectives on that board of directors.
If I could ask the minister: what is the projected communications budget for Fisheries Renewal this coming year, and what was the comparable figure for last year?
Hon. D. Streifel: I hope the member indulges us with some patience. It's not broken out in that form. I am assured that we can break it out, and we'll communicate that to the member when we have the numbers broken out and see if they're satisfactory for him.
J. van Dongen: That's fine in terms of response. I'm interested to see the two figures, if we can get them.
I asked the question out of some concern. I know that Fisheries Renewal was recently
interviewing for a communications officer and certainly agreed with a philosophy of
running a lean organization. If the minister could clarify
[1605]
Hon. D. Streifel: For the member's information, there was an arrangement to share one-quarter staff assistance from us. But I've got to tell you that the workload around this was quite astronomical and in some ways -- for all involved, I would expect -- a bit frustrating -- a huge workload. Lots of opportunity, lots of good news, and a lot of the good news wasn't filtering out. In recognition of that, with all the consulting contracts the Fisheries Renewal folks undertook, their consulting moneys that they're spending, they might as well hire somebody for it to keep up with the workload.
Apparently that was cleaned up just today, so this is a scoop for the members. This is new information -- out it goes, first time ever. It goes public now in Hansard. An individual with the name of Scott Macrae has been hired to do the communications work for Fisheries Renewal. He comes from the city of Vancouver and University Hospital. I think that's really good news on behalf of Fisheries Renewal.
I recognize and applaud their skinniness of administration, but there are some times out there when you have to take the bull by the horns. When you have a horn in your hand, and no one will blow it for you, you have to do it yourself. In this instance, I think it's appropriate. I applaud Fisheries Renewal for this move. The work they've done can't be valued; the value can't be overstated in any room. We need more folks out in the community to recognize what they're doing and how they're doing it, because there's a leap forward. If we can do it through communications -- the trickle-down, word-of-mouth theory hasn't quite made it -- and we do it through a dedicated communications officer and plan, that's going to be good news for everybody.
The money on communications is spent anyways, and it might be for a full purpose in this way: it will encourage more participation in this program from the communities, more recommendation and maybe more acknowledgment from the federal government as to its value. Maybe that's another area where we can quit scrapping, get together and actually do something positive on behalf of the fish communities, the resource and the environment through this process.
J. van Dongen: I'm not sure that I agree with the decision, but I'll watch the next year as it unfolds. I think that good news and bad news both have a way of filtering out eventually. Sometimes efforts to drive those issues aren't necessarily the best use of scarce dollars. I just want to register that concern. I'm sure that the CEO of Fisheries Renewal will ride herd on those costs.
[1610]
I want to ask, in terms of Fisheries Renewal's priority for funding
Hon. D. Streifel: It works out this way. A lot of public consultation suggested that in fact there should be about 50
[ Page 12530 ]
percent of the effort focused into the more fish category, about 25 percent into the
new fisheries and about 25 percent into the higher value. So the way it breaks out is
J. van Dongen: I would assume that some of the projects that have been funded in the early phase of Fisheries Renewal's history are now being completed. I wonder if the minister could tell us a bit about what is being done internally within Fisheries Renewal to evaluate value for money after these projects are finished -- if there's some kind of internal evaluation process. Secondly, are there any external evaluation processes also being put in place -- say, an auditing process?
[1615]
Hon. D. Streifel: For the member's information, there has been
The member would know that some of the measurements won't be back right away if you're dealing with hoping to increase numbers of returning fish. You'd have a couple of spawning cycles to get through before those are really done.
So we're going to gather what information we have that's currently ahead of us, to ensure that we are making progress on Fisheries Renewal's priorities. We can only do that if we keep aware that a lot of the credibility of Fisheries Renewal rests on what their partnership groups do -- how they spend the money. I've asked Fisheries Renewal to go back and look at how they do it, so I can maintain my confidence in this process. It gives me the opportunity to seek out other partners to help fund this process as it moves into the future.
I think there's a lot of life and a lot of validity in what's happening. Under the world that we live in, we have to prove it. So we have to spend some money to prove that what we're doing is a good thing -- it's what's-her-name that says that, isn't it? Then we will do that. Fisheries Renewal has taken up that challenge and is in the process of doing that now.
J. van Dongen: Is it a requirement of each of the watershed groups to provide some form of evaluation of the project once it's done, to the management of Fisheries Renewal?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes.
J. van Dongen: Could the minister confirm
Hon. D. Streifel: For the last fiscal year, yes. For the current -- coming -- fiscal year it'll be around about 7 percent.
J. van Dongen: Has Fisheries Renewal attempted to get a handle on the amount of money that's being incurred in administration by the watershed groups themselves? There will be an administrative factor there; I'm wondering if Fisheries Renewal has an estimate of that for each of the watershed groups that they're involved with.
Hon. D. Streifel: Our provision on the allocation of funds is a maximum of 10 percent for this form of administration by these groups. That comes back in the reports on their progress in the audit process that we have in place. So we provide for a maximum of 10 percent for administrative purposes.
J. van Dongen: So we could assume, on average and roughly speaking, that 20 percent of the total funds would go to administration. I'm wondering if Fisheries Renewal or the ministry have any comparable data or experience from other programs in terms of how it compares, in terms of efficiency in disbursement of funds, say, compared to if the ministry handles it themselves -- say, Ministry of Environment in some of the other programs. Do we have any comparable figures on that?
[1620]
Hon. D. Streifel: The member's reference to administration may be too narrow a reference, depending upon his goals within this discussion. This is all in on program delivery, for the folks who are there actively involved. A maximum of 20 percent would be high. The Fisheries Renewal max on this is 10 percent, and the Fisheries Renewal themselves -- inside -- is going to be 7 percent this year. So we're dealing, I would guess, with a maximum of 17 percent -- or is it cross-pollinated here?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: Okay. The 7 percent within the first reference to Fisheries Renewal is administration and program delivery and governance; so it's really not a maximum 20 percent on administration, because it's all wrapped into the delivery of the program. So it's very, very low. I don't want to get into some of the other contracts I've administered in other ministries, but this is very, very low, very modest, when you consider that it includes program delivery.
And no, we haven't compared it to if we delivered it ourselves -- have we? No, we haven't compared it. But I understand they got a great big bouquet of roses and a lollipop or something from Morfitt.
J. van Dongen: Well, if they got a big bouquet from George Morfitt, maybe I should ask the minister what they got that for. Has there been an audit of Fisheries Renewal by Morfitt?
Hon. D. Streifel: It was a recognition that the process in place was very sound. It was timely. The business plan, annual report and all that were all there in a very timely manner. Actually, it was a nod that the structure was well defined.
Oh, what have I got here? I'll sit down and read this and figure it out.
The Chair: The minister continues.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll back up and add it was really kudos for accountability in how the processes were set up. In the
[ Page 12531 ]
Fisheries Renewal '97-98 annual report, there's a reference -- I think the member has that report -- to the report of the auditor general of British Columbia. It's on page 9. If the member doesn't have that document, we'll make sure he gets it.
J. van Dongen: Just in terms of pursuing the evaluation process a little bit
further, I understood a previous answer by the minister
Hon. D. Streifel: The simple answer is yes. They have to supply an accounting or a report on what they've done. And it's our goal to get more fish, new fish, etc., etc. We have to know that we've accomplished that. The groups have to accomplish that in order to really be eligible for partnering in the future. So that's the key. The answer is a simple yes.
[1625]
J. van Dongen: Does Fisheries Renewal attempt to consider and prioritize
Hon. D. Streifel: We have our own evaluation processes re urban salmon habitat. That model has been used by others. I'm not quite sure of the direction of the member's question or even the meaning of the question. Maybe if the member could get into it a little deeper on specifics. I'm not quite sure what the reference was.
J. van Dongen: I guess maybe I could rephrase the question this way: does Fisheries Renewal, in deciding where to put its money, look at what other government programs are doing? Does it take that into consideration, or does it operate fairly independently in terms of other government programs that may involve money into habitat or money into economic development -- this kind of thing?
Hon. D. Streifel: This may help the member, because it just helped me. Fisheries
Renewal is funding a data registry program so all the projects around fish can be brought
up to see who's doing what. That would enhance the ability for partnership groups to
leverage on or add on to other programs. It would enhance our ability to coordinate a
little bit, to see if
J. van Dongen: That's an interesting initiative. I'm wondering: is there any federal involvement in terms of data entry? Are the federal projects being entered into that database?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yes -- federal and Pacific Salmon Foundation information and others. Yes, that's true. It's all in there.
J. van Dongen: I've got a whole list of some of the projects that Fisheries Renewal was involved in or has approved. I'm not going to go through all of them; I'm just going to go through a few. I have scanned them.
[1630]
The first one that I wanted to simply ask about is part of a list of a summary of approved projects dated September 22, 1998, for the Cariboo-Chilcotin Fish Enhancement Society. On this particular project the partner was the Quesnel River Watershed Alliance -- funding requested of $44,225. The purpose of this was to develop a watershed public awareness program for the Quesnel River. I wonder if the minister, if he's able today -- and if he's not able today, certainly we'll be interested in a further answer -- could detail the rationale for funding that program, what the distribution will be of the 50-minute documentary, and any other information that might be relevant to evaluating the merits of that project.
Hon. D. Streifel: The funding for that would have come from a large -- what I sometimes refer to as bulk -- funding for a region or an area. This group who have applied met some scoring criteria, received the money, and now the report back is part of those 280 reports, I would expect, that were waiting. Now the audit value, so to speak, loosely described, would be applied to see what is, I guess, the benefit of it. Most of the groups I deal with, and folks in most of the areas I travel as a Minister of Fisheries, tell me that there is a vacancy of information as to what we're dealing with within our watershed, within our river system, within our lake. Those are areas that in the past have been neglected for some kind of funding work, because without that base knowledge, it's really difficult to spring to the next level in some areas. I'm not suggesting that's what this is, but that's a possibility, because I hear that a lot. I guess when we get the information in on this one, we'll be able to share it with the member. I think one of the things we have to strive for in all of these is openness on the last results of the funding programs to ensure that they're doing what we expected them to do.
J. van Dongen: I'll look forward to that report. It's just one of the projects that stood out to me, as strictly a communication tool of $44,000 -- significant dollars. I'll be interested to see how that stacks up against other projects.
I wanted to ask the minister about the general area of the partnerships with the watershed groups. Again, as I recall, there are 17 watershed groups that Fisheries Renewal is partnering with. I'd ask the minister to confirm that figure.
I know that in some of the regions things were working very well, and in some of the regions maybe not so well. I'm wondering if the minister could relate any comment with respect to the Fraser Valley watershed group. I know that there were some struggles there in terms of getting some unanimity and cooperative effort within the whole lower mainland region. I wonder if the minister could comment both on the general picture and particularly the Fraser Valley group, which he and I are both, I suppose, a part of.
Hon. D. Streifel: As a matter of fact, there are now 19 groups that have come together, and there may be more in the future.
[ Page 12532 ]
I'd like to re-reference the member's question and statements around the Quesnel River
circumstance before I go on and finish the answer around the 19 groups. Public education
is extremely important when it comes to water and fish. The member, within his own
community, would know the diverse values and attitudes towards whatever you dump into the
water systems. The more we can educate the public, the less damage we have to go back in
and repair. That's why I'm particularly interested in programs like this. You see, if they
do have a public education value
[1635]
I know one stream that I'm particularly interested in -- I keep reading about it in the paper -- is Burn Creek. If only we could get the folks that live up above the gully -- the ravine -- on Burn Creek to quit dumping their wash water or draining their hot tubs into the creek, maybe we could establish some fish, and maybe one day I could take my grandchildren there and fish like I did when I was just a little kid.
That kind of public awareness is important, and it cannot be undervalued. Whether it's
sponsored by us, by urban salmon habitat, by DFO or by support groups that take kids out
and paint the yellow fish or the red fish beside the storm drain
Anyway, 19 groups
I was at the announcement in Steveston a couple of Mondays ago. Was that for the Fraser Valley group?
Interjection.
Hon. D. Streifel: That was the lower mainland group. They've come together as well. So it's working pretty good for the most part.
J. van Dongen: Certainly there is a more diverse group of interests, I think, on the lower mainland than there is in some other watersheds, and we encourage people to try and cooperate on these issues.
I want to ask the minister about something that he made an earlier reference to, and that is the tilapia project, which is scheduled for a $100,000 grant. This is Redfish Ranch in Courtenay. These people are attempting to culture tilapia in British Columbia. I think that at some point, there was some doubt about whether or not the project would proceed. I wonder if the minister could tell us the status of the project and a little bit about what we hope to achieve with the funding of this project.
Hon. D. Streifel: Fisheries Renewal has invested $100,000 in this project. It's
under construction. We're not aware of any bog holes that anybody's stuck in. It seems to
be moving along. If we have anything further than that, we'll share it with the member; or
if the member finds something that he's curious about directly, we certainly should
address that. These kinds of projects
Tilapia cultivation is an interesting type of aquaculture -- a closed-containment system. It has lots of opportunity and prospect, as it adds into the food cycle -- or the food system -- whereas with others, it could be argued that the net benefit is a drain on the protein supply.
[1640]
J. van Dongen: Certainly the project is under development and diversification, and I think that that's a good category to focus on. If it provides some new activity and jobs in British Columbia, then so much the better.
I want to go to a project that involves the Cowichan Watershed Council -- a $20,000 grant. This is a response to an application to develop a Fisheries Renewal partner group. I wonder if the minister could comment on the intent of that project.
Hon. D. Streifel: I guess the original group referenced by the member was the
Cowichan Watershed Council. They did receive a grant from Fisheries Renewal to try and
organize their effort and their resources and interests, and they didn't make it. But out
of that, they have found a way to expand their horizons. Coupled together with a larger
group -- which will be one of the announced new partnerships, so it's a bit of a leak on
the future
J. van Dongen: I'm hopeful that this new group works out. It is a situation that I have followed with some interest. There was, I think, considerable conflict there, and I think there was also fairly direct involvement by the local MLA and the minister. I think that's an area that we need to be cautious about. Hopefully, this new group will be a good, strong, independent group that can look after the delivery of the program in that watershed.
I notice that there is also a similar project being funded for the Campbell River-Courtenay-Comox area -- an application to develop a Fisheries Renewal partner group. Does the minister have any comment on the status of that project?
[ Page 12533 ]
Hon. D. Streifel: This references the Comox-Strathcona Fisheries Renewal Partnership group. They were successful in coming together. They received the original organizational funding from Fisheries Renewal. They put themselves together, identified a number of projects and, last fiscal, received $500,000 from Fisheries Renewal. They're working toward the delivery of that money through their partner projects, and they will be viewed and reviewed through the audit process that we discussed a few moments ago. Yeah, they're coming together and -- success.
[1645]
J. van Dongen: Are there any new projects being funded that are intended to be development projects for these watershed groups? Or can we assume that the teething problems have been worked through and that we don't have to put new money into funding efforts to develop a working group in a watershed or in a region?
Hon. D. Streifel: Teething problems. In some cases, I suppose we probably had to bypass the teething and go right to dentures, but in fact it has worked. Where groups have had difficulty getting themselves together in the past, groups that came together very readily and very openly have been able to help bring on the groups that had a struggle. So we only have a few areas: the Lillooet and upper Fraser Canyon and midcoast -- but they're starting to come together.
We have to make some decisions as well. There are some areas of the province that are or could be or maybe should be fairly well funded from other sources -- maybe the Kootenays, for instance, from the trust. There are other areas that, frankly, as a minister I have no interest in funding. When you talk about the Stikine or the Taku, what would we do up there that we would benefit from? Why would we just do something for the Alaskans to catch them? So without full and open cooperation from the federal government on the PST issue and cooperation with Fisheries Renewal, we have to ask ourselves some of these questions as well. I'm pleased to know that Fisheries Renewal mulls over these things as well. You don't really want to play silly boy and stand out of the process if there's some environmental work or fish work or habitat work that has to be done. But there's got to be a payback to British Columbians to keep investing hundreds of millions of dollars through various sources. If you can't access the resource, you kind of wonder: well, if it's stable where it is, then maybe that's where it should be until we understand who's going to benefit.
In fact, these are conundrums and problems, as well, for the partnership groups to address. They'll be offering their best advice, and Fisheries Renewal will be accepting it. I'll be watching some of those areas very closely, because it is a real problem for us up in that region. The Alaskans have a completely different attitude towards our fish than we do.
The latest correspondence I've seen cross over the bridge is a request from the Governor of Alaska to the federal minister, saying: "If you can guarantee safe passage of your fish through your waters to your spawning grounds, we'll let some of them go." I thought it was a bit cheeky; the problem has never been our waters -- otherwise the run wouldn't be there in the first place. The problem is the Alaskan water and their attitude toward our fish. So it's things that fit into the mix.
J. van Dongen: I just have one other project that caught my interest, and this is a planning and partnership project called provincial aboriginal fishery guardian training conference. This was funded to the tune of $25,000 starting September 1, '98, ending October 30, '98. I'm wondering if my understanding is correct -- if it isn't a federal responsibility to train native guardians. I wonder if the minister could elaborate on that.
[1650]
Hon. D. Streifel: The member actually pushes a little bit of a sore spot with me. A lot of times, when I look at these initiatives and issues, I think: gee, now why would we be out there sticking money in where the feds really belong? But like I said in the past, I'm holding out the olive branch, and my arm is getting tired. I believe it's my responsibility and the responsibility of those agencies under my direction to show that we can and will cooperate on partnerships with the federal government. This was a jointly funded workshop. The federal government did put in the bulk of the money. The education and the guardianship program are extremely valuable. It's very useful for the first nations, as well as for the resource.
But I'm not always prepared just to stand out of the picture because it's their responsibility. At the end of the day, you could point and say: "All of that fish habitat is your responsibility. You've abandoned the field for eons and decades, and we've been backfilling $400,000 in the last three years." In fact, I think we have to demonstrate that we are willing to cooperate, and this is one of the areas on the ground where we can demonstrate some real cooperation with the federal government to achieve a goal. It's unfortunate, in my estimation, that it's always at the field level or at the administrative level or someplace else that the cooperation happens, when we get diddly in cooperation or the spirit of cooperation from the federal minister.
So I thank the member for the question. It allows me to get on my political soapbox again for a minute or two. I'm always trying to reach out to federal Minister Anderson -- to finally put at least a 60-watt bulb in the process and get off the 10-watt routine, because in fact we can accomplish some things together here.
J. van Dongen: I'm going to turn it over to the member for Oak Bay-Gordon Head in a minute.
I just had one other comment, and this is basically on a lighter note, I think. I was reading the Fisheries Renewal B.C. publication, "fish.comm," volume 1, No. 2. It talked about the event in Prince Rupert where there was, I guess, an announcement made of the $400,000 allocation to the North Coast Fisheries Renewal Council. It talked about the event being officiated by Mayor George Mussallem. I wonder if that was a little bit of a slip-up, because I recall George Mussallem as being a former Social Credit MLA from close to where the minister lives. I think that the fellow who now runs Prince Rupert is a very active mayor and very supportive of the fishing sector. I wonder if the minister could just confirm a little bit of a typo here -- I just want to tease him a little bit.
Hon. D. Streifel: There must have been a bit of a slip-up on the fingers pushing the buttons, because the individual that officiated was His Honour Jack Mussallem, mayor of Prince Rupert, an individual I share a fairly amiable working relationship with. We see eye to eye on a number of issues. He's in fact the nephew of former MLA George Mussallem.
[ Page 12534 ]
As a matter of fact, George and this minister have shared many glasses in the past -- never of Fraser River water; generally coffee or tea or something of the sort. We used to meet up in a Robin's Donuts periodically, when he was on his way somewhere and I was on my way to work in my former life. We'd sit and talk over political issues and old times.
So it was nephew Jack who was there. The member opposite's reference is exactly correct. The mayor of Prince Rupert is extremely supportive of fish issues and a broad perspective of fish issues, from aquaculture to the wild fish harvest and the processing community, and is very active in the north coast. I appreciate his counsel and his advice in these things. I wouldn't hazard a guess as to whether or not we're of the same political stripe. The member for Abbotsford would probably know better than I do, but in fact, I appreciate his input on these things.
[1655]
I. Chong: I appreciate the opportunity to participate so late in the proceedings of the Ministry of Fisheries. I don't have a lot of questions. I do apologize, as I say, to the minister. I was in another briefing on another issue. But I do have some questions related to Fisheries Renewal B.C. As the minister may be aware, back in 1997, I took an interest in the act, particularly because it was a new piece of legislation. Being a fairly new MLA, I was interested in seeing how these things develop over time, from the inception to where we are now.
The questions that I'm going to ask the minister are particularly related to financial
matters, as I have before me. I want to start off by advising the minister -- although I
know the amounts may appear minimal -- that I'm asking them in the context of
I only have the financial statements for July 28, '97, to March 31, '98. I presume the next report will be coming out shortly, given that I know the previous minister committed to a 90-day publication date after the end of the year-end. I'm hoping that on June 30 we will see this -- or very shortly after the ministry's estimates are complete.
The first question I do have for the minister
In the area of expenditures, just quickly a clarification. I noticed that the entire
revenue source of the Forest Renewal B.C. contribution as well as the investment income
is, as at the end of the year, in the bank, which indicates that none of the money was
spent and everything was incurred in terms of liability. I'm just trying to understand, in
that first year
Hon. D. Streifel: The member had me really curious as to whether or not the Fisheries Renewal board would meet on a periodic basis to roll around in the money bin and why it wasn't out there. In fact, the answer is relatively informal -- "simple" is probably a demeaning word -- but there is an answer. It is that the board came together in '97. They hit the road to do their community consultation to find out what they should do, what they should look like, who they should work with. There were some expenditures to cover that.
The first programs were on the ground for funding in July of '98. It was a considerable lag till the first programs. The report out on those will be available in this next financial statement as it comes. As the former minister committed to whatever process it was -- nine or 12 months or something -- I'll respect that. We'll get it out as quickly as we can as well.
That's really what happened. Now the money is on the ground with the partnership groups and being spent in a reasonable manner. It was never allocated to be hoarded; it was allocated to do the most good.
I. Chong: Certainly if the minister checks the Hansard, it was 90 days, not nine months or 12 months. Again, I know he won't be held to live up to the expectations of the former minister.
[1700]
Again just very quickly, in the area of the general administration expenditures that
are in the '98 financial statements, if your note 4 identifies information systems of
$38,000
Hon. D. Streifel: Let me try this for the member. We don't have an exact breakout of that. If the member would prefer, I can have the Fisheries Renewal CEO communicate exactly what that is. I know that the member referenced the hardware being capitalized and what not. The only answer I got here is that we bought six computers plus services; that's probably not complete. I'm going to ask Fisheries Renewal to convey the information over.
For Y2K, yes, we are stockpiling water. We have a flashlight; we're getting some groceries in and some firewood, just in case.
The member doesn't accept that answer either, hon. Chair -- an attempt at some humour this late in the day.
So where we're at is, yes, Tourism has come in. We have a service contract with Tourism to come in to look at our Y2K preparation, and they're working with us on that. But, again, I'm prepared to have Fisheries Renewal supply more details to the member either directly in a briefing or through communications.
I. Chong: Perhaps it will become obvious, when I receive a copy of the financial statements for '98-99, where I can take a
[ Page 12535 ]
look at the comparison and then maybe make inquiries at that time. Just for the
minister's benefit, I was really only trying to find out whether he knew whether
As I say, these were primarily soft costs in terms of computer installations and things of that nature. I've seen in other Crown corporations where there have been millions of dollars allocated towards changing computer systems and things of that nature which were not capitalized and written off, which grossly overstated expenditures. And comparison from one year to another didn't show, really, how well or not well the Crown corporation was operating. So I'll leave that.
[1705]
The other area, just quickly, in terms of the lease obligations which struck me as strange was the leases for the office space and equipment -- not so much the equipment. But office space for the years 2000 and 2001 was only listed at $948 in note 6, whereas in note 4 the building occupancy costs were $25,000. If the minister can just provide a very brief clarification, that would be most helpful.
[P. Calendino in the chair.]
Hon. D. Streifel: I indulge the member's patience on this one. Allow us to communicate the answers. Some of this happened before Mr. Kariya came on board with Fisheries Renewal. He would like to go back and get the historic record accurately, and we can communicate it, if that suits the member.
I. Chong: That would be fine. As I say, perhaps in looking at the financial
statements subsequent to this year, it will all become apparent. It's just that it struck
me as odd. Usually leasing obligations are a substantial part of any organization. As I
say, it was not apparent to me what was happening there. The dollar amounts aren't large,
but again, the principle behind why certain things were occurring can
Hon. D. Streifel: We got a good deal on some tents.
I. Chong: Quite a few tents, then, for $948 -- or a lot of people are sharing, I would imagine.
The other area that I want to just quickly touch on in terms of Fisheries Renewal is not so much the dollars and the financial statements. It was a question that I had in 1997 when I was going through a piece of legislation. That had to do with the area of destination tourism and how Fisheries Renewal would be a part of that. In terms of the bill at that time, there was talk of strategic investments that would be supporting seafood and destination tourism marketing initiatives. At that time I tried to ascertain what that would entail and whether that would mean that Fisheries Renewal B.C. was going to develop specific destination tourism marketing initiatives separate and distinct from those developed by Tourism B.C. If anything has been developed in terms of those marketing initiatives over these two years, could the minister provide us with an outline?
Just for his benefit, in 1997, obviously the minister was not able to supply an answer, because it was new legislation. But it has now been two years. I'm curious as to where the interministerial discussions have gone in this area.
Hon. D. Streifel: There have been no projects around destination tourism funded by Fisheries Renewal. At the risk of travelling another road that we don't have full information on, Fisheries Renewal has funded a $150,000 ecotourism project. I guess it's primarily for displaced fishermen. It's around marketing, like what the possibilities are in the area, what we could be doing -- a pilot project and some training around that -- but it's not a destination tourism project per se.
[1710]
Needless to say, a lot of what this ministry does has a direct effect on tourism in
some regions as we carry on our fish-stocking program. You'll see in the new Fisheries
Renewal business plan a reference to freshwater work as well, which could have a spinoff.
Maybe the member will get tired of my history lesson on why we took over the jurisdiction
for freshwater fisheries in 1937. It was all tourism-oriented, and we wanted
I. Chong: That's reassuring to hear -- that there are no casinos on the horizon
-- because then this debate would take a whole new path. So I would like to ask the
minister
One last area I'd like to ask the minister about, hon. Chair, is the area of corporate donation policies. As the minister is aware, many of the Crown corporations have donation policies -- B.C. Hydro, BCBC, ICBC, etc. -- and some years ago there was discussion through, I believe, the Crown corporations secretariat to develop a corporate donations policy for the Crowns, to be consistent. And to this day I'm still awaiting information on that. Seeing that this is a new Crown corporation -- and again, I don't have the second year's annual financial statements -- can the minister advise whether the board has developed a corporate donation policy in terms of what amount it allocates if it does allocate and what criteria it sets out that must be met when people request donations? These are not necessarily programs but are more in the form of grants, whether it's a school or a non-profit agency just requesting some form of donation.
As I say, I know that B.C. Hydro has, in the past, supported a symphony or something like that because of educational values, artistic values, community involvement and those kinds of things. So if the minister is able to provide some idea of this Crown corporation's donation policy, that would be helpful as well.
Hon. D. Streifel: I'm informed that there have been many requests and no donations -- that Fisheries Renewal is working with the Crown corporations secretariat to participate in the global policy structure. The Fisheries Renewal board is really quite adamant that what they allocate must have a benefit to their building blocks -- their criteria -- and that if there isn't a benefit back to fish, to jobs, to more fish and to diversification, in fact it wouldn't go anyway. But we'll simply be working with the Crown corporations secretariat.
[ Page 12536 ]
You know, I just want to make an observation -- just one or two sentences -- that the members opposite are very inquisitive and curious about Fisheries Renewal, but the overall tone of their questions seems to be relatively supportive of the initiative. I wonder how that's reconciled within the collegial atmosphere of the members opposite, where some have described Fisheries Renewal as being just smoke-and-mirrors. In fact, is that resolved within the Liberal caucus?
I. Chong: I just want to say that I appreciate the minister's response to my question on the corporate donation policy, and I will be looking forward to receiving information on that, along with the other information on the business plan and financial statements.
[1715]
I just want to conclude, though, and thank the CEO from Fisheries Renewal and staff for providing those answers. I would like to conclude by stating that in 1997 -- and he can check the Hansard if he wants -- I said that I did in fact support the intent and thrust of the legislation. But I said that it also needed to fulfil and meet the test of accountability. And in order to ensure that this Crown corporation, being a newly created corporation, did get off on a good, sound financial footing, so that five or seven years from now we aren't going to be where we are now, looking at what happened and where we're going. I hope the minister accepts that. It's a fact that certainly the conservation of fish is very important to all members and for all British Columbians. The questions we ask are to ensure that it does meet the test of accountability. I thank the minister for his answers.
Hon. D. Streifel: I have to respond, and I accept the member's concerns. I share some of them on the accountability issue; I know that Fisheries Renewal does as well. They're very aware that what they have to do has to be successful and be seen to be successful. That's why I'll refer the member back to the debates of an hour or two ago, on the outline of what the accountability network is that they have in place -- reporting back the inside audit and the outside audit as well. It's very important. We can't ever go five years into the future and look back and say: "If only we'd done this." I share the member's concern on that and thank her for the comments.
B. Penner: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. In recent days all MLAs received a copy of a letter from a group known as the North Coast Oil and Gas Task Force. Essentially what this group is seeking is our views on whether or not the moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and gas should be lifted. As the minister is aware, that moratorium was initially imposed by the federal government in 1972, and the provincial government imposed its own form of moratorium, I believe, in the late 1980s -- or sometime in the 1980s.
According to a report released last year by the Geological Survey of Canada, entitled "A Petroleum Resource Potential of Sedimentary Basins on the Pacific Margin of Canada," the Queen Charlotte basin holds an estimated 9.8 billion barrels of oil and up to 25.9 trillion cubic feet of gas. To put that in perspective, those estimated reserves would amount to nearly ten times the size of the Hibernia development offshore of Newfoundland.
At the same time as the Hibernia development is proceeding, there's the Sable Island project off Nova Scotia. Together, those two projects have helped those two maritime provinces to have the fastest-growing economies in Canada. My question is whether the minister has a position on the moratorium on offshore drilling for oil and gas.
Hon. D. Streifel: Yep, I do. It's really within the realm of other ministers and/or a corporate decision. We couldn't move alone on this if we wanted to, as the Ministry of Fisheries. I know there's a high interest within the local regions. I know that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- the federal government -- keeps a close eye on this as well. We could probably spend the rest of the afternoon talking about it, but in fact I don't have the jurisdictional authority to lift it or not. Nor have I been asked for my input in a corporate way on whether or not we should lift this. The federal government hasn't contacted me. Really, it steps out of the realm of a topic for debate here. I'd like to sit down with the member sometime and discuss it in a format where neither one of us has anything to lose. It would just be a lot of time burned up over an issue that I can't influence.
B. Penner: I take it from the minister's remarks that his ministry has not conducted any formal study as to what the potential impact would be to fishery stocks if the moratorium was lifted.
Hon. D. Streifel: No, we haven't.
[1720]
J. van Dongen: Just a couple of questions to the minister, with respect to the ministry's involvement in treaty negotiations. What is the role and involvement of the Ministry of Fisheries in the treaty negotiations that are taking place under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission?
Hon. D. Streifel: Through the intergovernmental relations group, both the deputy level and the ministry level were actively involved. There is, as the member would see through Nisga'a, a significant reference to the Minister of Fisheries. Some of that reference could in fact apply directly to this ministry under certain circumstances. So yes, we have been involved, and we continue to be involved.
J. van Dongen: A follow-up question, then, to that. Is there any set of principles that has been established by the Ministry of Fisheries and that has been entered into those negotiations by this ministry through the intergovernmental relations process?
Hon. D. Streifel: Yeah, we have brought forward what would be a broad perspective overlaying the negotiations. The principles that we would bring forward to the table are a broader perspective on what we do on the provincial level, like conservation being a primary goal and what not -- respecting that there have been court decisions that we all live under. That's also part of the broader perspective. What we also bring forward to the table are laws of general application. Environmental laws and fisheries laws would apply in these cases, and we've been successful in Nisga'a. Those are some of the principles that we bring forward to the other negotiations as well.
J. van Dongen: Just one more question on this topic. The kinds of principles and the kinds of submissions that this
[ Page 12537 ]
ministry has made to the process -- is that information available to someone like me to examine, in terms of the negotiations that are ongoing?
Hon. D. Streifel: I don't know
J. van Dongen: I appreciate the minister's answer. I may, time permitting, follow up on that issue in another venue sometime.
[1725]
I want to close with one final topic that I know was one of three things that the minister had prioritized a year ago -- specifically, the Pacific Salmon Treaty and, I think, the broader topic of federal-provincial relations. I wonder if the minister could tell us: does the province have a position or an objective or a target in terms of the Pacific Salmon Treaty? What would they consider (a) achievable, given all the constraints that those negotiations are under and the attitude of Alaska, and (b) acceptable to the province? Does the ministry and the government have a specific target in terms of those negotiations?
Hon. D. Streifel: I'll say we've got a target -- but not the individual you're thinking of, hon. member.
It's been very difficult. We haven't changed our position from the beginning. We believe that a successful fishing arrangement under the Pacific Salmon Treaty would have certain things in place -- the first one, now, an equitable sharing of the burden of conservation. Last year we saw an arrangement whereby British Columbia fishermen did all the conserving for both Alaskan interests and northwestern United States interests. We don't find that acceptable.
Along with the shared burden of conservation, we also require an equitable share of our fish that originate in our waters. Some of the fisheries that were harvested last year were as high as 80 percent British Columbia-water origin, and that was given away. We don't accept that. We believe that if there's going to be a viable commercial fishery on those stocks, then British Columbians will participate in that fishery as well, so that we can unravel the problem of coastal community support.
Those are our broad objectives. They're really around an equitable and fair treaty
settlement based on those principles. The outfall from that also sets up other principles
for us to bring forward. One of them
The member may be aware that President Clinton has appointed an American coordinator, Lloyd Cutler. His role is to coordinate the American position prior to getting to the table, to understand what's achievable from the American side of the border. That was recommended by the eminent-persons panel of Drs. Strangway and Ruckelhaus that were appointed by Prime Minister Chr�tien and President Clinton. Having seen this and having discussed with the federal minister the role of Lloyd Cutler, appointed as an American coordinator, I have asked that our federal minister deliver the request to Prime Minister Chr�tien to appoint a Canadian coordinator to develop with the stakeholders and with the interest groups here the Canadian position to come to the table.
We participate in government-to-government negotiations, as recommended and outlined not only by Strangway-Ruckelhaus but also by Trout Unlimited and other international arbitrators that have tried to solve this riddle. That's how we believe we can achieve our primary goals of equity in sharing of conservation burden and sharing of the resource. In order to accomplish that, we have to be able to have a cooperative federal minister. Our goal is -- at one point in the life of this -- to find a cooperative federal minister that is willing to work with us and to signify that in fact coastal communities are viable, that people can actually live there and make their living.
That also sets up another set of achievable goals for us -- or goals that we hope are achievable at one point in history. That's to recognize -- as the United States forces have recognized -- that they can have a viable commercial fishery. We want our federal government to say: "Yes, we can have a viable commercial fishery here as well. Once we have conservation needs and other needs that depend on that resource out of the way, then we can have that fishery."
[1730]
But we want to participate in building what that future fishery looks like and who it benefits. In order to do that -- in order to stop the destruction and the devastation on the coast of British Columbia -- we also have to have a federal support program and maybe a joint federal-provincial program and maybe an international program that actually support those communities and those participants in a fishery, until we bridge to what the next fishery looks like -- whether it's going to be a fewer number of participants or different fishing methods or whatever the case may be. That kind of sets up where we're at.
The fly in the ointment is an uncooperative federal minister who wants to keep rolling other things in here, who wants not to cooperate or participate but wants really -- I believe -- to hold the coastal communities up for ransom on this issue -- where they change employment insurance rules so folks can't in fact get enough work days to qualify to get some federal support. They artificially restrict access to a resource so the only avenue is out of the system. It's administratively easy and socially irresponsible. I believe, on the humanitarian side, that it's immoral. So that's kind of where we're at.
J. van Dongen: The minister mentioned the appointment of Lloyd Cutler by the United States. It's certainly considered to be a positive event.
What is the ministry's estimation of the endangered species legislation in the United States and its potential impact in terms of helping to bring Alaska in line in the negotiations?
Hon. D. Streifel: I need another aspirin for this answer.
[ Page 12538 ]
Look, our actions on the west coast of Vancouver Island virtually ensure that Alaskans
don't have to take any action under the American endangered species legislation. We're
passing enough fish through. Our fishermen are standing off the resource to a degree that
allows Alaska to participate. So they don't have to do anything. I think, there again,
that demonstrates that we're owning and carrying the full burden of conservation on behalf
of both the United States resources or forces -- whether they're in the northwest or
Alaska. Our folk have no
J. van Dongen: If the endangered species legislation is reflective of a greater conservation ethic in the United States, is that not something that Mr. Cutler will be able to lever to some degree in the negotiations?
Hon. D. Streifel: The member's reference is somewhat accurate. That's why we
have looked for the same definition of conservation -- northern boundary, southern
boundary -- and at sharing the burden. If Mr. Cutler were able to offer up the fact that
the burden of conservation should be shared equally or equitably -- equitably is a better
framework -- then in fact we may achieve that. But I don't know
That, of course, is the unravelling problem here. It seems like nobody has real control over the Alaskan fishery. It's quite problematic for us.
J. van Dongen: The minister made a reference to adjustment programs and appropriate federal support for assisting communities and individuals. What is the current status of the relationship on the issue of the $400 million overall program? Has there been any progress, even at the staff level in terms of discussions, in appropriating those dollars to the people affected?
[1735]
Hon. D. Streifel: It's very difficult. I have never accepted the reality of the $400 million. It was an announced five-year program. The bulk of the money that's been allocated and that you could trace under the umbrella of that program has really been on licence buybacks -- to buy people out of the industry. In this past buyback, there was a tremendous amount of effort to buy licences that hadn't been fished for a lot of years -- big seine licences held by companies. On the ground, there's little or nothing happening. There was about a $7-8 million expenditure last year to pay folks not to fish, to tie up -- a waiver of some form or another. I think that was about it. There's really no other money traceable. I won't accept the reality of doubly counted moneys. I get support in the letters I receive from coastal fishermen who say that: "I heard the word. I made the application. I went to talk to the folks." And they're told by HRDC that there never was any money allocated specifically to fishermen and fishing families to support them through the seasons. That's what they get back from HRDC.
The addendum to that is that in fact all of those moneys in general application are
gone in June of '99 anyway. So that supports my feeling right from the beginning that
there never really was a $400 million dedicated fund. It was business as usual -- some
funds targeted to buy out some folks and some funds targeted for a little bit of a licence
tie-up to try to placate some folks. But in fact there never was a $400 million dedicated
fund to support west coast fisheries, both to reduce the capacity and for transition into
a new fishery. A comparison -- the grossly indecent comparison -- is the $3.5 billion that
was allocated to the east coast fishery for the same purposes, and the fact even
I've talked to HRDC folks on the ground. They tell me there never was any money. They spend more on communications, trying to prove to the world that DFO has done a good job of it. They've got a contractor on the coast now on a six-month contract trying to root out people that will stand up and say: "Yeah, DFO did something for me." They spend more money on programs like that than they would ever spend on support for coastal communities and fishing families.
J. van Dongen: In terms of the $400 million, one of the specific complaints
that's been made to me by the federal people -- and I'll try to get this as accurate as I
can
Hon. D. Streifel: It was an early retirement initiative proposed by the federal government without any framework, without any specifics about who went into it. My officials met with federal officials many, many times in trying to establish a program that was broader in context than simply retiring more licences out of the fishing system and retiring more fisheries participants. We brought a requirement to the table that we would look beyond the boat into the fisheries workers, beyond the licence owner or the vessel owner. We had a requirement that would also consider deckhands and other fish-processing workers.
[1740]
We were unable to put together a comprehensive program with the federal government, as we were unable to establish a vision of what the federal government would have for the fishery on the coast in the future. We weren't going to participate in just buying people out. We believe, as Gislason pointed out in his extensive study, that in many of these communities and regions on the coast the only game in town historically is fishing, regardless of reference to forest problems. There are communities where there are cross-pollinated problems, but primarily, Gislason's report identified many areas on the coast where the only game in town is fishing. And so the question has to be asked: to build a transition program out of the industry -- out to what? I mean, to actually pack your bags and go to the city? You're not allowed to live where you were born, where your ancestors come from
[ Page 12539 ]
for the last 10,000 or 12,000 years? We were never able to put that vision together with the federal government. That's the reason for the failure.
J. van Dongen: I want to close on this subject with this comment. I think that we're in a fairly sensitive time. There has been a lot of lead-up to the current state of the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations, and I think that from that perspective, the current deterioration in federal-provincial relations is unfortunate. I know that the minister is meeting with the federal minister tomorrow. I'm very hopeful that one way or another, British Columbia can still manage to capitalize on all of the effort that's gone into the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations. I think that it's going to be critical that this meeting and near-term meetings go well.
Certainly we want to see some kind of resolution to the salmon treaty. I think it's an extremely difficult situation when one player -- Alaska -- is certainly holding some cards that other people aren't holding. I'm hopeful that something positive can come out of the amount of energy and political capital that's gone into these salmon treaty negotiations.
With that, hon. Chair, that concludes my questions. I thank the minister and his staff for their answers.
Hon. D. Streifel: I appreciate the member's closing. I don't want to stand here and say that it's all their fault. There have been some problems in the past. We have undertaken, over this past year and a few months, to establish a new working relationship because of the desperation. The stakes are very high here. The American fishing interests to the south of us fished historic capacity -- historic numbers last year -- far and above what we were able to access. There is an abundant stock out there that should be shared equitably.
I look forward to working with the members opposite as we try to build a relationship on behalf of those coastal communities, the folks that rely on this resource. I believe that a cooperative approach with the federal government and our opposition on this issue has to happen in this House. We just can't go another year without any form of support out there in these coastal communities and in these regions. That's what's at stake; it's real human issues. It's not my opinion of Minister Anderson or his of me. We're way beyond that. I would like to see a maturing of this relationship all the way around so that we can at least solve this one problem, because the resolution is in front of us if we have the courage, the decency, the humanity and the maturity to take it. With that, I'll sit down.
Vote 33 approved.
Hon. D. Streifel: With that, I thank the members opposite. I thank my staff for their input, and I move the committee rise, report resolution and seek leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 5:44 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Copyright � 1999: Queen's Printer, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada