1998 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MAY 14, 1998

Afternoon

Volume 9, Number 21

[ Page 7841 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

S. Hawkins: Today in the gallery we have Mayor Paul Jean from Burns Lake, who is here, as people may have noticed, with a hospital bed on the front lawn of the Legislature. With him is Cyril Shelford. He's a former MLA and former Agriculture minister, who served this Legislature for 25 years. He was the member for Omineca. He is now retired in Victoria. Accompanying them, as well, are Laureen Williams and Ted Williams. I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Clark: In recognition of the tabling in the House today of the national unity resolution for the House's consideration, we have four members of the citizens' panel on national unity joining us in the gallery. The first is Alice McQuade, who is a teacher in Delta and co-chair of the national unity panel. Cheryl Tellier is the president of the Nanaimo, Duncan and District Labour Council and a member of the panel. Rosalind Thorn is the president of both the Prince George and the Northern B.C. Construction Associations.

Meike Wernicke-Heinrichs is currently working with Lufthansa Airlines in Richmond, and is the co-editor of the Unity Link web site; she was recommended to the panel by the Vancouver Sun . I ask all members of the House to recognize their contribution and welcome them to the House today.

L. Reid: I have two very dear friends in the gallery today. Mr. Jed Dodsworth is accompanied by his son John Dodsworth, probably the youngest parliamentarian here today. I would ask the House to please make them both very welcome.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm very pleased that joining us in the gallery this afternoon are a number of students from a wonderful school in my constituency, Spectrum Community School. They've come down to see the decorum and the example that this House sets to them and to the province. I'd ask all members to make them very welcome.

M. de Jong: I'm thrilled to welcome a group of grade 7 students from Godson Elementary School in my constituency. They're here with their teacher, Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Dalton, as well as some other parents travelling with them. Please make them welcome.

Hon. D. Streifel: I would like the House to welcome today a group of British Columbia fishermen who have been touring the precincts. They're here for a federally inspired retraining program. The fishermen, when they spoke to me today, explained that they can't bare much more. They're looking for some help and support from this House and from all British Columbians. I bid the House support them.

B. Goodacre: I would also like to introduce Mr. Paul Jean, the mayor of Burns Lake, a community in my riding -- and a fine community leader he is. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

Introduction of Bills

STATUTE REVISION CORRECTION AND

MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS ACT, 1998

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. Speaker, I'm pleased to introduce Bill 20, the Statute Revision Correction and Miscellaneous Amendments Act, 1998. This bill makes a number of corrections and amendments which arise from the general revision of the statutes which occurred last year. Inevitably, the statute revision process yields certain errors which require such correction and amendment. The need for this legislation was anticipated and is part of the general plan of the 1996 revision of the statutes.

I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Clark: I rise to make brief ministerial statement.

The Speaker: Proceed.

Ministerial Statement

RESOLUTION OF B.C. UNITY PANEL

Hon. G. Clark: This morning I tabled the B.C. unity resolution and asked that it be placed on the order paper for full debate at a later sitting of this House. This resolution reflects the findings of the B.C. Unity Panel, which travelled the province from Fort St. John to Vernon, from Chilliwack to Cranbrook, gathering the views of British Columbians on the framework of principles agreed to by the Premiers in Calgary last fall and on other issues affecting national unity.

The resolution reflects the fact that British Columbians love Canada and are committed to keeping it whole. A large majority of British Columbians told the Unity Panel that they supported the principles contained in the Calgary framework and, in particular, those principles which spoke of the equality of individuals and the equality of the provinces. In that context, British Columbians have no difficulty in acknowledging the unique character of Quebec society.

Furthermore, British Columbians told the panel that national unity was not just about addressing Quebec's concerns but that the federation would be strengthened if the federal government treated British Columbia more fairly and took our concerns into account. To that end, this resolution references the concerns and aspirations presented to the Unity Panel by British Columbians.

The 22 members of the Unity Panel -- ten elected officials and 12 citizens -- worked long and hard to get the views of

[ Page 7842 ]

British Columbians. Over 50,000 citizens presented their views directly to the panel. Several of the panel members are in the House today, and I have already introduced them. I want to thank them as well as the elected officials sitting in the House today for their incredible hard work and dedication to the cause of national unity.

I commend this resolution for the consideration of the members and thank British Columbians for demonstrating, by participating in this process, their vision of a strong British Columbia in a united Canada.

The Speaker: In response, I recognize the hon. member for Richmond-Steveston.

G. Plant: I want to begin by thanking the Premier for his remarks. I also want to extend my personal appreciation and the appreciation of the official opposition to all of the members of the Unity Panel, including those who are here today and those who are unable to be here today, who I think worked hard, conscientiously and with enthusiasm to try and create a project that would be an important contribution to the work of national unity in British Columbia.

[2:15]

Some members of the House will know that when the panel completed its report, it was our view that that report should be submitted to an all-party committee of this House in order that a resolution which truly reflected a consensus of the House could be drafted and then submitted to the House for debate. We have instead chosen instead a different path. Members will know that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled a resolution which expresses the concurrence and support that we think this Legislature does have generally with respect to the principles of the Calgary declaration, and we now have the government's resolution -- the resolution tabled by the Premier today.

I think it's probably appropriate to say, on the eve of what is going to be for us a long weekend, that the tabling of both of these resolutions gives all of us in this House an opportunity to talk to our constituents, to come back for what I hope will be a debate next week -- what I expect will be a constructive debate by the members of this House. It's a debate that I look forward to, and I'm sure all members of the House do.

G. Wilson: I seek leave to respond to the ministerial statement.

Leave granted.

G. Wilson: I think that what was not said in this ministerial statement but is deserving of being said in this Legislative Assembly is the extent to which members of this House came together in this process, in a non-partisan way, and attempted to consult with and include British Columbians from around the province, to seek ways in which we could express to Ottawa and to the rest of Canada what it is in British Columbia that we find important to British Columbians, as Canadians.

The second thing I'd like to say that has not been said and that I think needs to be said is that this government took an action that is unlike any other government in Canada, to the extent that they were prepared to extend that consultation beyond the strict parameters of the Calgary declaration to include issues that are of importance to British Columbians. To that extent, we have been far more exhaustive, far more extensive, in our searching of opinion than any of the other provinces in Canada. For that I think this government does deserve some congratulations.

I think also what's critically important in this process is the resolution that comes forward by way of a motion. Not only does it accurately reflect what the committee heard but I think, more importantly, it accurately expresses a growing level of frustration that so many British Columbians have with the seeming inability of Ottawa to understand that as Canadians -- as good Canadians -- British Columbians have issues that are equal in importance to those of the province of Quebec.

While we do seek to find resolution to the differences between the people of Quebec and Canada, we also seek to find resolution to those issues that are important to British Columbia. This motion specifically will name fisheries, and nowhere is there a more important expression of our concern with respect to the power of the shared relationship between British Columbia and Ottawa than in the seeming inability of us to get a handle on that question, especially today.

So there are some congratulations to be given to the Premier in particular, because he took what I think is a bold step with respect to this process, unlike what we have seen by other Premiers, who had an equal opportunity. Also, as the member for Richmond-Steveston has said, we do have an opportunity in this debate, for the first time since this Legislature has sat, to be able to formally and properly express to Ottawa the position of British Columbians with respect to a new shared relationship. With that, hon. Speaker, I congratulate this government, I look forward to the debate, and I clearly hope that Ottawa is listening.

Oral Questions

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

S. Hawkins: It's now been over three months that patients in the north have been without hospital services. Today the mayor from Burns Lake, Mayor Paul Jean, who's supposed to be represented by the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine, has arrived -- all the way down from Burns Lake to Victoria -- to tell this Premier how frightening the rural health crisis has been to the patients up there. My question is to this Premier: why, why, why has he allowed patients to suffer so long up north that this mayor from Burns Lake has to come to Victoria and camp out on the front lawn of the Legislature, in the rain, to get this Premier's attention?

Hon. G. Clark: I certainly understand that the people in the north want their health care services restored as quickly as possible. That's our government's goal as well. Certainly the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has been vigilant on this question in raising it and looking for solutions. That's why the minister appointed Lucy Dobbin recently to help bring us together with doctors so we can find solutions to their issues and to those of patients in rural areas. This obviously is a difficult question. It's one which we need to find a resolution for.

We understand the frustration and concerns of the people in the north. But at the end of the day, it takes two parties to come to an agreement. Frankly, we have some challenges with the highest-paid doctors in Canada, ones for which we require solutions that lead to an overall solution for people in the north and that improve services for all people in British Columbia.

The Speaker: First supplementary, the member for Okanagan West.

[ Page 7843 ]

S. Hawkins: The crisis in northern health care is not new. The facts are clear. The facts are that there are 86 fewer doctors in the northern and rural areas in this province today than there were four years ago. We know now that seven more doctors are leaving the north; two of them happen to be from the mayor's town of Burns Lake. Again I want to ask this Premier: can he tell the mayor from Burns Lake what action his government is going to take to guarantee that not one more doctor will leave the north because of the disgraceful way that this government has handled the northern rural health care crisis?

Hon. G. Clark: The problem of northern doctors is not unique to British Columbia. There clearly is a problem with providing adequate physician services in rural Canada and rural British Columbia. It is one which we take very seriously. That's why we spend $9 million a year on a northern and isolation allowance program, which is more generous than any other province. That's why we offered more money, to provide more service to the people in the north. Unfortunately, doctors have rejected that in favour of a scheme which would cost many millions of dollars more for doctors' wages rather than for services to constituents.

We look forward to Lucy Dobbin's report. If it recommends more funding to provide more services to people in the north, then clearly we will provide it. What we're reluctant to do is simply provide more money for fewer doctors. We want to provide more service to people in the north, and we're working hard to find a resolution to this problem.

M. de Jong: The mayor of Burns Lake is camped out with a hospital bed on the legislative lawn, because no one's listening. He's begging for someone to listen. The Health minister's not listening, the Premier's not listening and, worst of all, inexcusably, the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine isn't listening. We've waited and waited for him to stand in this Legislature and speak up on behalf of his constituents, and he refuses to do so. He refuses to speak for those . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member . . .

M. de Jong: . . . constituents who are desperate to have health care services returned.

The Speaker: . . . would you put your question, please.

M. de Jong: No one's paying attention to the plight that the mayor has brought to this chamber.

The Speaker: Your question, please.

M. de Jong: I know that the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has said in the past that he'll speak up for those constituents of his . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member . . . .

M. de Jong: . . . so, hon. Speaker, let him. The opposition will yield today. Maybe he can ask the Premier today.

The Speaker: Hon. member, hon. member . . . .

M. de Jong: Let him ask the Premier today, on behalf of his constituents.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. members, I have asked for the microphones to be cut, because as everyone knows, it is not in the rules to ask questions of members of this assembly other than the executive council.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I call the members to order.

Member, continue -- first supplementary.

M. de Jong: For a guy that I have learned just spent $4,000 chartering an aircraft to fly from Smithers to Victoria one week ago . . .

The Speaker: Hon. member, I ask you to take your seat.

M. de Jong: . . . this member has precious little to say on behalf of his constituents.

The Speaker: Hon. member, I ask you to take your seat.

M. de Jong: My question . . . .

The Speaker: Order, order! Hon. member, you will take your seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That question is entirely inappropriate and out of order. I call for another question. The line of direction, you know . . . . Take your seat, please.

Hon. members know a number of the rules around question period, one of which is about long

preambles on supplementaries. I've been very patient about all of that in the last couple of days. Questions are to be directed to the executive council. If you have a question that way, please present it. Otherwise I will ask you to take your seat, and we'll move onto someone else.

I recognize the member for Matsqui.

MEMBER'S CHARTER OF AIRPLANE

M. de Jong: My question is to the Minister of Forests. Will he confirm that on May 4 the member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine chartered an aircraft at a cost in excess of $4,000 for a trip that would otherwise cost $350 and billed that $4,000-plus expense to Forest Renewal B.C.? Will the Minister of Forests confirm that today?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I would be happy, since it involves some details, to take that question on notice.

NORTHERN HEALTH CARE

J. Weisgerber: My question, too, is to the Premier and deals with this question of northern health care.

For nearly four months now my constituents in Mackenzie and other people across northern British Columbia have been denied doctors' services in hospitals except in the most severe emergencies. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine indeed found out last Saturday that people are angry and that they're not willing to wait any longer for a resolution to this issue. Lucy Dobbin was asked by the Minister of Health

[ Page 7844 ]

to provide interim recommendations for a solution. She's been in that position now for nearly a month. My questions to the Premier and to the Minister of Health are: has Lucy Dobbin made interim recommendations, and has this government acted on those recommendations?

Hon. G. Clark: No, Lucy Dobbin has not provided interim recommendations, to my knowledge. Obviously the Minister of Health is not in the chamber today, but as of earlier this morning, that's my information.

Clearly the members are correct that we understand the deep feelings of the people of the north. The member for Bulkley Valley-Stikine has raised this issue almost every day for the last few months. We on this side of the House understand more than anybody the real deep concerns that people have about health services. I obviously, as well, want to make it clear that I have enormous sympathy for rural doctors and the work they do and the difficult nature of the work they do and the fact that they do provide service in the north where others do not.

The challenge, of course, is to find a resolution to this question which does not simply result in more money to fewer doctors but which provides a long-term solution and more medical services for people in the north. That's what we're trying to do in British Columbia; that's what we've charged Lucy Dobbin to do. There is misinformation and a fear campaign about closures of hospitals. I want to assure members: that will never happen as long as I am the Premier of British Columbia.

The Speaker: For his first supplementary, the member for Peace River South.

J. Weisgerber: Let me say this: if this dispute were going on in Surrey or in East Vancouver or in Vancouver-Quilchena, it would have been resolved a long time ago. Three and a half months is too long to wait for a resolution. In Mackenzie one doctor has already relocated; two more are looking for new positions. Those doctors are going to be incredibly difficult to replace.

The Speaker: Your question.

J. Weisgerber: If it's tough to keep them there now, think how difficult it's going to be to attract new doctors in.

The Speaker: Your question, hon. member.

J. Weisgerber: There's little question in my mind that doctors would go back to work immediately if the government were willing to commit itself to binding arbitration. My question to the Premier is simply: will he agree to sit down and allow the doctors to participate in binding arbitration -- that would be binding, indeed, on both parties?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order before we hear the answer.

Hon. G. Clark: The challenge we have, of course, is whom we negotiate with. Lucy Dobbin, as I understand it, has been endeavouring to meet with doctors. Some of the northern doctors have refused to meet with her. The B.C. Medical Association is also engaged in activity which essentially violates a collective agreement which they have voluntarily agreed to and signed onto, and now they don't like it. This dispute, frankly, is about money, unfortunately, rather than health services. What we are trying to do is provide more health services to the north and to ensure health services for all British Columbians.

[2:30]

COST OF ICBC ROAD SENSE CONFERENCE

C. Clark: We know that the Minister of Forests can find $4,000 to help his backbench MLAs avoid taking a scheduled service. We also know that ICBC can find 80 grand of taxpayers' money so they can put on a posh three-day conference for students at a four-star hotel. At a time when youth unemployment in British Columbia is at 18.3 percent and at a time when the government is cutting its student employment programs, how can the minister defend spending 80 grand on this posh conference instead of taking that money and putting a few more students back to work?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm really pleased that the hon. member asked the question. It gives a chance to explain a few things. First, this year's program is an ICBC youth initiative to put young people to work across the province -- to take the ICBC Road Sense message throughout British Columbia. It's a continuation of last year's program, which was extremely successful. The result of last year's program was that we saw accidents down in this province, we saw claims down in this province, and we've seen premiums frozen for three years in a row. This year's program is a continuation of that.

That $80,000 is not for some posh conference. It's to train young people to get ICBC's message out, to help bring down accidents across the province, to take the road safety message out across the province, and to take the message out that once more we will, at the end of the year, have a corporation that has a profit, with premiums frozen and claims down.

The Speaker: For her first supplementary, the member for Port Moody-Burnaby Mountain.

C. Clark: We're talking about $80,000 spent on a four-star hotel for three nights, where a third of the students lived in the lower mainland and still stayed three nights in the hotel. And here's the minister . . . . They dined them, they danced them, they put them up in a hotel, and then they slapped a gag order on them. If the minister thinks that it was such a good idea for ICBC to do it, can he explain why ICBC felt that they had to put a gag order on these students and order them to shut up so they didn't . . .

The Speaker: Your question?

C. Clark: . . . tell what was going on?

Interjections.

The Speaker: One moment, minister.

I recognize the Minister of Employment and Investment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: The only gag order in this province is on that back bench that never gets up and asks a question . . . .

Interjections.

[ Page 7845 ]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Had that member bothered to show up, she could have spoken to 132 young British Columbians who are now out talking to British Columbians about the Road Sense program. Had the media station from which she drew her story bothered to attend the conference and talk to the young people there the way the other media have, they would have found 132 students who were hired by ICBC for a very successful program to take the message of road safety out across this province, to take the message against drinking and driving across this province, to take the message of graduated licensing programs across this province and to carry the message . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . that premiums have been frozen for three years and that ICBC . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. M. Farnworth: . . . made a profit in the first quarter of this year and that claims are down.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Hon. members, come to order, please.

I recognize the hon. member for Okanagan West, who has a petition, I believe.

Petitions

S. Hawkins: I actually have two petitions signed by over 5,000 residents of the northern and rural communities of Vanderhoof, Burns Lake, Fraser Lake, Fort St. James, Mackenzie, Houston, Quesnel and constituents from other communities that have been without hospital care since January 31. They are very concerned about the health care crisis.

J. Wilson: Hon. Speaker, this petition is signed by 2,054 British Columbians from the riding of Cariboo North. It requests that the government pay physicians for on-call services and that the government provide adequate standards for medical services in their community.

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Lovick: I have the honour today to table the "Province of British Columbia Response to the Report of the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs."

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: First of all, I would like to seek leave from the House to have the Special Committee of Selection sit now.

Leave granted.

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply in Committee A, and for the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

The House in Committee of Supply B; W. Hartley in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED

EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

( continued )

On vote 11: minister's office, $464,000 (continued).

J. Weisbeck: Before we adjourned, I was dealing with some questions on private post-secondary. There's one further question about school closures. I want to know if it can reopen and keep its Canada student loan number.

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, the answer is yes, provided the new purchaser assumes the assets and the liabilities.

J. Weisbeck: This question is on bonding. What are the current dollars being held by private post-secondary institutions for bonding?

Hon. A. Petter: The PPSEC requires a bond or other form of security equal to 70 percent of the unearned revenue. All I'd say is that some of the difficulty, of course, is to determine what that 70 percent number is.

J. Weisbeck: You don't have any approximate value of what is now currently being held, then, by private post-secondary institutions?

Hon. A. Petter: Between bonds and other forms of security, the number, we believe, is in the range of about $38 million.

J. Weisbeck: I guess there's been some concern by some institutions that these dollars created a hardship on the institution. They are talking about possibly having some sort of a pooling type of system. Has any thought been given to that?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, there has, in fact, been thought given to that. I have talked to the head of the commission. I think it would be very desirable if we could find a pooling arrangement so that individual institutions didn't have to self-insure. It could be done on a pool basis. All I'd say is that it's a little more tricky here than it might be in other areas. In the case of travel agencies, for example, travel agencies have a fairly common set of services that they provide.

One can have a pooling arrangement where there is a high degree of confidence that the self-insurance provided by that is of equal benefit to all agencies. In this area, you may have very established institutions that are very secure and some that are, let us say, less secure. There is obviously going to be a concern in a pooling arrangement, therefore, that those who are more established and more secure are not insuring other institutions unduly. So the answer is yes, there is work going on.

We would like to pursue some kind of model, not just for the benefit of the institutions but for the benefit of students, so we could make sure that there are adequate funds when institutions do go down. But it is a little trickier here, because the nature of the institutions, the kind of services they provide and their stability is highly variable, and therefore the nature of the pool and how it would operate has some additional complexities to it.

J. Weisbeck: I have a couple of specific questions. This is from an individual in the north who runs a hairdressing

[ Page 7846 ]

school. Their concern is that there are three government exams per year. This has created a hardship on the students, who graduate, of course, and have to wait around for this exam to happen, particularly with regard to the fact that they have to start paying their student loans back. Quite often these individuals are either on social assistance or are single mothers or whatever. You know, we talk about inequities in the province. This seems to be one of them. I am assuming that they have a better exam rate on the coast than they do in some of the rural areas. I'm wondering if that could be looked at or if there is some sort of allowance for creating more exams.

[2:45]

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, this is a matter that comes under the legislative responsibility of the Minister of Labour, but I'll be helpful as much as I can. I have the assistance -- I should mention him to the hon. members, because I haven't introduced him up to this point -- of Jim Vanstone, director of the student services branch.

As I understand it, the regulations that would apply with respect to the exams and accreditation in hairdressing are established under legislation -- as I say, within the purview of to the Ministry of Labour -- that empowers the hairdressers' governing body to set those standards. So it's not government imposing a standard upon the industry; it's the industry imposing upon itself, through its own regulatory body, the particular standards that apply with respect to examination -- under the Minister of Labour.

J. Weisbeck: The request of this individual was that it be possible for the student to work on a temporary permit. Would that come under the act as well?

Hon. A. Petter: Again, that is a matter for the association to establish: whether or not a student can undertake work prior to having completed the necessary requirements, etc. So it's part of the industry's own regulatory regime, and I would suggest that if there are concerns, they should be taken up with the industry association.

J. Weisbeck: That's the final question I have on private post-secondary. We're going to move into science and technology, if you'd like to get the people.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me say that I really have enjoyed and appreciated the opportunity to debate with the members opposite this segment of my new responsibilities. I always find this a learning experience, and being at the front end of a new ministry, I have a lot to learn. I've benefited from the interchange on this, and I want to thank members for this segment of the debate.

L. Reid: I'm pleased to rise in debate on these estimates this afternoon, basically on science, technology and research in the province of British Columbia. If I might just make a number of opening remarks.

This century has certainly been about information technology in the province of British Columbia. Certainly in Canada, North America . . . the globe, the focus has been primarily on information technology. The next century, if I might predict, will be about biotechnology. It will definitely be about finding solutions to particular health care problems that are out there today. The questions surrounding Alzheimer's, breast cancer research and the areas of MS -- those kinds of predicaments are what challenge researchers today, not just in British Columbia but the world over.

Those are the kinds of issues that confront and confound families, as the minister well knows in terms of ongoing discussions around health care delivery in this province.

I believe that there are some opportunities for this segment of this minister's ministry to look very carefully at solutions -- putting into place mechanisms that allow the best scientists in the world to come to British Columbia to do their work and honouring and valuing the work that they do. They will create a cluster, a microcosm, of some of the finest minds in this province so that we can indeed find some solutions to some of these very pressing questions. At some point in the future we will see a reduction in health care expenditure because people will indeed be healthier. That is the goal.

That is the framework around which I will be placing my remarks today. I think that's the goal of every single member of this Legislature: that indeed this should be about solutions, that indeed we are looking for ways to spend the taxpayers' dollars much more prudently and, frankly, much more strategically.

I do believe that some vision is required in this ministry when it comes to deciding the best allocation of those dollars. I look forward this afternoon to the debate with this minister because I do believe that he possesses that vision. Certainly, if you go back to the 1995 Klopfer report, it talks about . . . . Recommendation No. 3 -- their most significant recommendation, I believe -- was to select a minister that would champion the industry. So my first question to the minister is: are you that individual?

Hon. A. Petter: I think the answer is that I aspire to be. It would be a bit presumptuous for me, having been on the job for a little over two months, to say that I can claim to have fulfilled that expectation and role. But certainly that is my intention. I think it was the mission that I was given by the Premier in this new assignment.

I have had an opportunity . . . . In fact, within the first few days of being assigned to this ministry, I asked that we pull together some of the leading minds with expertise in areas of science and technology within universities, the private sector, research. Since then, I have met on a number of occasions with representatives of the Science Council and the Premier's advisory committee. I dropped in unexpectedly -- unexpectedly to them, at least, but not to me -- on one of the major industry dinners and was very well received and roasted for my efforts. So I'd say that I have made it my mission to try to reach out to the community.

There's a huge appetite of interest within this segment, both the education system and the private sector as well as government, for us to work together on a vision for this province around science and technology, around the future -- one that will help benefit the economy, that will provide jobs. It will do many of the things that the members refer to and provide those wonderful benefits that come from research. We're already seeing that in this province. So absolutely, that's what this is about.

I have already announced that we will be pursuing a provincial strategy -- not a government strategy, but a provincial strategy. Another recommendation that's been made in a number of reports is to create a vision for the knowledge-based economy: what it can provide to this province and how we can work together. I hope to convene a group around that strategy very quickly -- not to reinvent the wheel but to build

[ Page 7847 ]

on what's been done -- and to articulate that vision in such a way that everyone can work together. I invite the opposition to be a part of that solution as well.

L. Reid: I accept the minister's offer for the official opposition to participate, because we certainly believe strongly in the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians, and with some mechanism in place, I believe they will go forward and do some very fine things. I have shared with the minister a list of the issues that I intend to canvass this afternoon.

First off, I want to spend just a few moments on the recommendations flowing from the Klopfer report in terms of, perhaps, an update. I will also canvass the TIA report card of 1997 to government. Certainly one of the recommendations -- I believe it's recommendation No. 9 -- talked about the outsourcing of computer services to government. The actual recommendation reads: " . . . outsource much of the provincial government's computer services work and privatize most of the functions of the B.C. Systems Corporation." Would the minister kindly give us a synopsis of the status of that?

[P. Calendino in the chair.]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I'd be happy to respond. Before I do, I might just introduce some of the very able staff that I have been fortunate enough to inherit. First is the deputy minister, who, like me, is new to this assignment and almost as enthusiastic, perhaps even a little more so at times. He has more time to be enthusiastic, because of his focus on this. The deputy, Stuart Culbertson, is both deputy and chief information officer. He is seated to my left. Seated to my right is Calvin Shantz, the executive director of the science and technology branch.

Behind me are Carol Pereira, financial manager, and Lois Fraser, assistant deputy minister, for the information technology services division. I am very ably served by them and others.

With respect to the recommendation about the outsourcing of information technology services, the member will be aware that the most significant development in this regard has been the agreement reached with IBM. A key component of that agreement was that a company, ISM-BC, will take over the operation of data processing at the former B.C. Systems building on Seymour Place in Victoria. Not only will they take it over, but they will in fact more than double the capacity that exists in that facility.

That in turn will make that facility one that can compete internationally for very high-powered data-processing opportunities -- competing with other leading centres around the world -- and should help to spur a whole second tier of development amongst software and other related service-providing companies right here in Victoria. I'm very excited about that initiative, and I think it has been viewed very positively, to date, at least within the industry.

There are other elements to the IBM agreement, but they relate to other matters. We'd be happy to debate those. There are some other requests for proposals out there. Some of those are still under consideration insofar as decisions have not been made -- other than saying that we have narrowed the list to some final applicants and they are being evaluated. I probably shouldn't say much more than that until they are finalized, but the member will be aware that they relate to services like the B.C. OnLine service, the voice mail services and the like.

I want to say one other thing, though, and that is we are looking for the best solution in terms of what will produce the most cost-effective solution and the best economic solution for the province. So while there has been some outsourcing in terms of IBM and the direction taken in these other requests, we certainly would not proceed if we didn't feel it was effective. In one case at least we have sort of gone in the other direction.

We decided that a much more cost-effective solution to delivering the provincial learning network could be provided by using government employees and the services that exist within government rather than outsourcing -- although there is a partnership dimension to that. So it isn't a question of outsourcing or not outsourcing. It's a question of the best solution in terms of growing the economy and taking advantage of the opportunities that exist.

L. Reid: I too would like to take a moment to acknowledge the minister's staff. I thank you all most sincerely for your efforts to instruct me on the workings of your ministry over the last number of years. Thank you most sincerely.

In terms of the minister's comments on what needs to happen in this province in terms of large companies hopefully spawning smaller companies, perhaps the minister could update us on the Sun Microsystems discussion -- and I believe that Motorola was also one that was first raised in '95-96.

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to Motorola, there have been discussions. We are in the process of talking to them about hopefully having them develop a software development centre here in British Columbia. I expect and hope to be speaking to the head of Motorola Canada in the next week or so, to indicate the government's interest and commitment to work with them to that end. I believe the Premier had discussions some time ago with representatives of Motorola, as well.

I think the discussions with Sun Microsystems are in a more preliminary stage. We're certainly interested in pursuing similar opportunities, but they are not as far advanced, so I can't really give more of an indication than that.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that update.

One of the other issues that confounds a number of local entrepreneurs and businesses is marketing and managerial expertise. They have the brilliant science idea and they're ready to take it to the marketplace. They're oftentimes not able to attract certain individuals from the United States, because of the sheer cost of bringing those individuals to British Columbia. Are there plans underway in terms of the minister putting in place some more marketing-managerial kinds of components -- perhaps at the university level, perhaps in community co-op programs -- so that individuals . . . ?

Let's say the minister is the brilliant scientist of the day. He has the idea, but needs some assistance in terms of taking it to the marketplace. Will there be a greater emphasis in the coming year on a resource package, if you will, or a single resource, so that the scientist will have an opportunity to have someone guide him or her through that process of marketing that product -- commercializing that product and taking it into the public domain?

Hon. A. Petter: I'm informed that there is a specific fund consisting of some $600,000, called the market research and development fund, which was established and is jointly funded by the federal and provincial governments, and that is available to assist in providing marketing support and information. I believe that the ASI also provides some support in this regard.

[3:00]

[ Page 7848 ]

Also, I had a very interesting discussion the other day with representatives of Camosun College. They are in fact -- and I think this is true of other colleges as well -- developing a capacity to provide assistance to small firms, entrepreneurs and researchers in precisely this direction -- to assist them in working their ideas through and bringing them into a business-type framework, for example. They see huge opportunities, particularly in Victoria with IBM, to help individuals and small companies that wish to expand to enter the market and to take advantage of some of these opportunities.

Having said that, I think there's more we can do. There's a tremendous need for more marketing skills and resources -- not only directed at researchers but within the industry itself. It's one of the shortages of talent that we have to work hard to address.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. If he would be so kind as to share the information on the market research fund with me, I would be very interested in receiving that. As the minister knows, there are a number of fledgling companies in Richmond -- and certainly in the riding of Richmond East -- that would benefit from being able to pool some resources around managerial competence and ensure that the mind-set for that kind of science stays in British Columbia.

My colleague has just pointed out that there are individuals who are not able to secure financing in British Columbia and often end up selling their best ideas to another country, typically the United States. Again, I think it's incumbent upon all of us to ensure that we retain that best idea, that brilliant strategy, that best product line within British Columbia, if there are ways that we can do that.

I appreciate the minister's comments about delivering service in the most cost-effective way, but once we've crafted the idea here and end up purchasing it back from another country . . . . That doesn't tend to be the best use of the tax base. There are some issues around tailoring services to a variety of different companies -- different-sized companies, different companies within information technology or biotechnology or environmental technologies. The minister and I would agree that there probably isn't ever going to be a one-size-fits-all solution for any of these new science companies that are entering the marketplace.

In terms of this ministry's dealings with the financial institutions of this province . . . . I will reference the province of Newfoundland -- which I had the opportunity to visit last year -- in terms of better understanding how they got the banks onside to do some good things in terms of science funding. The Royal Bank and, I believe, the Bank of Montreal basically have committed individuals who understand start-up companies, who understand emergent technology protocols, if you will -- the kinds of things that new companies are looking for, and frankly, need to survive.

They're people who understand the fact that new companies eat up enormous capital in the research phases of their company, sometimes millions and millions of dollars, and that funding is sometimes difficult to receive. Has this minister made some overtures to our financial institutions here in British Columbia in terms of encouraging some receptiveness on the part of these institutions?

Hon. A. Petter: The member's points are extremely well taken. There is obviously a need for venture capital, for financing, for marketing expertise. I think that there is a need for additional resources, and I will certainly be knocking on the doors of banks and other financial institutions to make sure that they are being as responsive as they can be to the opportunities that exist. I think some of the major banks do have very strong expertise in some of these areas, but whether they are being as sensitive to the needs of British Columbia and some of these companies that are in an embryonic stage . . . . If I can play a role in making them more responsive, I would certainly like to do so.

I have also had an opportunity, both in my previous ministry and in this one, to talk to those who are more directly involved in venture capital -- the Working Opportunity Fund, Ventures West and others -- and I think it is very important that we keep them involved if we're going to develop a strategy for this province. Obviously, making sure that the capital is there to fund the development of this segment of our economy is critical.

I would also say that I think it is important, in the support that government does give, to make it clear that we expect one of the quid pro quos of that support to be that companies that generate ideas do have those ideas translated into benefits for the province. By way of example, the fund we announced . . . . Gee, was it only Monday of this week? It's the $100 million over six years for research infrastructure which we'll partner with the federal fund, the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

One of the key added criteria that we have brought to the table is that we want to make sure not only that projects that are funded produce excellent research but that that research has some long-term benefit here in British Columbia in producing jobs and economic value, so we can persuade those companies . . . give them the opportunity of collecting -- between us and the federal government -- 80 percent of their infrastructure costs in partnership with educational institutions, but then have them clearly understand that the exchange is that the research would then be developed in the province to produce long-term benefits.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. He mentioned the Working Opportunity Fund. I'm wondering if there is any status report on the B.C. Focus funds and the MDS life sciences fund, which I understand were both crafted within the last five years. I have a little bit of background on the MDS life sciences fund, but I'm wondering if the minister anticipates any other funds of that nature.

Hon. A. Petter: We're not aware of any additional funds. The two that were mentioned by the member have continued. I don't have the information in a status report as such, but I would be happy to get that information to the member and give her those particulars.

L. Reid: I look forward to receiving that material.

The last comment I will make is regarding the Klopfer report. It says, in recommendation No. 19: "A comprehensive communications plan should be developed which presents the knowledge-based industry in British Columbia in a positive manner." I know this one has been on the books -- at least with Alex Klopfer, for his working life . . . . But in terms of the report, it's probably been two or three years. Has there been a strategy developed that will continue to not just craft this for the consumption of the general public but, hopefully, work toward creating the science student in British Columbia?

I know there are some programs that typically focus on the grade 10 science student -- biology, chemistry and math -- and certainly we've put some focus on women in science. But my goal, having been an educator in the past, is that we do

[ Page 7849 ]

some things with four-, five- and six-year-olds in the province, because that's the time when they're the most creative in terms of deciding on a career in science or at least continuing to develop an ongoing interest in science. I think we miss some opportunities because we wait ten or 15 years. Could the minister perhaps comment if this strategy will indeed focus on elementary school students?

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I think one of the primary objectives of the strategy that I referred to earlier will be to craft a communications approach that industry, government and educational institutions can use together. From talking to those in the industry, my sense is that the primary focus of that, in terms of this recommendation, is to be external -- that is, to tell the world about how British Columbia is a good place to invest, locate and encourage research -- and to really make this province a technology-friendly leader in terms of the knowledge-based economy.

Of course, we have tremendous strengths to promote, not the least of which is the excellence of research that takes place in our post-secondary institutions. There's also our quality of life, the fact that we are investing in a new university dedicated to technology, and a number of other elements -- I won't necessarily go through them all -- that really recommend B.C.

The member's suggestion, however, is an excellent one, and that is that the focus of that vision shouldn't be projected just externally; it should be projected internally to capture the imagination of kids and of youth. That, I think, is important. One of the most exciting events I attended since becoming the minister responsible for this area was the ASI Exchange in Vancouver, in Robson Square. It's an exchange at which students -- albeit, in this case, university or technical institute students, for the most part -- bring their displays side by side with industry.

There's a huge interchange, and indeed, some of the people making displays on behalf of industry were students a few years before. The sense of excitement that takes place there can be carried into elementary schools and can give people a sense of what the potential of the knowledge-based economy is.

Some of that, I think, we're already working on. The information highway, the provincial learning network on the information technology side, plus some of the new software agreements we've reached, which the Minister of Education and I announced recently, will give students in small communities -- be it Nakusp, Vanderhoof or wherever -- the same kind of access to the information highway, to the software, to the skills with respect to the use of those technologies as students in Vancouver are enjoying today. We went and visited some students who were enjoying that technology, in terms of a computer animation course, in a Vancouver high school recently.

But if the member is saying there's a lot of excitement and imagination that can be tapped out there amongst kids and amongst communities around this, I have no disagreement with that. In fact, I think it's an excellent suggestion.

L. Reid: I would definitely concur with the minister that the ASI Exchange was a wonderful endeavour. I trust that at some point we will have the younger set of the population side by side with industry, presenting the kinds of things that they have developed.

I want to move to the British Columbia Technology Industries Association, and the TIA report card for 1997, because I think it builds on the document we just referenced in terms of the Alex Klopfer report. "This progress report is an update on the 1995 Science Council-sponsored report entitled, 'High Technology Industries in British Columbia: The Agenda For Growth,' authored by Alex Klopfer." It goes on to talk about the 22 percent growth in the industry, the spinoff effect of 57,000 people and several thousand companies earning over $7.5 million in revenue, much of it from exports.

Certainly one of the areas that I've referenced for the minister that I want to come back and touch on is the level of exportation today into the Philippines and Indonesia. We'll come back to that a little bit later. In terms of what the report says, for the most part, I agree with it.

I think there are some things that the province still needs to do in terms of building the template, if you will, so that these companies have an easier time of crafting job opportunities. I think we can agree that science and technology research is about being an economic driver. The goal in this is to create wealth, employment and profit. These are individuals on the free enterprise side of the spectrum who are indeed best able to craft employment opportunities. Those jobs have some durability and, hopefully, some predictability over time.

The sense that I get from the report is that the industry has done their part. There are a number of outstanding issues that they would wish government to address. I am more than happy to put on the record a number of their issues. Certainly I welcome the minister's comments of a few moments ago when he talked about a $100 million combined venture with the Canada Foundation for Innovation around infrastructure, because that is one of the areas of consideration for this report.

They talk about the need for sterile rooms, about the need for good research facilities. Oftentimes, I think the minister will agree that small business -- brand-new companies of one or two individuals, of the inventor and one or two others -- simply don't have those resources in terms of building that one-off sterile room, if you will, times 40 new businesses. But if there are opportunities to come together and share those bigger expenditures cooperatively, is that something the government is looking at in terms of the $100 million?

[3:15]

Hon. A. Petter: First, let me say that I am familiar with the report card. In fact, that is the dinner I dropped in on; it was where the report was presented. It was a report card that I thought was very useful, very constructive. Albeit that it was taken last fall, I think it helped to show some of the concerns.

It also helped to illuminate some of the steps the government has taken, just in recent months, that did address points in the report card -- like bringing a major IT player into the province, like making some tax changes that are particularly relevant in terms of the technology sector, like some of the education initiatives and now, as the member indicates, the research infrastructure initiative: the B.C. Knowledge Development Fund.

With respect to the question of the use of the fund, the fund will be drawn upon based on the quality of submissions that are brought forward. The universities, colleges and institutes will have a central role to play in bringing those forward. I expect that in the course of bringing them forward, there will be opportunities to look at pooling resources and benefits. In fact, I happen to know that the University of Victoria, for example, is looking at a proposal to create a centre in which they may have some research presence, and private companies may cluster around that in a sort of incubation-type facility.

When I was at UBC, I had the opportunity to see where UBC has essentially created a little science knowledge development centre right on campus, which does the same

[ Page 7850 ]

thing. I expect that the universities, because of their talent pool and the benefits that can come from those kinds of synergies and relationships, will be helping to advance proposals of the kind the member suggests.

L. Reid: To continue with the report, I will quote: "The less happy news is that we are still not doing as well as our neighbours, particularly Washington State and Oregon, and in the global economy this is a problem. If other nearby jurisdictions are doing better than us, we risk losing people and outside investment to them. It means that we are losing the race to the New Economy."

I think we have touched on these issues in the budget debate in this Legislature, where we talked about the cost of regulation. The fact is we do not have a competitive tax regime in the province of British Columbia today. Certainly this minister, having been the previous Minister of Finance, will have been lobbied significantly by individuals who know what needs to happen in terms of being a more receptive region of this country, in terms of attracting investment and, in this case, particularly investment around science, technology and research.

If the minister could give a sense of what the province might expect over the next year or two years in terms of the work of this government on reducing regulation around new business startup, particularly science and tech businesses.

Hon. A. Petter: A couple of points. First of all, I must say it's refreshing to be exposed to a sector of the economy that thinks a 22 percent growth rate is underachieving. Having said that, I think they are quite right: we should be setting the target against Oregon and Washington. That's exactly what I propose we do as part of this partnership that I hope comes out of our common strategic vision. If we were to compare what's happening in B.C. in high-tech and biotech with other jurisdictions in Canada, I suspect -- in fact, I have a pretty good indication -- that we're doing relatively well.

This is anecdotal, but I've heard back from representatives in Ontario that they understand that in terms of biotech, at least, B.C.'s the place to be, and that's where researchers are looking to. It's sort of hard to compare numbers, but our rates of growth compare very favourably with Ontario, Alberta and other jurisdictions in this sector of the economy, even at a time when our economy as a whole is not doing as well.

In terms of some of the tax issues, I point out that the survey was a survey of the perceptions of CEOs of companies, who clearly have an interest in reducing taxes. I'm well aware of their concerns. The good news is that I think it is acknowledged within the industry that the budget introduced in this session has been responsive to many of those concerns. It's no secret that in the high-tech sector, the concern of being able to attract human capital is the predominant concern. So reductions in high marginal tax rates . . . . Highly skilled marketing and research talent tends to fall into high marginal tax rates.

The reductions that were announced by the Minister of Finance have been seen as responsive to these concerns. It's never enough; we know that. But they're certainly responsive and a step in the right direction. I think it's been seen positively.

Similarly, the great preponderance of businesses in this sector, some 97 percent, have less than 50 employees and qualify as small businesses. Again, the focus in the budget on reductions in the small business tax rate is particularly responsive to this sector. The survey which was taken prior to the budget is one that points to the concerns of CEOs, which have been acknowledged and responded to favourably the budget, in addition to the elimination of the corporate capital tax for small business and some targeted tax initiatives around call centres and the like.

Also, I'd point out -- and the member is aware, I'm sure -- that the Minister of Labour announced a process to look at regulatory issues that are of concern to this sector. Obviously we want to make sure that we have a good Employment Standards Act that protects workers, but if it is inadvertently having the effect of constraining workers who don't need protection -- skilled technicians who want to work around-the-clock to get a product together, for example, in the software industry -- then clearly we want to review that. We've agreed to review that, and I'm quite optimistic that process will produce some changes that, again, will be positive and viewed as responsive within the community.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments. Certainly he is correct when he says that it's the perception of the CEOs in the industry who were targeted for this report. However, I think that's valid. I think that those are the ones who, probably being closest to the industry, know full well how best to interact with their suppliers and investors so those kinds of industries can continue to flourish in this province. So I put the quotation on the record.

Also, the industry's perception of the government in British Columbia is disturbing. The TIA believes that in a small place like B.C. much is to be gained by different groups, including government, employee groups, academics and the industry itself, working together. An encouraging example of this is the cooperative effort currently underway to address the critical skills shortage, which the minister referenced earlier.

I applaud that kind of collaboration. I think that is the answer to some of these ongoing issues: that if people were aware of what was happening in other sectors, some headway could indeed be made. And certainly I agree with the intent of the report when it talks about the goal of government being to foster a climate for good research and development, for good entrepreneurial spirit, so that those companies can take the bit between their teeth and move ahead.

The minister referenced the labour relations climate in the province, as does the report, making sure that the inappropriate aspects of the labour standards act are examined and ensuring that the tax regime aspects are examined in more detail. I would applaud the minister's example when he talks about people working around the clock. That's certainly the case, particularly in my riding. Those individuals are burning the midnight oil in terms of getting a product to market. They may work flat out for three or four or five months, but then they'll take the same amount of time in vacation.

We need to be responsive, and I think we need to be much more aware as a province of how people do business, particularly in the science and technology sector.

So if I can take from the minister's comments that he's prepared to examine, but then further to ensure that these companies are unfettered -- and I believe that was his undertaking -- so they are able to go forward and deliver products to the wider global marketplace where a constrained time of closure for their business makes no difference if their product is being sold to Switzerland . . . . Indeed, we have to expand our horizons around what is globally competitive. Could I have the minister's comment on where he is prepared to take his examination of appropriate labour standards around the science and technology industry?

W. Hartley: I seek leave to make an introduction.

[ Page 7851 ]

Leave granted.

W. Hartley: Visiting us today from the Crystal Springs Elementary School in Bothell, Washington, are some 26 young visitors. They're here with some adults and their teacher, Miss S. Moe, for comparative government and local history. Please welcome them.

Hon. A. Petter: What I need to say is this: that the creation of this particular task force looking at employment standards was done with some dispatch. It has a very well defined time limit, about a 30-day time limit, because government does want to get on and solve some of these concerns. I don't want to prejudge what they recommend in any way, but I think the evidence is that I and the Minister of Labour, who appointed the task force, clearly understand that there is a concern.

We've created the task force to get on with the job quickly and to recommend back, and we've done that because we think there is a need to be responsive to these concerns. So I'll leave that to stand as the evidence, and then when the report comes in, I'll certainly be working quickly with the Minister of Labour and others to review its findings and act in the spirit that led to its creation.

I'd also just point out as an aside that I'm very pleased that the Minister of Finance has included representatives of the technology sector on the task force that she and the Minister of Small Business have established on small business, so that they can participate in a larger review of regulatory issues as well. I think that's a very positive sign. It's one that I asked to take place, and it has taken place, and I think it's further evidence that government is listening and being responsive to concerns in this sector.

[W. Hartley in the chair.]

L. Reid: I believe the minister referenced the regulatory report and the employment standards review. Could he indicate the dates that those reports will be before this Legislature?

Hon. A. Petter: On the employment standards review, I believe the report is to be submitted to the minister and to cabinet on May 30. On the other, I don't know the time lines. The Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business may know the time lines. As I understand it, the review is to take place over a period of time next year. I don't know those time lines. I can get them for the member, or the member could raise them with the Minister of Finance in her estimates.

L. Reid: I simply asked the question because I think there is tremendous concern among industry representatives that these reports will not be timely, that the examination will in fact extend beyond this government bringing in a new labour bill. That's enormous concern out there today. If the minister tells me that the time frames are tighter than that, and that there will be an opportunity for that information to be shared with the members of this chamber, I would be delighted by his response.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, as I say, on the employment standards issue, the report is to be submitted by May 30. On the other, the task force is a more generic task force on business concerns with respect to regulation. I'll leave the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Small Business to deal with that.

L. Reid: I agree -- and I did hear the date of May 30. Is that to the minister? Is that to this chamber? Is it public on May 30?

Hon. A. Petter: No. As I understand it, it's a report to the Minister of Labour and through the Minister of Labour to cabinet. But as I say, this task force was created quickly. It was given a short time frame in which to operate, and that is not accidental. It's because we understood the concern within the industry that this issue be considered with dispatch and that the government respond quickly. So I would anticipate that once the report is received, government will be giving it speedy consideration and, as soon as we're able, bringing forward whatever the outcome might be in the form of regulatory changes or, if they are required, legislative changes.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. I look forward to that information.

Certainly one of the other aspects this TIA 1997 report card talks about is the issues that government can be responsible for and, frankly, issues that only government can take responsibility for. It talks about taxation; it talks about regulation. So again, I am delighted that both of those works are ongoing.

[3:30]

The minister referenced incubation earlier in his comments, and I believe he made the comment that British Columbia was probably further ahead than most provinces. In fact, I made quite a study of what was happening in the other provinces in the last year or year and a half. Alberta has done some wonderful things around the Alberta Research Council. The same with Saskatchewan. The Saskatchewan Research Council is probably the leading research centre in the country today, and people are often astounded that it's in the province of Saskatchewan.

The other place that's at the top of the list is Newfoundland. In fact, Memorial University of Newfoundland started the first formal incubation centre for fledgling science and technology companies in the country. If you take the province of Newfoundland . . . . It hasn't the same level of resources as British Columbia. You realize that there are many, many things that this province could be doing if indeed we targeted some energy and some resources to ensure that these things happen. So I applaud the minister in terms of the $100 million.

To incubate fledgling companies and keep some of those fine ideas and hopefully employ some of the finest minds here in British Columbia is only to the good.

I trust that a focus will be placed on incubation, and I do believe that the industry-university liaison offices in operation today are doing a superb job, a first-class job. Whether it's Simon Fraser, the University of British Columbia, UVic -- those institutions that take the product from the workbench and commercialize it into the marketplace. That is exactly what is required. They are there in a mentorship role for ideas that are spawned, that originate at those universities. That is all to the good.

My concern is for the companies that do not flow from the universities today. There are many scientists that come to this province who have no formal attachment to a university. They are not a graduate student, a doctoral student or on an honours fellowship. They are simply in this province, and if we can ensure with some of these dollars that the same level of support is in place for those companies, I think that would be welcome. I think it makes strategic sense for the province. Would the minister kindly comment?

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that there are a couple of programs that are directed at smaller companies that are not university-based, such as the member is referring to. Tech B.C.

[ Page 7852 ]

is one such program, and the other is the technology assistance program. I agree with the member that it is important that we take steps to assist in providing support and incubation to fledgling companies. I think in some cases that can be done in conjunction with universities.

For example, as I referenced before, there is an idea for some kind of incubation facility in which university research anchors a range of other companies similar to what we are hoping will emerge out of the IBM agreement here in Victoria. There are ways that we can bring together expertise at the university level with what's out there in the marketplace and start to get some double benefits.

Everything we can do to assist in that . . . . Other educational institutions like colleges are providing their own form of incubation assistance to entrepreneurs. We should continue to press in that direction, and I'll be happy to follow the member's example and try to get up to speed on some of these examples that she refers to in other jurisdictions.

L. Reid: In terms of other things absolutely worthy of attention in the province of British Columbia, certainly the Science Council of B.C. is one that I think is a world-class agency. They have done some things for new companies, new scientists, students in the system who have gone on to become those world-class scientists. I believe their contributions have been absolutely unparalleled. They have done some wondrous things.

I had the opportunity to visit each of the regional science councils in the province in terms of trying to garner some support for science that's not lower mainland-based or southern Vancouver Island-based. It is important to acknowledge the very fine work in ginseng research in Kamloops, the forestry work in Prince George, and the fact that those regional science councils are taking the initiative to ensure that at least some profile is developed in those areas of the province and that indeed they can attract some investment dollars to those areas of the province.

If the minister has not had the opportunity to visit those regions, in terms of visiting the regional science councils specifically, I would certainly encourage that.

I inquire as to the overall strategy for ensuring that science, technology and research applications are fostered throughout British Columbia and not just in the lower mainland and on southern Vancouver Island.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's suggestion. Certainly, if I can get around and visit some, if not all, of these councils, I would be very happy to do so. I do think it's important that we think of the opportunities and applications of science and technology not just in terms of some isolated knowledge-based sector that exists in the lower mainland or on southern Vancouver Island, but in terms of the applications and opportunities that exist in other parts of the province.

Certainly one of the points that I've had some fairly lengthy discussions on with the current head of the Science Council is the potential, for example, of applying technologies to our resource-based industries -- forestry being an obvious example. If we can, through application of technology, get better utilization of forest products or better rates of growth of forest products, we can get double and triple benefits. Some jurisdictions have been very successful in this regard.

Finland, I think, is often touted as a bit of an example -- a jurisdiction that has developed a generation of technology that's applied to its forest products industry and that not only makes that industry more competitive but then becomes itself the subject of export, just as Finland is developing the next generation. So they're always one step ahead.

Indeed, in B.C. we have seen companies develop some major product breakthroughs in terms of wood-composite products. The initiative -- the investment of the Forest Renewal and the province, along with the private sector and the federal government -- in a wood products centre at UBC is designed to build up some of that capacity in terms of innovation here in the province.

I think there's a lot that can be done in terms of not only creating opportunities for science and technology throughout the province but applying those skills to other resource and non-resource industries in ways that produce double and triple benefits for those communities and for the economy of the province as a whole.

L. Reid: I would certainly concur with the minister. I recently had the opportunity to visit B.C. Research to look at their new embling technology, where they're taking brand-new saplings -- or what we used to consider saplings in the earlier days -- and crafting an entirely new technology around how best to have some durability in the forest. So there's some fabulous science going on in British Columbia.

To come back to the Science Council, certainly two individuals who have taught me great things around science and technology research are Dr. Suezone Chow, who I think is a leader in this province when it comes to science and technology, and . . . . Frankly, I want to pay tribute to Dr. Martha Salcudean, who is the recent recipient of the Killam Prize for extraordinary talents in the area of engineering.

Those kinds of world leaders who are currently residing here in British Columbia and making contributions back to our province do some wonderful things, I think, in terms of crafting in the science student we spoke of earlier some recognition that this could be a lifelong career and that they could make some enormous contributions.

So again I'm paying tribute to the Science Council overall, because I do think that that agency deserves the support of this government. I know they have experienced variations in funding over the years. I'm wondering what the minister has in mind for them as we lead into the next century. Indeed, are they going to have some certainty -- year 1, year 2 -- leading into the next millennium?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess that much as I would like to have the power to prejudge the Minister of Finance in future budget determinations, I best not do that. But suffice it to say, I think the creation of this ministry, the emphasis that has been placed by government in a number of different ways in recent months on the need to provide support to the knowledge-based sector and the central role that has been played by the Science Council in that are all very positive signs that should provide some comfort and security to those involved in the Science Council. I met recently with Dr.

Chow and others and certainly had a very positive discussion. We will be relying very much upon his input and that of the Science Council in creating the vision and strategy that I've talked about. The council still draws the largest share of the fund that we have, and I can't help but agree with the member, even based on my more limited knowledge of the council, that what they have done in a range of areas -- everything from export to encouragement of research -- has had a very positive and significant benefit for the people of the province.

I certainly want to make sure that that benefit is not lost, but in fact that we build upon it and better utilize the talent that's represented within the council.

[ Page 7853 ]

L. Reid: If I could simply ask the minister for some information on the Information, Science and Technology Agency: what its future plans might be, what its current status is, financial resources -- a snapshot, if you will.

M. de Jong: I ask leave to make an introduction, hon. Chair.

Leave granted.

M. de Jong: I'm very pleased to welcome to the precincts and the gallery a group of students from Yarrow Elementary. They are here in strength to watch the proceedings in this House, and I hope all of us will make them welcome here today.

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the Information, Science and Technology Agency was a part, as the member will know, of the Ministry of Employment and Investment. It has essentially been moved into this new ministry without any reduction of its function. It retains the basic mandate and mission that it previously had, but I think the relationship that it will now have with Advanced Education, with skills training, creates a new opportunity for the agency to help to advance the government's objectives of helping to grow this segment of our economy, providing some strategic vision and utilizing the very necessary relationship between the education sector and the knowledge-based component of the economy.

There are a number of particular objectives or initiatives that the agency is involved in. The member is probably aware of them, but I will just touch on a few: the implementation of the electronic highway accord and the Youth on the Internet program; development of the comprehensive corporate information management strategy; providing support and information to the legislative committee reviewing the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act; and on it goes.

So the agency continues to provide all of those functions, but as I say, it does so within a new framework and a new ministry. It has clearly been given a priority within government that will challenge it to work with this ministry in promoting this sector of the economy.

L. Reid: From the minister's remarks it would appear -- certainly from the examples that he's given -- that the focus seems to be on information technologies. I wonder where the emphasis will be when it comes to science in this Information, Science and Technology Agency.

[3:45]

Hon. A. Petter: Perhaps it's because I just gave a few selective examples, but there is . . . . I suppose the agency has a particular function or preoccupation with information, because it is responsible for government information-processing and responses to freedom of information and the like. But in fact, the agency has a very great interest in developing other high-technology areas. They fund, for example, biotech forums. I had the opportunity -- the day before the ASI Exchange, in fact -- to attend a major biotech forum in Vancouver.

There are huge opportunities for biotechnology research here in British Columbia, as the member herself indicated earlier. We've had some major success stories -- Quadra Logic and others -- that the member would be aware of. As part of the mandate of this agency is to work on behalf of government in growing and realizing the opportunities that exist within the knowledge-based economy, the member can be assured that in that role the focus on opportunities in biotech, in electronics and in the application of technology to resource-based economies will all receive full and enthusiastic attention from the agency.

I. Chong: I appreciate my colleague yielding to me for a moment while I ask some questions.

Regarding the B.C. knowledge development fund, which I know the minister recently made an announcement on . . . . What I'm curious about, first of all, is whether the minister can advise me where, particularly, that fund falls within the estimates book. Is that under the Information, Science and Technology Agency vote within the ministry?

Hon. A. Petter: No, the fund -- I think we had talked a bit about this yesterday -- is a fund with respect to capital. So it will come out of the capital allocations of government, not out of the operating allocations of government.

I. Chong: I appreciate that, because I was curious whether in fact it was part of operations. Even though it suggested it was capital costs of research and infrastructure, it alluded to upgrading of equipment, possibly. Sometimes that is considered operational -- where you have to improve, replace or upgrade equipment. What I'd like to know is whether the minister can advise . . . . Of this $100 million that's to be invested over the next six years, what has been allocated for the 1998-1999 fiscal year?

Hon. A. Petter: Up to $8 million.

I. Chong: So I would have to imagine that it becomes progressively larger as we get into the latter part of the year. Of that $8 million, has the minister a

schedule as to which universities, colleges and facilities may be applying to this fund? As I understand it, there is an application process to apply to this program. Does the minister have an idea of the facilities that would be making applications? As I understand it, $8 million may not come close to covering the requests that come through in one year.

Often we find that the government makes announcements on new projects, new programs or new funding, and if you very quickly add up all those who wish to avail themselves of those programs, it's very soon found that one area, one district or one region will easily more than take 50 percent of what has been allocated. I'm just curious about whether the minister has taken that into consideration. If so, what cap level has been placed on each particular application?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, the fund will be allocated in response to the applications that come forward and the quality of those applications. The member is probably aware that under the Canada Foundation for Innovation, there is already an application process. What we intend to do is not to replicate that entire process but to provide some additional screens for provincial funds to ensure that the research will have long-term benefits to the province. We don't have an explicit regional screen in mind, to my recollection. Clearly some equity of allocation will be important, but not at the expense of the quality of the proposals.

The $8 million I referred to is designed to lever $20 million. Because we are funding up to 40 percent, the expectation is that much of that funding may be matched by CFI funding, although there may well be cases where the CFI funds projects that we don't and where we fund projects that CFI doesn't. I suppose it will frequently be the case that we

[ Page 7854 ]

will fund our 40 percent, and 40 percent will come from CFI. Then the remaining 20 percent will come from the private sector, and that way we will get a benefit.

I guess another obvious objective that we have -- and I make no secret of this -- is to make sure that through this fund, we maximize all the CFI dollars coming into this province that we can. Too often British Columbians have seen federal dollars distributed in a way in which British Columbia gets less than the share you would expect, based on population. I must say that the enthusiasm of some in the academic community, particularly the president of UBC, is quite inspirational on this score. Dr.

Piper is quite determined that we in B.C. are going to get a much larger than proportionate share from this fund, and I hope she's right. I think the presence of the B.C. fund will certainly help steer the maximum number of dollars here.

I can't predict where the money will be allocated. I can assure the member that it will be done through an evaluation process, in conjunction with that taking place under CFI. That will ensure that we get the maximum return. I can say, just from the enthusiasm that I have witnessed from colleges, universities and others, that there is a lot of interest in uptake. The colleges want to get involved in this, which will give it a regional perspective as well as just concentrating it to sites where there are universities -- and some of the institutes as well. I'm very excited about what this fund may do for British Columbia.

I. Chong: Certainly I would agree with the minister that at all times all of us in British Columbia would fight to ensure that we get our fair share of federal dollars in whatever form they might arrive. So I am hopeful, as well, that that does occur.

My concern, as I stated earlier, is that all too often announcements are made without . . . . I wouldn't say without consideration, but sometimes -- not always -- the facts are before us, and we see too often that an announcement is made. But there are so many requests made that we then have to deal with our constituents and neighbouring constituencies as to why they haven't gotten what they consider to be their fair share. You have fair share in terms of provincial jurisdictions when you're dealing with the feds; you also have fair-share criteria when you're dealing with regional disparities here in the province.

I'm fortunate enough to represent a university. I appreciate the minister having attended there several times over the past month and making some of these announcement for these students. At the same time, I know that they are hopeful of receiving a substantial portion of this fund. I suppose that UBC would also like a substantial portion and that Camosun College, as well, will ask for a substantial portion. My concern is that although you do wish to ensure quality, if three or four of these universities that I just mentioned maximize the $8 million, then what do we do? What happens, and where do we go from there?

If in fact there is no cap level, my concern is whether in fact one area will benefit more than another. With $8 million, I don't want it all going to one university, nor do I expect that should happen. But if, as the minister says, some quality research facility program were introduced and worthy of all that $8 million, what would the minister then be doing? That's what I'm really searching for here. As I understand it, the University of Victoria is looking to receive 10 percent to 15 percent of this fund. I don't know if that's over the course of the six years. You know, if they absolutely have that requirement or a plan in place, we've got a problem here.

So I'd like the minister to at least give me some idea so that when these institutions come forward, I don't come to the minister and say: "Well, there's a problem here. We started the process, and then we've suddenly limited, it because we've just run out of money." If the minister could just give me an idea -- I know it's in its infancy -- of how this problem could possibly be dealt with, I would appreciate a bit more elaboration.

Hon. A. Petter: I encourage the member not to think of this fund as $8 million but to think of it as $250 million at minimum, because the $100 million that we have allocated is 40 percent. The other 60 percent will have to come from other sources: potentially another 40 percent from CFI, and then the remaining 20 from the private sector or elsewhere. So we're talking about a substantial investment -- $250 million over the next five to six years.

But I think that at the end of the day, we want to make sure that there is a merit-based criteria that applies. I am confident -- and I suspect that the member, if she examines the issue, will be confident as well -- that the University of Victoria has nothing to fear in a merit-based competition. They have excellent researchers and excellent strengths. They also happen to have some access to discovery park funding, which has yet to come their way, and have shown some real strength. In fact, I think some of the vaccines that are now being marketed worldwide with respect to fish farming were developed at the University of Victoria and gave rise to some commercial applications.

So I encourage her. I have an interest in making sure that these funds are distributed fairly with respect to regional allocation, as well, but at the end of the day, I don't think we should be afraid of quality being the overriding concern. I have every confidence that all of the universities and institutions in this province have something to contribute and will do well, based on that standard. And remember: they're going to have to persuade private sector contributors, as well, and that will help to influence where the investments are made. So think of it as at minimum $250 million. I think the president of UBC will tell you that she's going to get even more than that.

The one other thing I should say, just to clarify my earlier remarks, is that this is a capital fund, so there's no provision for the fund per se in the budget. There is, I believe, a small provision for the debt-servicing costs for this year's allocation in the Ministry of Advanced Education, Training and Technology budget, but the capital is provided for within the capital plan of government.

I. Chong: One final question, and just a comment as well. I do appreciate the fact that the criteria will be merit-based. Certainly we would all agree that that is the necessity for looking at these programs.

The minister mentioned an evaluation process earlier. I was just wondering whether that evaluation process included a panel, a commission, a board or some authority separate from what the CFI has. If so, could the minister quickly elaborate on that? That should be my last question in this area, and I will then yield to the member.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll elaborate just insofar as this: what we have now done is announced the presence of the fund. We've announced the criteria that apply with respect to the fund, which add some of these dimensions around making sure that the fund is directed towards research that will produce the maximum benefit to both the economy and to employment creation here in British Columbia, amongst a few others.

[ Page 7855 ]

Now we want to work to create a process that is seen as credible and independent, so we're asking the stakeholders to provide us with advice. There are a couple of models. We want to make sure, obviously, that the process isn't dominated by people from any one institution, because of the concerns the member raised earlier. On the other hand, we don't want to reinvent a whole, prolonged process, given that there has been considerable effort put into the process that will evaluate the proposals for the Canada Foundation for Innovation.

That is still an open question, but I know that the ministry is actively working with universities and other stakeholders to, hopefully, develop an efficient process with objectivity and independence -- what the fine people who don't have a direct stake in the outcome may find a little bit challenging. But that's the goal, and they will certainly utilize and benefit from the material and the screening that will be part of the CFI process as well.

I. Chong: From that perspective, objectivity is certainly an important factor, because it lends itself to accountability, which of course the hon. minister knows I have very great admiration for.

With that, I would like to thank the minister and his staff for their time, and I'll yield to the member for Richmond East.

[4:00]

L. Reid: I thank my colleague for that very fine segue. Where I'm at in this TIA report card for 1997 . . . . It's about accountability and benchmarking and what the minister spoke of earlier about the Information, Science and Technology Agency. I'm interested in business plans that provide some benchmark, some targets, some objectivity, some sense of where we're headed, because I want to have some sense that we can actually measure something in science, technology and research. I think that's just basic to the exercise.

When my staff was phoning to discover the kinds of information we could receive prior to these estimates, we weren't inundated with material, hon. minister. There seems to be some resistance, if you will -- if indeed the information exists -- with sharing it with members of the opposition. I would invite the minister to share the business plans of these agencies. I certainly mentioned a couple in my remarks earlier. In terms of progress and in terms of stability and a sense of where we might want to be six, ten, 15 months from now, those things are all to the good.

So I would simply invite the minister to continue to ensure that that level of dialogue continues. I think it's a useful exercise.

I would suggest to the minister that I'm about a third of the way down my list of things I wanted to canvass with the minister, so I think it's going remarkably well.

In terms of issues still before us, I want to reference a press release from earlier. I realize that it's from the Ministry of Employment and Investment, but it talks about eight high-tech B.C. companies chosen by the Japan External Trade Organization to participate in Comdex in Tokyo, April 6 to 9. With those kinds of events that occur that actually have British Columbia companies as participants, does your ministry receive some feedback? Is there some evaluative tool? Is this something that provides some information to the ministry that indeed is of assistance to other information-based companies in the province?

Hon. A. Petter: We're at a bit of a loss. It was the B.C. Trade and Investment Office that made that selection, as the member indicates, which is not within this ministry, so I don't know the answer.

On the other point that the member raised very briefly about setting goals and objectives and making them measurable, I agree. The member may be aware that since I've become minister and since the new deputy is in place, there is a strategic vision being developed for ISTA that will give rise to a business plan that will have such objectives. I'd be happy to brief the member on that. I think it's very important. I also think it's important that as we move on our provincial strategy, we start to create some benchmarks and measurability, not just for government but for all players, as to how we play our

part in terms of moving forward to maximize the opportunities that exist in this sector.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for his comments, and yes, I very much appreciate the offer of a briefing on that. If in a later comment the minister could simply state a time line for when that strategic plan might be complete . . . .

One of the issues the minister raised earlier was, I believe, around fish vaccines. I believe the company he was probably referencing was Microtek, here on Vancouver Island. I have had the opportunity to visit that company, and they're doing some wondrous things. It's going to be my privilege at some point to actually vaccinate a fish, and I would hope that the minister takes advantage of that opportunity as well. It's world-class technology. There are companies in British Columbia doing things that no other company in the world is currently doing. And I will reference again a company in my riding, Mitroflow, which is the world leader in heart-valve technology.

That leads me into my discussion around medical instrumentation. We talked a little bit about information technology, a little bit about biotechnology. I think the future is bright for medical instrumentation for medical devices, and it seems to be something that British Columbia can do very, very well. We've had no difficulties launching ourselves onto the world stage. Has the minister a particular focus that would include ensuring that there are some things in place that would assist new medical instrumentation companies?

Hon. A. Petter: I guess I'd say again that I agree with the member that there is huge potential in this area with respect to medical devices. I have met with Jim McEwen, who will be known to the member and who is very much involved in this sector. I believe he is being invited to be involved as part of our strategy session as well.

This is an area that does benefit from all the programs we've talked about. I agree that we have huge opportunities not only to develop an indigenous industry but to maximize export opportunities with respect to medical devices, biotech and a whole range of other areas -- fish vaccines, etc. I look forward to the opportunity to vaccinate a fish, hon. Chair. I never thought I'd say that in this House, but I might as well fess up and say that I look forward to an opportunity to vaccinate a fish.

L. Reid: We have an aspiring doctor in our midst.

I believe Jim McEwen is the individual who put on the general patent for the tourniquet which is in place in most hospitals in North America and perhaps around the world as we speak.

In terms of the minister's earlier comments about Martha Piper, yes, I do believe that she will be knocking on your door on a regular basis in terms of putting the University of British Columbia on an even greater footing when it comes to being the centre for research and development in the province. I will

[ Page 7856 ]

continue to be supportive of their activities in commercializing companies into the marketplace. I referenced earlier the information technology office and the liaison office at the university. I believe it was in their 1997 report that they had indeed spawned 71 brand-new companies into the marketplace. I certainly appreciate the minister's remarks about putting in place supports for those companies that don't originate at universities, because I think that's a very good thing.

I'll move now to the First Job in Science program and the jobs-in-science initiatives that have been undertaken over the last number of years. What's their current status? Is this something that the government is going to continue to fund and support?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, first of all, let me just say on the industry liaison offices at the universities that they are funded out of this ministry and, I agree, have done tremendous work. I look forward to getting to know more of that work and working with them in that endeavour.

The First Job in Science and Technology program. In fact, I had the opportunity to announce the funding for this year's component at the ASI Exchange. We increased the funding this year to $2 million, an increase of $200,000. I think the hope is to fund more than 200 jobs in this fiscal year out of this fund. It is an opportunity to provide B.C. graduates access to long-term opportunities in companies here in the province.

The member will be aware that companies will very often be looking for highly skilled workers. They will sometimes have the choice of going outside the province for someone who has immediate experience or, perhaps, hiring someone just out of a program within the province who isn't quite as ready to fill that role. What this fund does is sort of bridge the gap. It provides the incentive to the company to invest in the British Columbia graduate over the more experienced person from outside the province, creating a form of apprenticeship.

Once that person has served that period of time under the program with the employer, that person has then, of course, got the skills that position him or her to continue in that company. It's been a very successful program and very well received by the industry. It reimburses employers up to 50 percent of the new employee's salary to a maximum of $1,300 per month for a term of up to one year. I'm very pleased that we're able to increase the funding in this year's budget.

L. Reid: Could the minister provide me with the number of students that the fund would have accommodated last year?

Hon. A. Petter: It was about 150 students last year, and we're hoping -- through the increase in funding and also by making the funding go a little further -- to have the number up in excess of 200 and perhaps as high as 220.

L. Reid: Would the minister indicate what number of those individuals would be female? Indeed, is there additional funding for the women in science program?

Hon. A. Petter: We don't have the information here, but staff tell me they would be very happy to obtain it and provide it to the member.

L. Reid: In terms of the second part of that question, are there additional dollars available for the women in science program? Is that still in existence?

Hon. A. Petter: The great thing about estimates is that one learns so much along the road. I take it that we do not have a dedicated women in science program, but we do provide support to others. SCWIST is the acronym for the organization to which we have provided funding. It undertakes projects specifically geared to encouraging the involvement of and opportunities for women in science and technology. That project funding has continued from this ministry.

L. Reid: I thank the minister and look forward to receiving that information.

The Technology B.C. program. My information tells me that the budget had been $4.5 million, and for 1997 it was increased to $6 million. The difference . . . . Have those funds been targeted for any particular area?

Hon. A. Petter: As I understand it, in 1997 we did allocate up to $6 million, but substantially less than that was in fact spent. It was closer to $5 million. That same amount is reflected in this year's budget.

L. Reid: If I can move to consideration of the electronic highway accord, perhaps the minister could also give me some background into the kinds of decisions vetted through the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology. What kinds of areas are they currently addressing, and how much assistance would they be providing to yourself as minister?

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to PACST, the Premier's Advisory Council on Science and Technology, I must say that I had the privilege of meeting with representatives recently. They're a very committed and enthusiastic group, and I appreciated that opportunity. They too will be involved in this strategy session. In fact, they've done some very good work, I think, in setting forward some objectives that will help to craft a provincial strategy on science and technology opportunities.

[4:15]

The priorities for 1998-99 for PACST, as I understand, are: an oceans technology review; tracking the implementation of the province's science and technology strategy, which I just referred to; development of performance measures for science and technology, which will be extremely helpful as part of such a strategy for the province. They have been involved in advising on B.C.'s response to the Canada Foundation for Innovation, and, of course, we've seen the benefit of that in the recent announcement on the B.C. knowledge development fund.

They are also looking at factors affecting high-tech investment and the high-technology industry development in British Columbia. As I say, all of that information will be of benefit to the larger strategic exercise that we are undertaking with the private sector.

L. Reid: Perhaps the minister could spend a moment on the electronic highway accord and then also tell me about the appointment process for the Premier's advisory council. I understand they are appointments, but I'm wondering if they're for one year at a time or they're staggered appointments.

Hon. A. Petter: First, on the appointment process for PACST, the appointments to that body are made by order-in-council for up to three years, I believe.

With respect to the electronic highway accord, that has three basic elements to it. One is to try to grow the sector, and we've talked a fair bit about that. It also aspires to help better connect British Columbians, and again, we've discussed that,

[ Page 7857 ]

particularly in reference to the provincial learning network, which would be the major development in recent months. The third is the efficient delivery of information services in government, and there the IBM agreement is the most recent component, again in terms of the discussion we had with respect to data processing and some of the RFPs that are currently out and about with respect to other services.

L. Reid: To turn to Forest Renewal . . . . The science expenditure for last year, I believe, was $35 million. Has that sum changed for fiscal 1998, and what percentage of the $35 million allocated last year was actually expended?

Hon. A. Petter: I don't believe there has been an allocation announced for this year by Forest Renewal with respect to the funding they provided last year to the Science Council. I suggest that the member may want to bring that up with the Minister of Forests or wait for that plan. I think it's expected that there will be some reduction in the funding this year over last because of other pressures on Forest Renewal, but we'll have to wait until that announcement is made or raise it with the Minister of Forests, who is directly responsible.

L. Reid: The province of Quebec has certainly decided that science, technology and research is the platform on which they wish to go forward into the next century. They have basically discovered or targeted four pillars, if you will. One of their pillars is aerospace, and the other one is pharmaceuticals. I believe both of those industries have much opportunity to grow within British Columbia, and I would certainly reference BCIT -- in terms of its airport campus -- to get the skill sets around aircraft maintenance and all those issues. I think we're on the right track in continuing to build an air force-aerospace sector within the province.

I have some concerns around this government's treatment, if you will, of pharmaceutical industries. I don't think it ever makes sense to alienate the geese that are laying the golden eggs. In this case, it's around therapeutic initiatives. It's around the best science for individuals, which hopefully has the responsibility to keep them out of hospital. We all understand the costs of hospitalization.

A comment from the minister on what the future holds for the pharmaceutical industry in British Columbia and whether or not it can be valued by this government in terms of the contribution it makes to reducing overall health care costs and ensuring that individuals hopefully have an improved quality of life and stay out of hospital for extended periods of time . . . .

Hon. A. Petter: First, with respect to aerospace and aviation, I agree with the member: there is huge potential. The recent announcement of a major contract for MacDonald Dettwiler in respect of aerospace is obviously very, very significant for the province. I had the pleasure to participate -- and this is on a smaller scale but is nonetheless significant -- in an announcement locally, here in greater Victoria, concerning the future of Viking Air and its inclusion into a new facility with BCBC at the Victoria airport.

There is work going on in the Ministry of Employment and Investment, dealing with Avcorp, to look at possibilities for expansion of that company. I've talked to representatives of BCIT about some of their aspirations for aviation-based training. So I think there are opportunities there, and again I have asked that we have some representation from the aviation sector in terms of the strategy group we're bringing together, if we can possibly do so.

With respect to pharmaceuticals, clearly there is a very high potential for further work with respect to biotech pharmaceuticals. We have some very successful companies -- Quadra Logic and others -- that are active in this area. With respect to the pharmaceutical companies, it is no secret that the pharmaceutical companies have not appreciated the fact that this government has insisted upon constraining the costs of brand-name pharmaceuticals within our Pharmacare budget, through reference-based pricing. I don't think we make any apology for that; in fact, I know we don't make any apology for that.

I think we as a government have a responsibility to ensure that taxpayers' dollars are used and stewarded in a way that is most efficient in terms of our own pharmaceutical program. If reference-based pricing can make those dollars go further while providing high-quality applications and pharmaceuticals to clients, then we will do that.

It's unfortunate that that has provoked a negative reaction from the pharmaceutical community. I would have preferred that they support those kinds of initiatives. Having said that, that does in no way temper our desire to try to work with the pharmaceutical communities, to try to get more investment here in British Columbia. I know there are efforts that have gone on and will continue to go on.

Discussions are taking place with the pharmaceutical companies to see if they would yield to what is the obvious, logical tendency: that they locate more research here in B.C., based on some of the strengths that we have in research, based on our strength in terms of infrastructure and the quality of life we offer. At the end of the day, that will be their decision, but we're certainly working hard to try to encourage it.

L. Reid: The minister referenced the enormous potential of the aerospace industry. I agree. MacDonald Dettwiler and the Radarsat arm technology, the satellite-imaging technology, are in my riding, so I'm absolutely delighted that that's continuing to receive both federal and national recognition. Avcorp Industries, as well, has done some wondrous things in terms of being part of the apprenticeship programs to ensure that students at Hugh Boyd Secondary and Charles E. London Secondary in Richmond have indeed been able to participate in those aviation training programs from grade 10 onward. Those are all to the good.

I appreciate the minister's comments about the necessity to keep pharmaceutical research happening. I mean, his comment led off into curtailing the outputs; frankly, I think that's a different discussion. I think the commitment I'm looking for today is that pharmaceutical research has an enormous role to play in terms of people receiving the best-quality interventions that either maintain their lives and livelihood or sustain their actual lives. Those are the kinds of issues that we started off today's discussions on, in terms of responses to the Alzheimer's question, to breast cancer, to MS.

The things that confound families today are issues that, frankly, are often addressed by pharmaceutical research. So if the commitment that the minister spoke of is evidenced in a commitment to ensuring that pharmaceutical research is one of the pillars of this economy, I will certainly accept that and applaud it. I would take my hat off to the minister if indeed he could move us along the road to ensuring that those companies come to British Columbia. I know that they have an enormous gift to bestow upon the province and our taxpayers when it comes to ensuring a better quality of life.

In terms of other issues I wish to touch on in the time remaining today, we talked a little bit about the B.C. Biotechnology Alliance and the B.C. Technology Industries Association. I will say that the B.C. Technology Industries Association, in my view, has been lucky enough very recently to acquire the services of George Hunter, who is a superb scien-

[ Page 7858 ]

tist and also a marketer and a manager. That's a discussion the minister and I had earlier: about the need to have single individuals embrace those three skill sets to advance the industry -- whether it be a science application or a research application -- so those things are all to the good as well.

I also indicated to the minister that we'd be coming back in the discussion to issues of export around the Philippines and Indonesia. Does the minister have plans to be actively involved in that? I know the Science Council is, in terms of some of its committee work. Is the minister going to participate actively in securing those kinds of opportunities for B.C.-based businesses?

Hon. A. Petter: First of all on the question of pharmaceutical research, let me just confirm what the member was indicating. Absolutely, if there are opportunities out there to increase pharmaceutical research in the province of British Columbia, then I want to make sure that we maximize those opportunities. I did have a bit of an opportunity in my previous portfolio to play a role in respect of agreements that were reached with Merck Frosst to undertake investment in the province.

Everything we can do to encourage more pharmaceutical-based research in the province will be beneficial to the economy, but the benefits that will flow from the research itself, as the member indicated, could be of tremendous social value to not only British Columbians but people around the world.

In respect of the export opportunities that exist, which the Science Council has helped to identify, I have indicated to that council that I am very interested and supportive of their efforts to encourage export opportunities for B.C.-based companies to make some of the key linkages in the Pacific Rim and elsewhere that can help to advance the economic opportunities for jobs and research here in B.C. The member can be assured that I will follow up on that. I've indicated to Dr.

Chow, for example, that I would like to find out more about those activities and help to make what linkages I can, wearing all of my hats in Advanced Education and Intergovernmental Relations and whatever to facilitate that, plus working with the trade branch in the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for those comments.

Certainly we talked a little bit about the Networks of Centres of Excellence program earlier on and about the importance of clustering: having large companies spawn smaller companies.

One of the agencies in this province that I think does an outstanding job is the B.C. Cancer Agency. Very recently I had the privilege of touring the site for the new genome-sequencer which, hopefully, will be operational by year-end. I'd simply like to pay tribute to Dr. Don Carlow, who I think is a visionary when it comes to ensuring that networks for cancer care are in place to benefit every single British Columbian and, frankly, every Canadian who comes to this province for care.

[4:30]

We certainly have the ability to export that expertise to different parts of the world. People have come here as graduate students on fellowships to learn about cancer care in this province and have taken back that skill set to their countries. Those things are all to the good for British Columbia. I would simply hope that this ministry, under advanced technology and science research, will continue to applaud the efforts of the Science Council but also recognize the enormous contributions made by something like the B.C. Cancer Agency.

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, I am well aware of the contribution of the B.C. Cancer Agency. During my very brief duration as Minister of Health, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the agency and make an announcement or two with the agency. Also, I had the very great privilege of spending an hour or two the other day with Dr. Michael Smith, a Nobel laureate at UBC who is involved in the agency.

I guess the member will be aware, but I am very happy that the B.C. knowledge development fund will be working not only with educational institutions and teaching hospitals, for that matter, but also with non-profit agencies, of which the B.C. Cancer Agency is certainly one. I know that they have aspirations to secure some of the funding from CFI and the B.C. knowledge development fund. I can do no more than enter the debate by agreeing with the member and her very complimentary comments about the role and future of this agency.

L. Reid: I might ask the minister to return to just a few moments of consideration regarding the IBM deal coming to British Columbia. There's been lots of discussion, and I certainly have had the privilege to monitor this discussion about the prospective deal, probably over the last two or two and a half years. I'm delighted that it's coming to British Columbia, but there certainly seems to be some conflicting information in terms of the number of jobs it will actually generate. I have reports that suggest 200 and all the way up to 1,200. The question is simple: which is it? If the number is in flux, I'd be interested in hearing that information as well.

Hon. A. Petter: The 200 figure refers to direct jobs in the development centre in Burnaby, which was part of the agreement. The larger number referred to by the member refers to the conservative -- I think it's fairly conservative, frankly -- estimate of the number of jobs that will likely result from the whole agreement and in particular from the commitment that IBM made to ensure that 50 percent of the software application work they do will be undertaken by local companies.

As IBM uses its software development capacity to work on certain government projects, they are obliged under this agreement to work with local companies. The estimate here is that that work and the activities that they undertake, combined with some of the opportunities that IBM will now be involved in through the ISM-BC data processing centre in Victoria, which will bring in worldwide work in data processing . . . . All of that will, conservatively, produce in excess of a thousand jobs.

L. Reid: I thank the minister for that information. I thank him most