Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 11, 1997

Afternoon

Volume 5, Number 20

Part 1

[ Page 4227 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oral Questions

PROPERTY TAX DEFERRAL

FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

G. Campbell: In April of this year the Ministry of Finance sent out applications for property tax deferrals, as they always have, to people with disabilities. In June of this year, with less than three weeks until property taxes are due, the ministry sent out another letter. This one said that disabled people were no longer eligible for property tax deferral unless they were on income assistance. The human cost of this ineptitude is that people on fixed incomes are now being forced to come up with over $1,000 to pay their property taxes, with less than three weeks' notice.

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

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

To the Leader of the Opposition: we have indeed changed some of the requirements that allow people to gain access to tax deferral. It has had what I believe is an unintended consequence, and if enacted, I think it would have the sort of impact that the member describes. I'm also very concerned about the very short notice that has been given to people to put their affairs in order. I have been discussing this matter with the Minister of Finance to see if we can find a viable solution to resolve this matter as quickly as possible.

As minister responsible for disability issues, I want to state clearly that we are committed to ensuring that policies are there that enable people with disabilities to live in their own homes, in their own communities.

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

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

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

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

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

[2:15]

Hon. P. Ramsey: I think the same people who have contacted the Leader of the Opposition have indeed been

[ Page 4228 ]

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

SEVERANCE FOR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE

CONVICTED OF FRAUD

F. Gingell: This morning's Vancouver Province details the story of former social worker Debra Niessen, who was convicted of defrauding taxpayers of more than $13,000. But instead of firing her for cause, the NDP rewarded her with a $25,000 severance package, and when she went to trial, the ministry promised that it wouldn't ask for its money back.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

NOXIOUS WEED CONTROL FUNDING

J. van Dongen: In the most recent budget the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food totally eliminated provincial weed control grants. Doug Mervyn, a respected and knowledgable rancher, has stated that this action will discourage regional districts from continuing weed control programs -- and this will be disastrous.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Order, please.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4229 ]

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

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

Interjection.

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

APOLOGY AND COMPENSATION FOR

YOUTH RANCH VICTIMS

M. Coell: As governments struggle to create child care systems that work for today's needs, the issue of past injustices cannot be ignored. We in the B.C. Liberal opposition are disturbed that the government has chosen to appeal the B.C. Supreme Court's decision to compensate the boys abused at Arden Park youth ranch.

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

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

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

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

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

The Speaker: The bell terminates question period.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In this House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

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

[2:30]

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT

AND INVESTMENT

(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $374,000 (continued).

L. Reid: My thanks to the minister, in that he and I have had a number of discussions over the past year or year and a half about the future of science in this province. I continue to remind this minister that certain individuals, such as the Prime Minister of this country, say when they visit the west that the future of this country is the west. Indeed, where we are headed in terms of knowledge-based industry is to put in place the very best economic platform we can; that speaks to me.

I think it's a key statement, because it recognizes that economic applications will be the future of this country and will only happen if we continue to think strategically around the development of science- and technology-based industry.

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

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

An Hon. Member: Four years behind.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4230 ]

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

But if they were to do more to level the playing field, the companies that had the best skill set and the greatest drive, initiative and personal responsibility would hopefully come to the surface.

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4231 ]

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

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

One of the other areas that we need to concentrate our efforts on, I believe, is around managerial competence. We have some very fine scientists who come to the table with wondrous ideas. When it comes to marketing that idea or marketing that product, that is simply not their skill set today. I would very much wish to see some integration of that programming at colleges and universities. I would hope that any new program that comes forth from an advanced educational institution crosses the boundaries of being cross-faculty training, if you will.

Anyone learning science, technology and research today should be learning commerce, should be learning marketing, should have the ability to take their product effectively to the marketplace and should have that kind of exposure to all the different skill sets they'll need to effectively run a business.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2:45]

In my view, this represents the new economy, the new export business for British Columbia. To the extent that we have companies -- some of which the member mentioned -- developing products, whether it's software, hardware or new technology, that is in fact an exportable commodity; that's all to the good. It also is a sector that has a problem unlike any other economic sector in this province in that there's actually a shortage of skilled workers.

While I don't think that's a good situation, I do think it's better to work on that problem -- in other words, try to make sure that we have people with the right skills for those jobs -- than deal with the converse, which is people who are unemployed with no prospects of finding employment.

The ministry has been very active. I'll just run through some of the issues that we do deal with. The member and the House may be aware of the changes that have taken place in terms of where this sector is housed; in some respects, if you like, it's been all over the place. I think bringing it together in my ministry with someone of deputy minister status as the chief information officer gives us the opportunity to coordinate the activities in this sector, in the economic ministry.

There is a correlation and a tie-in with other parts of the ministry -- the employment and investment part, trade, and indeed with the energy, mines and petroleum resource sector as well. I think it gives us a better framework.

Hopefully, as we move on, the public will come to understand the kind of linkages on the economic side that exist.

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

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

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

[ Page 4232 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are numerous outstanding examples. I won't get into naming any particular companies. I was delighted at the opening of Hughes. Again, British Columbians may not be aware that Hughes Aircraft has their Canadian headquarters here in the province, in Richmond East, I believe. I must say I was fascinated, as I continue to be fascinated, by some of the technology that I saw, in this case the development of the new computerized air traffic control systems.

Being somewhat illiterate myself in terms of computer technology, watching a demonstration of these computer screens, all the information that can be put on them, how that's utilized in air traffic control and the dramatic difference between what we do now and what we'll be doing in the future is something to see. But knowing that it is a Canadian company that is doing the work here in British Columbia is even more exciting, in my view. There are numerous, numerous examples of that kind of activity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4233 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3:00]

Hon. D. Miller: I will indeed respond. I gather the House is now going to take a brief departure from the estimates process to deal with another matter. I will respond to the member's questions following that, and I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; the Speaker in the chair.

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

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

The Speaker: Thank you kindly. I appreciate that.

Point of Privilege

R. Thorpe: I rise to raise a point of privilege, which I reserved on June 6, 1997. The privilege relates to the actions of the Deputy Speaker on June 5. The circumstances are as follows. On June 4 and 5, I raised two points of privilege with respect to statements made by the Minister of Small Business, Tourism and Culture in this House. On each occasion, the chair was taken by the Deputy Speaker, the member for Victoria-Beacon Hill. On June 5, 1997, at 6:36 p.m., after the

[ Page 4234 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In

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

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

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

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

I believe that here, hon. Speaker, you have a member bringing forward an appeal to the decision of the Speaker. The Speaker made a ruling that the apology of the member for Cowichan-Ladysmith ended the matter. I note that the motion of privilege brought forward by the member said that her claim around the facts was without foundation. The hon. member replied that she unreservedly apologized for any . . . . She says: "I . . . emphasize that at no time did I intend to mislead the House. If any member believes I misled the House, I unreservedly apologize to both the House and Mr. Hughes."

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

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

The Speaker: Thank you, Government House Leader.

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

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

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

[ Page 4235 ]

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

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

[3:15]

Hon. J. MacPhail: I call Committee of Supply A. For the information of members of the House, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Small Business, Tourism and Culture. In the House, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Employment and Investment.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF EMPLOYMENT

AND INVESTMENT

(continued)

On vote 24: minister's office, $374,000 (continued).

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

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

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

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

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

I guess the question is: how do you further the development of technology and the strengthening of those sectors? What are the necessary ingredients in doing that? I think we have laid a fairly positive framework to do that. We have the forest renewal fund. We have a component of that devoted to the development of the so-called value-added sector: tertiary manufacturing. We have contributed in a significant way to both the new forest sciences building at UBC and, equally important, the centre of excellence at UBC, which in all respects is a faculty of value-added.

And that faculty will turn out graduates who have sophisticated skills in the area of marketing, in the area of process -- in other words, mill process, design, all of those kinds of key areas where you need people with the right skills if you're going to grow that sector of the industry. That centre is, as I indicated earlier, linked into our community colleges and linked in even to our high schools. And that should provide the opportunity for the growth of the skill sets required. There are other components as well, in terms of forest policy that are also part of that mix.

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

Quite frequently, the challenge for the people who develop these new ideas is in taking them out and trying to commercialize them and create a business. One of our programs is aimed exclusively at assisting in that process. I'm also pleased -- and I don't think this is exclusively government's job -- that now we see some of the financial institutions . . . . Some private sector elements are also now recognizing that to foster these kinds of businesses is, quite frankly, a good economic investment.

Banks -- CIBC and others -- have developed mentorship programs and are, in other ways, trying to duplicate the work that we've been doing for years in the Science Council. I think that's starting to build as it grows more and more, as investors see that this sector of our economy is one that promises significant returns. We have just mentioned Ballard and some other companies: Newbridge Networks, Dynapro and others. Indeed, these are places for very good investments. The other, the working opportunities fund, provides a lot of support in financing for the development of these kinds of companies.

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

But to the extent that the recommendations provide some useful guidance, then we're quite prepared to see whether or not they can be implemented.

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

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

[ Page 4236 ]

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

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

The minister does not need to accept every single recommendation. Certainly, any report received by government . . . . Some are not accepted at all. Many recommendations from this are solid, vetted by the industry. They make good sense. But if the minister were to accept 15 of the 17, and actually put that in writing, I still think the industry association would be delighted. You know, pick your 15; I don't mind.

I think there has to be some substance to the discussion, in that for many months now -- more than a year -- I have had the minister suggest to me, as the critic: Indeed, we're looking at it." Keep looking by all means, but also put something in writing. I would welcome that from the minister.

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

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

I come back to my earlier point about research and development, because I believe it's vitally important if we are going to answer some of these questions in the long term. I'm not suggesting that the minister come back to the table with a short-term plan. This is a five-to-ten-year plan positioning us as we head into the next millennium. These are building blocks that need to be in place. Certainly I want the minister to come onside in terms of thinking of research and development as being one-third research and two-thirds development.

The idea is just one aspect, and what happens now in research and development in British Columbia is that the idea migrates to a different province or country. Then we don't have the opportunity to do the value-added, because we've lost the idea.

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

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

Those are science questions, questions that are based -- steeped -- in the need for decent qualitative-quantitative research. For the most part, those are longitudinal studies.

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

[3:30]

I applaud the companies that have given dollars to B.C.'s Children's Hospital and the Vancouver Hospital and Health Sciences Centre, that have said: "These are research questions that we can assist with by funding them." That's a good thing, but if the minister talks about the media being absent, there's no reason in the world why the minister can't craft more opportunities to acknowledge that level of research, that level of industry participation. I mean, this government calls press conferences for just about everything. Why not call more around the area of science, technology and research?

Don't stand in this chamber and lament the fact that the press weren't present. Craft an opportunity for them to be there. If they got the word from the Minister of Employment and Investment that they should be there, I'm convinced that you'd have a decent turnout.

Interjection.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4237 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You can see that in doing that kind of work in terms of developing a bicycle frame, we have developed a technology that has an application in the aerospace sector and, presumably, in an unlimited number of applications. I was delighted to be talking to the individual. As a graduate student, he had gone to France to do some work and research, and he was living in France for a while, bicycling. So I said: "Tell me what it's like in France." It's a sophisticated industrialized country, etc., but he said that France is nowhere and that they don't do any of the things that we do.

"They're so far behind us," he said, "you wouldn't believe it." I feel good about it, as a British Columbian, when I hear those kinds of anecdotes.

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

[ Page 4238 ]

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

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

Where we are today in terms of the minister's examples . . . . I would concur that indeed it's not just the universities or colleges that put sufficient programming in place to allow people to engage in this new knowledge-based sector, but it's also the apprenticeship programs. I would pay particular attention to the one crafted in concert with this government at Avcorp Industries, currently situated in Richmond East but soon to move to Delta. The level of programming is what's outstanding.

Indeed, to allow students on the job site to acquire eight, ten or 15 months' worth of highly skilled specialized training, to allow them to be active participants in the aerospace industry, is a wondrous thing.

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

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

Indeed, we could find some solutions that may provide a better quality of life -- which I think is priority one -- but following that would allow people to keep some dollars in their pockets.

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

What I'm looking for is a network across all ministries that says: "Let's look at the human cost. Let's look at the actual cost, and let's have some kind of performance review for the taxpayer. This is what we spent. Did it have a benefit to the taxpayer, and did it have a human benefit?" Did we indeed look at finding a solution to improve treatment for Alzheimer's patients? That is a huge cost factor in the Health ministry today that is virtually ignored in other parts of this government.

If there were a merging of the needs for a solution, perhaps two or three or four ministries could come together and say, "This is where we're going to focus some energy this year," and be responsive to the needs, whether it's breast cancer or whether it's Alzheimer's.

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

[3:45]

In terms of where we in the Pacific Northwest are, there are some good things we can do. Hopefully, there are some good things that this minister will take charge of, to look at all ministries and decide how best to pursue the science question across ministries. I appreciate that this is my opportunity to raise science questions, and indeed, this is the minister responsible. But if the government were truly committed, you would be able to look at any ministry in government and detail out, separate out, where the science initiative is and that it's permeating the entire activity of this government.

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4239 ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if that draws any response from up there, but here's the story. And again, these are anecdotal stories, but they're great. Chris came to see me, because in his field . . . . He's a fellow, by the way, who's had a long history of producing movies. He spent considerable time in Hollywood; I think he produced one of the Beatles's first movies -- if you can believe that. He has a business, Mainframe Entertainment, and he produces this computer-animated television show in downtown Vancouver.

He employs a number of young people -- and I referred earlier to the fact that you needn't necessarily be an engineering or science graduate. Since he developed his company -- and it's not that long ago -- he has created seven millionaires. These fairly young people -- a lot younger than I am -- are, I guess, computer hackers, or whatever, and are employed in a very creative field and making outstanding wages. He described, again, a young fellow. He said he knew the parents of this young fellow, and they phoned him up and said: "Well, our son is at kind of loose ends, and he's not really doing well.

Can you find a job for him?" Chris said: "Yes, send him over and I'll put him to work, maybe starting to clean up around the place." That young man, Chris told me today, will be producing his first feature-length computer-animated movie in a year or two -- and he'll be a millionaire by the time he's through. I cite those stories because it's kind of delightful to know that here in Vancouver we're developing this program that's popular around the world. There are lots of those kinds of stories.

In terms of going back to the last fiscal year, we think that it is important to do some analysis. What were our goals? Did we achieve them? Where are we going in this fiscal year? For last year, really looking at the kind of work that we've done . . . . The western science and technology cooperation agreement -- the member may recall the conference linkup between the western ministers responsible for science and technology and Dr. Gerrard, in terms of a formal MOU for cooperation among the western provinces and the federal department and the territories.

That was looking at the clusters study -- a strategy for the development of the high-technology sector in B.C. across the west; in other words, where there are companies in a similar field of the science and technology field, it makes them aware of the activities of other companies. Again, part of that is sort of critical mass. It assisted the National Research Council with the planning and development of the innovation centre that I talked about earlier. It assisted the WestMOST Consortium: 10 companies and eight western universities in the development of post-graduate degrees in software engineering.

It really provided leadership in the measurement of the high-technology sector and the innovation in science and technology statistics. It worked with B.C. Stats to update their statistical report on the sector. Seven regional science and technology innovation councils have been established -- in Prince George, Dawson Creek, Kelowna, Kamloops, Nanaimo, the East Kootenays and the West Kootenays -- which brings regional resources and perspectives to the importance of science and technology. Addressing the skills shortage is a subject I talked about.

It supported the independent study of challenges facing the sector, collected and reported statistical skills and the skill shortages in B.C. and supported the development of a master's program in software engineering for western Canada.

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

There is applied research through programs such as Technology B.C., the fisheries development and diversification program, the technology assistance program and the product development fund.

Some of the benefits are . . . . For Technology B.C.: $4.4 million in investments resulted in one job for $50,000 and a return of $2.64 million to the economy for every dollar spent -- a pretty good return. The technology assistance program assisted small and medium-sized businesses with 108 projects, generating $15 million in economic benefits for the province and creating 360 jobs. Technology transfers promoted the education and skill-development scholarships and fellowship programs. Graduate research engineering and technology scholarships provided 100 graduate students with practical work experience.

The First Job in Science and Technology program, which we did last year -- 166 new full-time jobs for recent science, technology and engineering graduates -- attracted 33 quality graduate students through the ASI scholarship program.

[ Page 4240 ]

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

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

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

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

I wonder if the minister can respond to my questions, specifically with reference to evaluation, based on what may or may not include aspects of the business plan. I'm convinced that there's probably a business plan separate from this document, which I see as some kind of

summary document. Could the minister comment on the existence of the business plan, on his hopeful willingness to share it and then the evaluation tools in place?

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

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

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

[4:00]

Under new products: anticancer drug development, fisheries development and diversification, and the technology assistance program. Under the Technology B.C. program are the Science Council, technology application and transfer, the university-industry liaison offices -- again, going back to the fundamental that much of the technology is developed at an academic level and then needs to be transferred and then commercialized -- the university college technology transfer offices, and regional science and technology innovation councils.

Again, under the Science Council, we have assistive technology for persons with disabilities -- an important field -- support for the commercialization, market assessment and research of technology programs, the Vancouver Island Advanced Technology Centre, the B.C. Biotechnology Alliance and the Advanced Systems Institute that I referred to. So these are within the broad policy objectives, first of all, as documented in the strategic plan, but more focused in the budget document of the programs delivered by the ministry.

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

As well as continue our business plan, the framework and everything else, I think we need to be open and creative to new ideas that might come along that have not been part of our thinking. To the degree that you can seize those and act in a very quick and positive manner, I can tell the member that it's fairly routine for technology companies to come and visit me -- some within the province, some new ones that have ideas about locating here. We treat those as opportunities.

We try to make them welcome, show them the advantages of locating in British Columbia, the support at some levels, through perhaps other parts of the Employment and Investment ministry or the industrial incentive fund, if that's appropriate.

I'll close on that note. I had worked on the Avcorp proposition since my days as the Minister of Skills, Training and Labour. What I liked about it was that we had a British Columbia company that had proven its capability as a manufacturer of aircraft components. That company wanted to expand. There were certain requirements in terms of land, in terms of financing and in terms of skills training. We sat down and negotiated a package with them -- an $8 million investment in this expanded company. Five and a half million dollars was distributed through our post-secondary institutions on the training side.

A nice package, and we should see the increase. I regret that that company is leaving its all-too-small location in that member's constituency and moving to another one. But on the positive side, we can see the addition of 200, 300 . . . my own view is far beyond that -- a significant number of new jobs, high-skilled jobs, well-paying jobs. They contribute enormously to our economy.

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

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

[ Page 4241 ]

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

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

It alarms me that it's missing, and I fully support the document that the minister has in his hand. It's been before us for a couple of years. Surely there's been some refinement of that. It is the umbrella document, as the minister said; it is the overarching document. I don't take anything away from the minister's comments, but that's as far as they go. I believe it needs to be something that is evaluated on an ongoing basis. Some refinements need to be brought to the table, so that there can be some evaluation in place.

If the minister could respond in terms of what the internal mechanisms are for evaluation -- how that information is shared in a public way -- and what the external mechanisms are which are either in place today or which are planned to be put in place.

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

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

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

[ Page 4242 ]

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

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

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

[4:15]

Hon. D. Miller: Going back, I think we're open to advice. I know that the Public Accounts Committee is looking at that question, and perhaps there may be some recommendations coming out of that discussion which we'd be open to looking at. I suppose in some sense that there are numerous evaluative mechanisms in place, and we tend not to list them formally. But they are there; they are there every bit as much as they may be there within the private sector.

For example, I'm not saying that the budget is the strategy, but the budget is the strategy given life in terms of where you're going to put those investments. That requires a certain rigour. In other words, when you go back to Treasury Board in terms of budget allocation, and you say, "I would like this amount of money again," their question is: "Well, what did you do with the money we gave you last time?" We have to answer those questions.

We have to fight very, very hard to say: "In this program or this program, here's how much money we put in; here are the results we've achieved." It's a very rigorous process. So that analysis is actually there. Perhaps it has not been clarified in terms of a document -- I don't know.

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

Interjection.

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

Yes, evaluation is important. It's critically important. You don't want to spend all your time, though, on that kind of internal process. Sometimes you can get too caught up in that. I'm not arguing against it. I'm just saying that you don't want to get focused on being obsessed with it: there's got to be a document; it's got to outline every single nuance; we've got to analyze it to see whether we met every single nuance. You can spend a lot of time engaged in that.

When you're actually, practically, doing business, don't ignore the instinctive value and knowledge of employees, which is often not captured, in a very narrow sense, on a piece of paper. It's important to have systems, goals and evaluations, but it's also important to get about your business in a vigorous way.

L. Reid: I appreciate the minister's comments. However, I ask the minister to look at this discussion as perhaps reporting out to the shareholders, who I perceive to be the taxpayers of this province. They wouldn't be fobbed off forever with very broad goals. They would ask for some detailed accounting and a detailed business plan. If the corporation of the province of British Columbia is the corporation in question, and as this is the estimates debate for this ministry, this is the discussion for today.

In terms of the minister's inability to provide that information today, I accept that, because I do appreciate that the minister and the ministry have been in transition over the last year in terms of where these programs come to rest.

I can't accept for a moment that there aren't business plans for these programs, that there isn't somebody . . . . I certainly support the minister when he talks about expertise within the ministry. There are some fabulous people working in that ministry who will do some very fine things. So I'm convinced that they have written that information down. What I'm asking for future discussions . . . . Or, given the minister's indulgence, simply send that information to me at the earliest opportunity.

I think it's the baseline for discussion, and if future briefings can be arranged, I could have some opportunities to discover what objectives have been met and what objectives have been set out. I don't believe that's a difficult task. I take nothing away from the minister's comments when he says that the sector is growing and that we should all be delighted.

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

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

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

[ Page 4243 ]

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

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

In terms of the document of the information and technology access office, the report on the first year, the information is sound. This is the

summary document. What I'm looking for is the original document that said, "These are the goals we intend to achieve," and some demonstration of whether or not they've been achieved. I appreciate the minister's proffered commitment to provide that at some future point.

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

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

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

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

Where I started my remarks today was that we need to look at some larger companies that have the ability to spawn some smaller companies. I believe the minister agreed with that contention. If that's the case, perhaps a status report and update on where that negotiation now sits -- fully supporting that it's probably well beyond any sensitivity issues, because it's been on the table for such a long time . . . .

I would respect the minister if there are issues he's not able to share today, but I would like some sense of how much effort is going into this negotiation and whether or not he supports the contention that this would be a useful catalyst for the growth of knowledge-based industry in British Columbia.

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

We can see the marriage of government-developed technology with the private sector in terms of exportable technology, which has the potential to bring revenue back to government on a continuous basis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ Page 4244 ]

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

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

[T. Stevenson in the chair.]

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

Leave granted.

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

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

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

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

[4:45]

Hon. D. Miller: Yes, it is. It is an issue that we are seized by. There was a development of the year 2000 task force within government to determine both the nature and the scope of the problem and to make recommendations. There has been some preliminary estimate of the cost to correct the problem over the next three years. That's in the neighbourhood of $40 million to $50 million. The initial determination by ministries will be refined as this is scoped out in more detail.

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

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

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

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

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