1998/99 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 36th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 19, 1999

Afternoon

Volume 15, Number 8

[ Page 12611 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. M. Sihota: In the gallery today we're privileged to have with us the

Minister of Education from the state of Punjab, Mr. Jathedar Tota Singh Brar. Mr. Brar is

here as part of a fact-finding mission travelling across Canada to look at education

systems across the country and also to visit different legislatures. I was explaining to

him the significance of question period, and he commented to me that in the state of

Punjab, it goes on for an hour -- which I'm sure members of the opposition would relish.

Would all members please join me in giving a warm welcome to the minister.

Joining the minister are a number of individuals: Mrs. Surjit Kaur Sandhu, who is chief

secretary of the Ministry of Education in Punjab -- the chief secretary in terms of

Canadian equivalents is a deputy minister; Mr. Jagjit Singh Sandhu, who is the secretary

of the Punjab board of education; Mr. Mike Brar; Mr. Mohan Singh Kang; Mr. Rick Salaga;

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Sandhu; Mr. Daljit Singh Grewal; Mr. Nachater Singh; Mr. Katha Singh;

Mr. Darshan Singh Dhariwal; Mr. Balbir Singh Brar; Mr. Harmeet Singh Sidhu; Sukhminder

Grewal; and Mr. Sodhi. Would all members please give them a warm welcome.

S. Hawkins: I too want to extend a warm welcome to Punjab Education minister

Jathedar Tota Singh Brar. My father was in India two years ago and had the opportunity to

meet with the Education minister. He told me that he toured the Nanak Sar technical school

in Jagraon district and the Mehndhiana technical school with his very good friend, Mr.

Sabu Singh. He was a great Canadian and a great friend of the people of Punjab, and sadly,

he passed away a couple of months ago. I know that he dealt with the Education minister,

and he spoke very highly of the support and the leadership from this ministry. On behalf

of the official opposition, we too extend a warm welcome to the Education minister and the

delegation visiting here.

Hon. A. Petter: It is my sad responsibility to inform the House of the death of

a former MLA, John Tisdalle, who served for 19 years as a representative for the Saanich

and then the Saanich and the Islands constituency. He was well known within the community

as a fighter for community causes, and he made a contribution in terms of improvements to

Glendale hospital and the Pat Bay Highway.

[1410]

I recall my father telling me of his colourfulness as an MLA, and I believe that, in

fact, my grandfather was an acquaintance of his. He was also something of a poet. He wrote

three books of poetry and, I believe, earned an award from the World of Poetry Association

for one of them. John Tisdalle was truly a person of the community and a major contributor

to this Legislature. He died last Friday of cancer. He is survived by his second wife

Maria and his sons, Rev. Vern Tisdalle and Rev. Lenard Tisdalle.

I would ask the House to join me in passing condolences to the family and if it's

appropriate, hon. Speaker, ask you to communicate those condolences to the family on our

behalf.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister. I'd be happy to do that on behalf of the

Members of the Legislative Assembly.

G. Campbell: It's my pleasure today to introduce Michael Holland from the Comox

Valley, who is with us in the gallery. Mr. Holland has led the legal fight on behalf of

Glacier View Lodge -- an extended-care facility in the Comox Valley -- against the

government's plan to expropriate its assets and wipe out its volunteer board. Most

importantly, Mr. Holland did all of this on a pro bono basis. That's a fine example of the

volunteer spirit of the Comox Valley. I hope that we'll all give him a great welcome.

V. Anderson: Today in the House we have some 80 grade 11 students from Magee

Secondary School, along with their teacher, Mr. Latimer, and adults who accompanied them.

I hope that we will demonstrate to them how democracy works in British Columbia and that

they will learn something positive from it. Please make them welcome.

G. Plant: Today in the gallery we also have a grade 7 class from W. D. Ferris

Elementary School in beautiful Richmond. They are accompanied by several adults and their

teacher, Don Allison. I know that they're here to watch democracy break out, so I hope the

House will please make them welcome.

J. Reid: It's my pleasure today to introduce Mr. Roy Shields from Courtenay. He

helped very much in my campaign in Parksville-Qualicum, and his dedication and enthusiasm

made a great deal of difference.

Hon. A. Petter: It's now my pleasure to introduce six new legislative tour

guides, who arrived on Monday for training that falls under the Premier's youth employment

program. They'll be in our employ until Labour Day inclusive. All have been full-time

students this year, and they're multilingual -- as are all the senior staff. Would you

please make them welcome today. They are Alice Byers, Jennifer Fraser, Deborah Cooper,

Megan Chang, Phillip Armstrong and Jess Raimbault.

Introduction of Bills

MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT, 1999

Hon. U. Dosanjh presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 1999.

[1415]

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

Motion approved.

Hon. U. Dosanjh: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 62, the Miscellaneous Statutes

Amendment Act, 1999. This bill amends a number of statutes. They are: Budget Measures

Implementation Act, 1999; Estate Administration Act; Family Relations Act; Financial

Administration Act; Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act; Human Resource

Facility Act; Hydro and Power Authority Act;

Interpretation Act; Municipalities Enabling

and Validating Act (No. 2); Offence Act; Public Sector Employers Act; Social Service Tax

Act.

[ Page 12612 ]

I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments, of course, during second reading of

the bill.

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

COMMUNITY HEALTH ASSETS PROTECTION ACT

C. Hansen presented a bill intituled Community Health Assets Protection Act.

C. Hansen: For the last year and a half, volunteers in not-for-profit

organizations in this province have been under attack. The attack comes from the 1997

amendments to the Health Authorities Act, which give the Minister of Health the authority

to seize their assets and to fire volunteer boards. In 1997 the then minister told me

unequivocally in this House that there would be no expropriation without compensation. Yet

only three months later, Glacier View Lodge in Courtenay found out that the minister had

gone back on her word.

In October of that year the government began the process of expropriating the assets of

this society. These were assets, including land and buildings, that had been developed as

a result of the tireless efforts of community volunteers. This does not just impact

Glacier View Lodge; it threatens charity-run health care facilities throughout B.C.

Michael Holland, who was introduced earlier, was one of those volunteers who put in

thousands of hours of time to challenge the government's right to expropriate. By taking

on this case pro bono, he and the other community volunteers in the Comox Valley have

succeeded in stalling the NDP government's attack on charities.

But the legislation still exists, and that is not good enough. Why would any

community-based organization want to help build new housing for seniors or for special

needs British Columbians when the threat of expropriation hangs over their head? The only

way to restore the rights of community-minded volunteers is to remove these expropriation

powers. The legislation that I'm introducing today does just that.

I move that this bill be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Bill M214 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day

for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

JOB PROSPECTS IN FOREST INDUSTRY

G. Abbott: We have obtained a confidential government document that was prepared

for the forest communities transition secretariat in February. This document lists 41

forest-dependent communities as being "at risk of significant forest sector

unemployment within the next six months." The list includes Vanderhoof, Soda Creek,

Alert Bay and dozens of other communities that are suffering from the NDP's forest

policies. Will the Minister of Forests tell us how many jobs will be lost in these 41

forest-dependent communities in the next six months?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The opposition critic should do his homework. There is no

sawmill in Soda Creek.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Shuswap.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Abbott: I think we get a hint of why the forest industry has such problems in

this province, when the Minister of Forests can flippantly cast aside jobs in the woods.

Why can he do that -- just cast them aside? We know that the phrase . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

G. Abbott: . . . "at risk" is government code for lots of

jobs being lost. We also understand that included in this document was a detailed list of

jobs expected to be lost in each of these 41 communities. Will the Minister of Forests

table in this House the list of jobs that are expected to be lost in each of these 41

communities?

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I can't, because we've asked the forest industry, who

predicted 12 mills would go down, where those were. Of course, for reasons of business

confidentiality, they wouldn't tell us. In fact, we pressed them, saying: "If we make

the changes under the short-term forest action plan -- reduce costs, reduce red tape --

how many closures would there be?" The evidence is there that there have been 700

jobs lost year over year, not the 15,000 that that side predicted.

[1420]

R. Neufeld: Well, 15,000 jobs are real jobs in the forest industry, no matter where

they are. The families in these 41 forest-dependent communities deserve to know how many

jobs . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, order!

R. Neufeld: . . . the NDP expects them to lose. Number eight on the

government list of communities at risk is 100 Mile House. Will the Forests minister tell

us how many jobs he expects 100 Mile House to lose in the next six months?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: There have been no closures since Ainsworth downsized and

reinvested in jobs in Chasm. As long as the current trends are there, I don't think we'll

see very many more closures -- except those that industry wants to make for efficiency

reasons. So while we have identified communities that might be at risk in a soft forest

economy with rebounding prices, there won't be the massive job losses that

[ Page 12613 ]

are predicted on that side. They're overestimating all the time and multiplying by

three. But as long as the trees are down, prices are up, exports are up and production's

up, there won't be job loss.

The Speaker: First supplementary, member for Peace River North.

R. Neufeld: On this same list of communities at risk is Powell River. Will the

minister tell this House how many forest industry-related jobs will be lost in Powell

River in the next six months?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members -- all members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Perhaps the member didn't hear what I said. As long as the

pulp industry doesn't go down -- and it's creeping back up -- there won't be job losses in

Powell River, other than the rationalization that might be needed in the wood room, or

whatever, which has been done. We have identified forest-dependent communities, and that's

what the opposition have. There are lots of forest-dependent communities where, if the

economics of the industry . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: . . . are not healthy, there will be job losses.

But let me reiterate what we've done.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, the minister has the floor.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: We have reduced stumpage by $575 million. We have reduced log

costs by regulatory reform to the tune of another $400 million. That means that as long as

prices stay up, there's recovery in Asia and the United States market stays up, there

won't be job losses in those communities at risk.

FISHERIES SECTOR ASSISTANCE AND

NANOOSE FEDERAL LEASE PAYMENT OFFER

G. Campbell: My question is to the Minister of Fisheries. In addition to the 41

forest-dependent communities which are now claimed to be at risk -- we're told are at risk

-- this document identifies 30 fisheries-dependent communities that his officials have

said are at risk. Eleven of those communities have been identified by the Ministry of

Fisheries. My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: how many jobs is his government

predicting will be lost in fishing-dependent communities which his officials have

described as at risk?

Hon. D. Streifel: Wow! I've been waiting and waiting for the Leader of the

Opposition to ask a question about fisheries communities. My guess is that part of this

work that was done is a federal government prediction done by Gordon Gislason on the

13,000 jobs that have been lost in the fishing communities in British Columbia. The report

also points out that the federal Liberal government has abandoned and walked away from

these communities without one iota of help, and we haven't had one word from the members

of the opposition on this devastation on our coast. We're working within a resource that's

abundant. The problem is the federal policies that deny access of British Columbians to a

resource that's raised -- grown -- in their own waters. It's a resource that's given

freely to the Americans, and it's a shame that the Liberal opposition supports that

policy.

[1425]

The Speaker: First supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

G. Campbell: Those words ring awfully hollow when this minister's government has

just rejected $125 million in lease payments for Nanoose Bay.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members. Members, come to order, please.

G. Campbell: That's money that could have been used to provide for a stable

future for those coastal communities. My question to the Minister of Fisheries is: how can

he claim to do anything for those communities when he's just kissed off $125 million which

could have been used to assist them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. A. Petter: The amount referred to by the Leader of the Opposition is the

amount that was negotiated by this government and signed off in an agreement as to

principles between the province of British Columbia and the federal government.

Unfortunately, the federal government has decided to back away from those principles. Even

more regrettably, the Leader of the Opposition has supported them in doing so. The Leader

of the Opposition has given them comfort and suggested that he would support a move in

which they would proceed with the expropriation and then return the base following the

next election. That kind of political opportunism in selling out B.C. interests will not

be appreciated by British Columbians. Rest assured, hon. Speaker, that we will be seeking

full compensation in any expropriation proceeding, and we will be ensuring that

compensation goes to communities. We will not be selling out B.C.'s interests against

nuclear warheads in the process, which is the consequence of the Leader of the

Opposition's policy.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Second supplementary, Leader of the Official Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members will come to order.

G. Campbell: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries. The minister's own

staff have said that people are going

[ Page 12614 ]

to lose jobs in the fishing industry in Campbell River. Fishing jobs are going to

disappear in Courtenay. Fishing jobs are going to disappear in Bamfield. They're going to

disappear in 27 other communities up and down the coast of British Columbia. My question

to this minister is: how can he claim to represent any of those families who depend on the

fishery for their paycheques when he's just kissed off $125 million that could be used to

assist them?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

Hon. A. Petter: The Leader of the Opposition is prepared to sell out B.C.

interests to anyone who comes along, be it Ottawa or Washington or anyone else.

Apparently, in this case, he'll sell out for bottom dollar. The U.S. Navy itself . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . has estimated that they saved some $2 billion

in the last 30 years because of Nanoose -- $2 billion.

The Leader of the Opposition is quite happy that the federal government would back away

from a signed agreement as to the principles, quite happy that they would use the

extraordinary power of expropriation against British Columbia, it seems, and quite happy

in the process to abandon the principle against nuclear warheads in B.C. waters . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . that members opposite, save one, voted for in

1992. British Columbians . . .

The Speaker: Minister, please finish.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . do not appreciate that kind of complicity.

They will oppose that kind of Leader of the Opposition who stands up for Ottawa and

Washington . . .

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. A. Petter: . . . not for British Columbia.

[1430]

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order.

G. Plant: Here's what British Columbians don't appreciate: a Minister of

Fisheries who claims to stand up and defend coastal communities and then sells them out

because of cheap political points.

The Speaker: And the question?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, come to order. The member is about to put his question.

Order, please.

G. Plant: The Minister of Fisheries had an opportunity to do something for the

fishermen in Nanaimo, in Sooke, in Richmond. Instead, he walked away from them. How on

earth can the Minister of Fisheries stand up and justify selling out the fishermen of

British Columbia?

Hon. D. Streifel: You know, yesterday when Minister Anderson was in the

building, I expected the Leader of the Opposition to at least come up and say: "Oh,

we forgot to bring these issues up in estimates. We suddenly discovered that there are

folks on the coast that are hungry. Will you help us?" But you know, the Leader of

the Opposition is too busy on Howe Street to come out to the coast.

I will give him . . . . I would ask him to get out of his Guccis, get into

some gumboots and come with me -- as I have asked the federal minister to come with me --

to the coastal communities. It's okay, hon. Leader of the Opposition, I'll protect you.

They're real people out there. They won't hurt you. You don't have to come with

bodyguards.

The Speaker: Minister, finish up, please.

Hon. D. Streifel: But you can come out there with me, you can walk the streets,

you can walk the docks. You can talk to these people to find out why your colleague .

. .

The Speaker: Minister, through the Chair.

Hon. D. Streifel: . . . in the federal government has abandoned them

and why your critic . . .

The Speaker: Minister, thank you.

Hon. D. Streifel: . . . failed to raise these issues in the line of

estimates.

The Speaker: First supplementary . . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, members!

I recognize the member for Richmond-Steveston for a first supplementary.

G. Plant: The Minister of Fisheries had an opportunity to practise something a

little more substantive than rhetoric. He had an opportunity . . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, members.

G. Plant: . . . to use $125 million to help the families in those

fishing-dependent communities. How can the Minister of Fisheries stand in this House and

claim that he has done anything for fishing communities in British Columbia when he has

said no to $125 million of help?

The Speaker: Minister of Fisheries -- and comments, please, through the Chair.

Hon. D. Streifel: I respect the chamber, and I will deliver my comments through

the Chair.

[ Page 12615 ]

The member opposite asked me what I've done specifically. Well, I tell you that when I

was standing on the docks in Steveston, the member who represents that community wasn't

there with the fishermen that want to bring forward a fish market so that in fact . .

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members . . . .

Hon. D. Streifel: . . . they can market the goods they have access

to. We have established Fisheries Renewal British Columbia to organize coastal community

networks to deliver resources on the ground. The Liberal opposition voted against it. They

said it was smoke-and-mirrors. Where are they?

In the past three years alone, through Forest Renewal, through Fisheries Renewal and

other resources, we have committed more than $400 million to habitat restoration. They

call it smoke-and-mirrors; they want no part of it.

The Speaker: Thank you, minister.

Hon. D. Streifel: They don't want to deal with fisheries transition communities.

This is the first time since I've been in this House that they've raised any fisheries

issues, that they've recognized that there's a problem out there. And if it's a new-found

knowledge, come on with me; let's go solve the problems.

[1435]

Tabling Documents

Hon. D. Lovick: It's my pleasure to table the 1998 annual report of the Insurance

Corporation of B.C.

Orders of the Day

Hon. J. MacPhail: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information

of the members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Human Resources. In this chamber, I call

Committee of Supply. For the information of the members, we'll be debating the estimates

of Advanced Education and then Labour.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF ADVANCED EDUCATION, TRAINING AND TECHNOLOGY

AND MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS

(continued)

On vote 11: ministry operations, $1,717,327,000 (continued).

G. Plant: I understood there would be an opportunity now to ask a question or

two dealing with the minister's responsibilities in respect of Intergovernmental

Relations. I think the minister agrees that this is the opportunity.

There really are just two subjects that I want to canvass relatively briefly. In

and the governments of the other provinces and territories. The agreement is called

"A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians." I know that this is a

project that the minister was particularly involved in. It was an issue that was of some

importance to him. Obviously the challenge faced by governments when agreements like this

have been entered into is to move beyond the fact of the agreement to some sense of how it

may be implemented. I wonder if the minister could give us his perspective on what he

sees, over the course of the fiscal year that we're now in, as the issues that are going

to arise in the context of implementation and, basically, what he hopes the government

will achieve on that front in the foreseeable future.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's question and the interest that lies

behind it. Let me first just introduce, for the members' benefit, Pierrette Maranda, who

is a senior adviser in federal-provincial relations in the IGR secretariat. The social

union framework agreement -- the shorthand that's used to describe it is SUFA, which I

don't particularly like as an acronym, but there it is -- was, I think, a significant step

in trying to provide a context and an understanding through which governments, both

provincial and federal and, indeed, territorial, can work in terms of their relationship

around social policy issues, which have been under some strain, particularly in the face

of federal cutbacks. I think that the agreement will help in trying to provide a better

framework and some principles that can, hopefully, allow governments to better cooperate

amongst themselves on some of these issues, in terms of moving forward.

[1440]

I won't review the details of the agreement. It deals with issues such as mobility and

accountability. It puts certain requirements on the federal government that it must

observe before proceeding to initiate programs. There's been a major irritation around the

fact that the federal government has initiated programs in areas of provincial

responsibility without consulting the provinces and, by doing so, has either duplicated

services that are being provided or may not be providing services in the most effective

way. This agreement certainly deals with some of those issues, puts on some constraints --

not as many as I and this province would have liked, but certainly more than previously

existed -- and makes some headway in that regard. It also provides a mechanism for

resolving the disputes that arise.

The member asks: what happens in terms of the implementation of the agreement? That's a

very timely question, because indeed it's the issue that is now being worked out through

the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal. That's the council that really

negotiated the agreement, prior to the first ministers coming into the equation towards

the end, and finalized the terms of the agreement. It's a council of provinces,

territories and the federal government, represented by ministers from each of those

jurisdictions. That council will continue to work through the issues of implementation in

terms of helping to give meaning to the principles of the agreement, providing some

consistent ground rules for provinces and the federal government in terms of meeting those

and also putting in place certain processes, such as dispute resolution and the like, so

that the provinces and people will know how in fact these matters are to be resolved.

I can give the member an example. There are certain requirements for reporting by

jurisdictions concerning their

[ Page 12616 ]

adherence to requirements concerning mobility. There are issues as to whether that

reporting would be done by each jurisdiction. Would it be done through sectoral councils

of ministers, so that Health ministers would get together and report together? Would it be

done by British Columbia, discussing all of the social programs that might be affected?

Would the reporting be done through the Ministerial Council on Social Policy Renewal or

not?

Some of those logistical questions are being worked out, in a very cooperative

framework, to ensure that the agreement is in fact given meaning and that the spirit of

cooperation that animated the agreement is carried out in its implementation.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's answer. I think that one of the points

that he is making is that there is in fact an ongoing process around implementation, that

the government of British Columbia and the other governments which are parties to this are

committed to try to turn this document into something that will have significance over

time. That's not always the case with interprovincial accords.

I know that the minister and I touched on the Calgary declaration in one of these

debates at some point, and we examined the fact that the Calgary declaration or framework,

or whatever it's called, was a statement of principles that might influence the way in

which the governments of Canada worked together on certain fronts. I suspect that was a

document that lent itself less to a kind of ongoing administrative process than this

framework does. But clearly, if the parties to the framework to improve the social union

are going to give life to this document, there will need to be some work done to

understand what it means and to ensure that there are ongoing relationships put in place,

so that people are talking to each other about what the document means and how it will

influence, I guess, not only the federal government acting alone and the provinces acting

alone but the federal government and the provinces acting together.

[1445]

I guess what the minister is saying is that those processes exist, that there's work

being done. He envisions that that work will continue to be done. Presumably, all things

being equal, we'll meet back here a year from now, and we'll be able to trace a bit of

that progress over the course of the year. If I've got it wrong, the minister can correct

me. If I've got it right, then I'm sure the minister can confirm that, and he may have

more to add.

Hon. A. Petter: In general terms, I'm happy to confirm that. I guess what I'd

say is that in addition to the specific implementation issues around the document and how

reporting and dispute resolution take place, I think the real tracing that will be more

significant over the course of the year the member describes will be to see the extent to

which governments are in fact influenced by the principles they've agreed to -- for

example, the extent to which the federal government does engage in meaningful discussions

prior to initiating new programs and does adhere to some of these expectations.

Certainly I'm quite optimistic in that regard. I think the fact that this was a long

process, one given lots of deliberation -- and therefore I think the principles have been

well internalized by all parties -- should produce positive results. In some ways, that's

more important than the structural issues about reporting and things -- if we actually see

a change in behaviour around these issues.

G. Plant: I guess I do want to follow up that last observation by agreeing with

the minister. I mean, I suppose whichever old homily you want to drag out -- the proof is

in the pudding or something like that -- obviously governments are going to be faced with

the opportunity, as policy issues arise, to either deal with those policy issues in a way

which complies with the spirit and the letter of this agreement or not. That will be the

acid test of whether the agreement amounts to anything.

The processes that we've been talking about earlier are, perhaps as much as anything, a

way of ensuring that there are lines of communication open on an ongoing basis, so that

the risk of a problem arising is minimized. At some point, these things also get wrapped

act unilaterally in a field of social policy encompassed by this agreement, then we'll see

what the agreement amounts to.

Speaking of politics, I did want to move on to one other issue which has been in the

news of late, and that is the Nanoose Bay issue. I don't want to canvass all of the

dimensions of the current situation here. I think, as is often the case with political

debates, there may be at least as much heat as light. But one aspect of the public debate

and the public commentary from officials, including the minister, has to do with the issue

of what appears to be a provincial policy position around the use of or the presence of

nuclear warheads in the Nanoose Bay testing range.

One reads press accounts to the effect that this is an issue that was of concern to the

province in the context of the negotiations around the use of Nanoose Bay. I assume the

minister would not disagree with that contention, and I know the minister has a particular

perspective on the state of negotiations between the province and the federal government

in relation to that and other issues.

What I am concerned to explore with the minister is -- in broad terms, I suppose --

whether the province has a broad policy around the presence of nuclear warheads in waters

in and around British Columbia. The news accounts of the public discussion around this

issue have pointed out that in all likelihood -- virtual certainty -- the naval base in

Esquimalt has been visited from time to time by more than a few ships with nuclear

warheads on them.

[1450]

While that naval base is obviously within federal jurisdiction, the question arises

whether the province's position, in respect of nuclear warheads in Nanoose Bay, represents

a new policy development on the part of the province, an isolated incidence of a policy

approach or something that is consistent with longstanding provincial policy which I'm

simply not aware of. The particular aspect of that debate around Nanoose Bay that I want

to pursue with the minister is how he sees the position that the province has taken with

respect to the presence of nuclear warheads in Nanoose Bay in the context of whatever the

province's policies are around the presence of nuclear warheads in British Columbia

generally.

Hon. A. Petter: I see this as the application of a longstanding policy of the

province. This Legislature -- I guess before the member became a member of this body -- in

1992 did pass a resolution declaring British Columbia to be a nuclear-weapons-free area.

That resolution was passed almost unanimously. I think there was one member who voted in

[ Page 12617 ]

opposition at the time. That resolution is certainly one that the government supports

and views itself as acting consistently with and has taken positions on from time to time.

However, it is a general statement of principle, and as the member can appreciate,

given the province's jurisdiction, there are limited opportunities to apply that principle

from a provincial-jurisdictional perspective. One of those opportunities presented itself

-- indeed was presented to the province -- in the context of the Nanoose licence renewal.

That licence expires -- I'm talking about the licence with respect to the use of the

seabed -- in September. The federal government asked us to extend that licence through

negotiations. In the context of those negotiations, we sought, as an objective of those

negotiations -- and provided the mandate to our negotiator -- to apply the policy that had

been adopted by the Legislature in the context of this particular piece of property, which

was a base that was utilized by American military craft in the context of testing

non-nuclear-equipped torpedoes.

Given that this is provincial property and that we have had a longstanding policy,

since 1992, as a Legislature -- which the government certainly wishes to act in the spirit

of -- we sought that objective. We took it to the table through our negotiator. The

negotiations resulted in an agreement as to principles -- which is to say an agreement

amongst the negotiators as to the principles that they believed could result in an

agreement -- and in fact, that's made clear. The negotiators will recommend that an

amended licence based on these principles is what they agreed to do. The agreement did not

have legal status, but it was the product of negotiation amongst very senior officials as

to their view as to what would provide an acceptable licence. Clause 7 of that agreement

included the provision: "An environmental schedule, along the lines of annex A of

these principles, will be included in the licence and will include a provision confirming

that no nuclear warheads will be present at any time within the licenced area."

The agreement obviously dealt with other matters: compensation and the amounts as to

compensation -- $4 million a year, with a $5 million one-time payment, over 30 years; the

size of the area; and certain other environmental matters as well. But given that this was

a situation in which there was an apprehension concerning the presence of nuclear

warheads, given the provincial government's and the Legislature's policy on it and given

that the land base is owned by the province, we felt that it was an important objective to

pursue. We did pursue it. We thought we had achieved it. It was only when we discovered

that in fact the federal government indicated that it was not prepared to stand behind

that principle, notwithstanding what its negotiator had indicated, through agreement, that

he was prepared to recommend . . . . That discovery, along with some of the

other issues that were not being resolved by the federal government with respect to

coastal communities, resulted in the breakdown. I'm going beyond the terms of the member's

question, but that's the context.

G. Plant: I appreciate the fullness of the minister's response. One of the

challenges, I suppose, that any member of the opposition has to face in terms of dealing

with a dispute or an issue -- negotiations, dispute, whatever -- between the provincial

government and the federal government is that we as opposition are usually not in the

room. The minister has identified a document, which I think he described in terms like

"an agreement as to principles." Point 7 of that document is the point that

relates to the subject at hand, and the minister referred to it. I guess I want to be sure

I understand the province's position in respect of that document and the issue.

[1455]

I think the minister said, in effect, that the federal negotiator said that this was a

position which he would recommend to his superiors, and that's where it was left at the

table. Then presumably it went off to wherever the federal negotiators went, and that's

where the problem arose. So far as the province was concerned, at the table they had the

federal negotiator saying, in effect: "It's okay. I like this; I could take

this." Maybe there was some assurance along the lines of: "I'm sure we can do a

deal on this basis." Is that more or less what the minister is saying occurred? If

I've got it wrong, then I invite the minister to correct me.

Hon. A. Petter: I'll respond and then add a bit more context as to why this

matter took on an added dimension last Friday. Yes, I think the member is essentially

right, although I think he's being a bit more casual about the agreement than I would

suggest it be treated. In strict terms -- and I'll read it -- it says: "The following

represent the best efforts of the two negotiators to arrive at points of principle

concerning an amended licence of the occupation for the Whisky Golf test range. The

negotiators will recommend an amended licence based on these principles. It is recognized

that certain policy issues have yet to be resolved before either party commits to enter

into an amended licence arrangement." Then it sets out the various principles that

were in fact agreed to.

Certainly I've never suggested that this was a legally binding document. But it was a

seriously negotiated document by very senior officials, who weren't just there to decide

what they themselves thought was a good idea but presumably to decide what they thought

their governments could live with, based on their mandates and instructions and the

iterative process that goes on in these kinds of negotiations. So it certainly had

significance and meaning. And normally one would expect that this kind of document, once

signed off, would provide the basis for an agreement, subject to consideration of other

issues that need to be resolved that are not specified in the document, such as the one I

referred to earlier on nuclear warheads.

The other little context I want to add -- simply because I think it would help the

member understand the reaction, perhaps, that I and the B.C. government had to this -- is

that on Friday, when the federal government decided to proceed with its expropriation, the

reasons that were given, both in official documents that were released and in statements

by the federal government, suggested that the reason that agreement had not been concluded

was because of the province's failure to stand by these points of principle. These points

of principle were elevated by the federal government, in statements that were made last

Friday, to a status that suggested that the province had somehow reneged on whatever

status you accord to this agreement. Let me just quote it to you. Federal Fisheries

minister David Anderson, last Friday on CBC Radio, said: " . . . we'd like

to see this solved without expropriation, we'd like to see this solved on the basis of the

initialed agreement between the federal and provincial negotiators."

The documents released at the time the expropriation was announced had a chronology.

The chronology said: "May

[ Page 12618 ]

Columbia agree on a set of principles for a future licensing arrangement." The

communiqu� suggested that the government of British Columbia decided that it could not

approve the principles of agreement that negotiators recommended as one of the rationales

-- indeed, one of the primary rationales -- for expropriation, as did the letter from

Minister Eggleton.

[1500]

I say that because I think the member will understand that this was signed off, and we

were then told that it would not be abided by. We accepted that, with disappointment and

some frustration. But to then be subsequently told that the reason the negotiations had

failed was because we would not stand by these principles, when in fact the very opposite

was the case, and that these principles had somehow formed the basis for an agreement that

we had reneged on -- my

interpretation of the connotation of these remarks -- added a

whole new dimension that excited perhaps the intensity -- not the content, but the

intensity -- of the response that came back to the federal government. The federal

government can't have it both ways. Either this is an agreement or it isn't. In fact, it

is an agreement, but it's an agreement as to principles, not legally binding, and one that

one would normally expect the federal government to act upon. In this case they didn't,

but it's bit much, given that they didn't, that they provided the rationale for their

expropriation as being that the province didn't act upon them.

G. Plant: The minister's point is that in effect the federal government is

relying on the province's failure to honour the principles in the very same document where

the province says it finds some level of assurance that the federal government had

accepted the province's position on nuclear warheads. The two parties are essentially

talking about the same document. I just want to make sure that I was connecting the

minister's remarks properly there.

Hon. A. Petter: Certainly the signed points of principle were taken, at the

time, by the negotiator and by the province as indicative of the fact that the federal

government would be agreeable to including within the licence agreement a provision, as it

says, that no nuclear warhead be present at any time. We were proceeding on that basis

until we were informed that in fact the federal government was not prepared to adhere to

that principle. That plus the fact that we had also been proceeding on other issues in

tandem with this in which the federal government had not been responsive -- issues of

particular concern to coastal communities, such as resources to help those communities get

back on their feet, because of the situation they face in respect to the salmon resource,

and positions in respect to the Pacific Salmon Treaty negotiations and the need to ensure

that conservation measures are visited upon U.S. jurisdictions to the same extent as they

are upon Canadian, so that we get real conservation, not the kind that saves fish in B.C.

to be caught in Alaska . . . . That we were not making progress on those

fronts and then that this provision of this agreement was unilaterally found to be

unacceptable, following the agreement, contributed to the breakdown of negotiations.

G. Plant: The minister referred in that last answer to other issues that were

being pursued in tandem and identified concerns around the Pacific Salmon Treaty and

concerns around coastal communities. Was it the province's position that those issues

needed to be resolved as part and parcel of an attempt to resolve the issue around the

renewal of the licence? That is, were these, from the province's perspective, all issues

that had to be resolved before there could be an agreement on the renewal of the licence?

Hon. A. Petter: It was our objective and certainly our negotiating position with

the federal government that we wanted to see all of those issues resolved in conjunction

with each other. We were pursuing that. Once the points of principle had been achieved, we

were then testing the extent to which the federal government would in fact advance on the

other issues. But the point became a bit moot when it turned out that in addition to the

federal government saying that they would not proceed on the other issues in conjunction

with Nanoose, the agreement we had achieved as to principles with respect to Nanoose was

not adhered to by the federal government.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister, in effect, indulging me with some of these

background facts. We have been talking about . . . . The minister has been

talking about something he calls the points of principle. Just for clarity, I guess, I

want to determine . . . . That document -- we are presumably talking about a

document, and the minister calls it the points of principle -- is concerned only with

issues around renewal of the licence -- Nanoose Bay issues. So the other issues -- the

issues being pursued in tandem -- were being pursued from a documentary perspective, I

suppose, outside the context of the points-of-principle document. I just want to be sure I

understand the scope and the ambit of the points-of-principle document.

[1505]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, the points-of-principle document dealt, as the member quite

correctly says, with the renewal issue on the lease, and the mandate of the negotiators

was focused on that particular issue.

G. Plant: I suppose the larger public policy debate that is suggested by the

circumstances includes a debate around the issues of what's called linkage -- the idea of

joining a number of issues together in one set of discussions in the hope that all can be

resolved. The minister may want to give me -- the House, the committee -- his views on

that particular issue. I am, though, still a little interested, mainly in process.

Having identified that the points of principle was a document, a set of issues being

discussed in the context of the renewal, and having identified that there were also other

issues being pursued that the province wanted to have resolved or at least addressed .

. . . Was this all happening in one negotiation process? Or are we talking about

something that was happening in three different places -- you know, down parallel tracks

-- and at some point the province just said: "Well, there are these two or three or

four discrete issues. From our perspective, they all need to be resolved together"?

Could the minister -- to the extent he's able to -- just flesh out a little bit how this

was working from a process perspective?

Hon. A. Petter: I rather suppose the answer to that question depends on your

perspective. From our point of view, it was different issues being discussed within the

context of a related process, but in different ways. Because the licence

[ Page 12619 ]

renewal issue concerns certain particular issues relating to the size of the area to be

renewed, environmental concerns and nuclear issues, there was a specific negotiation

between officials to try to arrive at points of principle that would be agreeable to

governments with respect to the resolution of that issue. At the same time, other issues

relating to federal resources for coastal communities, which had been, frankly, the

subject of discussion for some time previous to this particular negotiation . . . .

There was a commitment of $400 million by the federal government some time ago to deal

with adjustment in relation to the decline in salmon stocks and the like. We were urging

the federal government to ensure that a share of that money was given directly to coastal

communities, because communities were feeling that they were not participating directly in

some of the opportunities and were not getting the opportunity that they wanted to get

their economies back on track. So we were pushing on that front.

In addition, as the member will be aware, we were pushing very strongly to encourage

the federal government to ensure that conservation measures with respect to endangered

stocks, like coho, were in fact being pursued in a way that achieved real conservation. We

did so against the background that last year, for example, 800,000 endangered coho were

captured in Alaskan nets, compared to the fact that no endangered coho were caught in

British Columbia. What that really means is the fact that our conservation measures are

simply resulting in more fish for Alaskans, which is no form of conservation at all. It's

like trying to conserve water in a bucket and having only half the bottom of the bucket in

place. Those were all issues that were being pursued, because they had something in

common. They had in common the fact that they concerned the security of coastal

communities. We were trying to pursue them in relationship to each other and trying to see

if we could get resolution of all of them in conjunction with each other.

[1510]

When it appeared that we had resolution on the Nanoose issue, we were discussing

whether we could also get resolution on the others and relate them. Then, of course, it

became clear that we didn't have resolution on the Nanoose issue, and the federal

government maintained its position that it wouldn't make progress on the others. At that

point the negotiations were cut off. The federal government decided to expropriate, and

they indicated that the rationale for expropriating was that we wouldn't agree to the

points of principle -- albeit they maintained, I think, that that was because we were

negotiating these other issues. I issued a statement. In fact, prior to their

expropriation announcement I issued a statement saying that we were prepared to conclude

an agreement on Nanoose based upon the points of principle and move on to the other

issues, if there was a serious commitment to do so. But the expropriation decision went

ahead nonetheless.

G. Plant: Again, I appreciate the minister's willingness to expand upon the

process, to explain the process from his perspective. I want to bring the discussion back

specifically to the relationship of the nuclear issue to Nanoose Bay in particular. I'm

looking at the statement that Premier Clark issued about Nanoose in August 14, 1997. The

statement was released by the Premier in response to the fact -- among other things --

that on August 14, 1997, the federal government had launched a court action asking the

court to stop British Columbia from unilaterally attempting to end United States use of

the Nanoose Bay torpedo testing range. That was the point in the ongoing issue where the

Premier issued this statement.

It's a pretty careful statement -- impassioned, but a careful statement -- of the

province's perspective. I suppose you could say it was a tough statement, but there's

nothing in it about nuclear warheads. There's no indication by the Premier that an issue

that is of particular concern to the province is the presence or possible presence of

nuclear warheads or related concerns.

I draw the minister's attention to this because I recall having had the sense last

week, when I first began to read the press announcements about the expropriation decision

and the kinds of things the minister's talking about . . . . I recall being

somewhat surprised that I hadn't heard the province express a concern about the use of

nuclear warheads or the possible presence of nuclear warheads in Nanoose Bay at any point

before that in -- what I recall -- the public discussion around the disagreement between

the federal government and the province over Nanoose Bay. It's not there in the Premier's

statement in August of 1997. It may be an issue that really didn't arise until quite

recently. Could the minister indicate at what point in the ongoing discussions with the

federal government around Nanoose Bay the province put the nuclear warhead issue on the

table? I assume that it was the province that raised that in the negotiations. If I'm

wrong, the minister will correct me.

Hon. A. Petter: The member has a statement from 1997. I'll just go by my

recollection of events, not of the carefully parsed statement -- if it was carefully

parsed.

In 1997 the issue of Nanoose Bay came up in a somewhat different context -- not

completely unrelated but a different context -- in the sense that there was a sense on the

part of British Columbia, and certainly the government of British Columbia, that the U.S.

government, in particular Alaska, was not living up to its obligations under the Pacific

Salmon Treaty and was not fulfilling its obligations with respect to the equity

requirements of the Pacific Salmon Treaty, etc.

[1515]

What the Premier did was indicate that B.C. would utilize its capacity to cancel the

Nanoose licence at that time, in order to put pressure on the U.S. government to negotiate

in good faith and live up to the obligations that it has under the Pacific Salmon Treaty.

It was done very explicitly for that reason -- albeit the effort to put pressure on was

undermined to a considerable extent by the federal government quickly stepping in and

saying that they would take action to prevent that cancellation from taking place.

The warhead issue was not raised at that time, because the issue was not one of the

province seeking to renew the licence or impose conditions on it. The question was raised

because the licence issue came up -- in terms of cancellation -- as a very specific

strategy or measure used by the province in order put pressure on the U.S. with respect to

interests that the province believed it was not living up to in a manner consistent with

its obligations.

Flash forward two years, and we come to the point where there is an opportunity for the

licence to be renewed with respect to the seabed. That is the normal opportunity at which

parties -- to take it down to a homier example, landlord and tenant . . . .

Two years ago, the landlord doesn't like the tenant's behaviour and decides to take some

action to try to evict

[ Page 12620 ]

the tenant -- whatever. Fair enough. That matter is resolved in a fashion or is on a

different track.

Then we come forward two years, and suddenly there is a chance to renew the terms of

the lease. At that point you go back and say: "Okay, what about the terms of the

lease? Let's deal with the terms of the lease and see whether or not that lease now

satisfies our current policy objectives." The opportunity to bring to bear the policy

that was enunciated in the Legislature in 1992, and adopted by the government, presented

itself logically in the context of the negotiations concerning the renewal of the licence.

So when those negotiations commenced in fairly recent times -- within the last month or so

-- it was at that time that the mandate that was prepared for those negotiations was set

out by the province for its negotiator. The issue of nuclear warheads was introduced into

that mandate. As the member well knows -- and I'd be happy to share with him the points of

principle, but I assume he has them -- that resulted in the agreement we had.

The only other thing I'd say is that part of the impression the member may have -- that

this arose very recently, which is to say in the last few days -- is two things. First of

all, the negotiations were not pursued publicly; they were pursued privately. And we felt

that this was a position that we had a chance of achieving at the table. In fact, we were

given some support for that view because of the points of principle that were signed off

by the federal government. Therefore it did not become a public issue, because we felt

that the negotiations were proceeding and that we would be able to achieve this objective.

Certainly, once we had the points of principle signed off, that's what we believed.

Secondly, there was some misinformation in the press -- attributed to federal sources

-- that somehow we had put this issue on the table. I think it was suggested as recently

as the Saturday before last, which would have been after May 5. That was one of the

reasons that I took action -- which, frankly, I would not have normally taken -- to

release this kind of document, a federal-provincial document. I would not normally have

released this document but for the fact that the provincial position was being so

systematically misrepresented, both as to our support for the document and what it said

and as to the timing around our raising of this issue.

To encapsulate, we raised the nuclear warhead issue in the context of the very specific

negotiations around the licence renewal which have taken place within the last month or

so. That is the logical time at which that issue would have been raised, because it's a

condition of the renewal of the tenancy. It was pursued quietly and effectively, we

thought -- very effectively -- up until the point that the negotiations broke down. The

document was only released because there was some misinformation concerning the province's

position.

G. Plant: When did the renewal negotiations over Nanoose -- the licence --

begin?

[1520]

Hon. A. Petter: I will go by the federal chronology on this, but it comes with a

caveat: that I don't have immediate information. What the federal chronology suggests is

that in February 1999, the Deputy Minister of the Department of National Defence contacted

the deputy minister to the Premier of British Columbia with a mind to commencing

negotiations. Then on March 30 the Minister of National Defence sent a letter to the

Premier requesting cooperation in reaching a negotiated settlement. So it would have been

following from those two discussions. Sometime following February-March, the actual

mandates would have been developed, and the negotiators, I believe, would have gone to the

table in April and the agreement would have been concluded -- we thought -- in May.

G. Plant: I gather from the minister's explanation a moment ago that the

province's concerns around nuclear warheads would have been on the table, as it were,

early in these negotiations. The minister can guess that I am partly responding to the

media accounts that the minister himself has referred to, suggesting that the issue didn't

come up until very late in the discussion. Again, I'm interested in what the province's

perspective is on that, if the minister has the information.

Hon. A. Petter: Other than giving the general context, which I have given, I

don't know directly. I can try to find out when the provincial negotiator would have

chosen to put that issue on the table, as opposed to others. I don't know. Certainly it

was part of the instructions that were given. The mandate was given to the provincial

negotiator, in pursuing these negotiations, to achieve this objective -- along with some

other important objectives, including the issue of compensation, environmental protection

and the size of the licence area. That was pursued throughout the context of these

negotiations. I don't know the precise dates when one issue was raised with the federal

negotiators as opposed to another.

G. Plant: I have one or two other aspects of this I want to pursue, but my

colleague the member for Kamloops-North Thompson wishes to raise a matter with the Chair.

K. Krueger: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

K. Krueger: While I apologize for interrupting this important discussion, I

didn't want to miss the opportunity, on behalf of my colleague the member for Okanagan

West, who is detained on other business, to introduce guests from her riding -- a class of

grade 7 students from Kelowna Christian School, here with their teacher, Mr. MacArthur.

Would the House please make them welcome.

G. Plant: I want to explore the limits or the significance of the idea which the

minister has given voice to here: that the province, in raising the nuclear issue in the

Nanoose Bay licence renewal negotiations was, in effect, implementing policy that goes

back as far as 1992. I'm grateful to the minister for having identified the starting

point, if you will, in terms of the resolution of this assembly passed before I had the

privilege of being a member of it. Has the province acted on this policy commitment in any

other context over the course of the last seven years? I threw out some examples. Has the

province taken any firm positions around what should or should not be permitted at the

naval base in Esquimalt or at the harbour in Vancouver? Or does the Nanoose Bay licence

renewal negotiation really constitute the first occasion on which the province has, in any

kind of formal way, sought to give life to this policy commitment?

Hon. A. Petter: Well, to my knowledge, the Nanoose Bay issue is the first

application -- and the first opportunity for an

[ Page 12621 ]

application -- of the policy, with respect to a matter within provincial jurisdiction.

Certainly the policy is well known. But as I said at the outset, the policy is one of

principle, and the principle cannot be applied by the province with respect to areas

outside of its jurisdiction. Because the seabed is provincially owned and because the

facility is utilized by the U.S. military and requires the use of the seabed, the Nanoose

Bay issue was the first opportunity that I'm aware of where the policy was engaged with

respect to a legitimate matter of provincial jurisdiction relating to military use -- in

this case, of provincial land, albeit underwater land.

[1525]

G. Plant: By way of contrast, using Esquimalt as an example . . . . I'm

going to be making some assumptions; the minister may be able to correct them. I'm

assuming that in the case of the naval base, the argument is that the Department of

National Defence presumably has ownership of the base and has jurisdiction over the way in

which the base is used -- which vessels get to come and dock or berth there and so on --

and that provincial jurisdiction is not engaged by those activities; therefore there would

have been no occasion or opportunity for the province to assert this policy position. Is

that the kind of distinction that the minister is drawing here? If not, I'm sure the

minister will correct me.

Hon. A. Petter: I would be a bit more specific in this case, because the federal

government has general jurisdiction over navigable waters as well as defence matters. The

Nanoose situation is really unique, insofar as it is a provincial seabed that is being

used for a military purpose. Therefore there is a direct engagement of provincial

proprietary rights with a military use that raises the question of nuclear warheads being

present. It's that interplay, rather than the broader sense . . . . I don't

think the province necessarily . . . .

Let me put it this way. The issue was clearly engaged here in the province's mind

because there was a proprietary interest. The province was being asked to renew a licence

pursuant to that proprietary interest. The question of military use was specifically being

engaged in that negotiation. As a result, the question of the provincial policy was

engaged in the mind of government, and the objective to preclude nuclear warheads was

applied -- as opposed to more general situations that may arise from time to time, where

there may be some more ephemeral provincial interest or whatever. This was one where there

was clearly and squarely, in our view, a provincial proprietary right that might or might

not be used to accommodate a military use that might or might not include nuclear

warheads. For that reason, we chose -- in the context of this very specific negotiation --

to raise the issue.

G. Plant: I confess that I don't know whether Victoria harbour is in inland

waters or not. The minister's distinction is nonetheless a very useful one, because

clearly the provincial ownership of the seabed of Nanoose Bay is established by

litigation.

By way of momentary digression, I actually happened to be in the Supreme Court of

Canada when that case was argued, and it was interesting to hear lawyers arguing about the

geographical dimensions of the Strait of Georgia and whether they constituted something

which the lawyers call intra faucus terral . I was there as a clerk, so I was not

there on behalf of one party or the other. But the most entertaining part of the whole

thing was that the province, I think, had attached to its factum a very beautiful

photograph of someone playing golf in Victoria, with Mount Baker in the background -- I

think the objective being to prove that the two parts of earth were kind of connected.

Moving on, I want to just ask this question. It may well be that the issue which, as

the minister says, was connected in the case of Nanoose Bay, because of provincial

ownership of the seabed, might arise again. The seabed of Georgia strait is, I think, all

provincial land. Is the minister suggesting that the province now has a policy that when

any future lease, like the Nanoose Bay lease, comes up, there would be a

no-nuclear-weapons policy attached to the negotiations? Or is there some other approach

that will be taken?

Hon. A. Petter: If the member is suggesting that we attach to our aquaculture

leases a no-nuclear-warheads policy, I don't think that's likely. I think we'll act a

little more pragmatically, as we did here. Where there's an apprehension that such

warheads might be present or the site might be used to accommodate such warheads, then the

policy will, as far as this government is concerned, be pursued. But I don't expect it

will be attached to our aquaculture leases -- no.

[1530]

G. Plant: Would the minister suggest that, in effect, Nanoose is really a one-off

and that because of the particular circumstances of the Nanoose Bay lease -- the fact that

the province owns the land, but the American military is using it as a testing base --

those circumstances are unique and that therefore we're not really talking about a policy

that's going to be consistently applied in a variety of other contexts, but rather we're

talking about a particular one-off situation? Or am I drawing lines that are too bright or

too general?

Hon. A. Petter: The only quarrel I have is that the term "one-off"

suggests that it's somehow arbitrary. It comes out of the unique interrelationship that

occurs between an established provincial proprietary right and a military use which

engages that right -- the testing of torpedoes -- and the apprehension that that military

use might be accompanied by the introduction of nuclear warheads into the area.

Where those circumstances pertain, I'm confident that the provincial policy will be

applied consistently. But they are a fairly unique set of circumstances, so if it is

one-off, it's not because it's being done arbitrarily. It's because it's not often that

that provincial proprietary interest will be engaged in this way and the apprehension

that's created can be addressed through the exercise of something that is so clearly and

squarely within provincial jurisdiction.

G. Plant: I appreciate the minister's willingness to take some time to explain

the provincial perspective on this important issue. I also want to thank the minister's

staff for the helpful briefing that they provided to me, which certainly assists me in my

job as critic. Those are all the questions I have in respect to Intergovernmental

Relations issues -- so back to Advanced Education, I suspect.

J. Weisbeck: A short while ago I gave the minister a letter. I apologize for

such short notice; I just received it myself. Is it appropriate to discuss it at this

point in time, or should we . . . ?

[ Page 12622 ]

Interjection.

J. Weisbeck: You had a look at it? It has to do, basically, with a student

assistance program. I understand that this gentleman, Mr. Singer, had applied for a

Microsoft-certified course. He received some funding from Human Resources Development and

employment insurance and is now applying to get the rest of his funds from the B.C.

student assistance program. The difficulty he's having is that this Microsoft-certified

course is not certified for Okanagan University College. As a result, it doesn't have a

code, so in turn he cannot get funding for his course. What he's commenting on is that the

Open Learning Agency has a similar course, and it would obviously put himself and his

family at somewhat of a disadvantage, having to travel down to the coast to take the same

course. I guess what the question I'd be asking here is . . . . He has a

dilemma. How do we resolve it? Secondly, if something like this happens, what happens with

this whole coding issue? I'll give you a few minutes for that.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me apologize to the member at the onset, hon. Chair, because

he did pass this to me some time ago and I got preoccupied with other issues. I've now had

a chance to share the letter with staff. If the member wouldn't mind going on to some

other questions, then perhaps in ten minutes we could come back to it, and I'd be better

prepared, based on staff advice, to give some guidance.

[1535]

J. Weisbeck: That will be fine. Thank you very much.

I have another issue here. Yesterday during our discussion of tuition fees, I brought

some of these issues forward. A document was done by OUC called "Caught in a

Crunch." It talks about the funding crunch that currently exists at OUC. I want to

talk just a little bit about the discrepancies within various institutions around the

province as far as funding is concerned. The comment here in this executive

summary is:

"Our region, for instance, gets about one-third of the provincial per-capita average

in terms of expenditures on post-secondary education. Regionally, the per-capita

expenditure has fallen by 2 percent while the provincial average has risen by 3.2

percent." This is obviously creating a situation at OUC; among other things, it's

creating a shortfall at OUC. They commented further in this statement: "Provincial

per-capita expenditure on post-secondary education has risen from $306.72 per person in

1992-93 to $317.05 in 1998-99. Regionally, the per-capita expenditure has fallen to

$103.59 in 1998-99 from $105.72 in 1992-93." They also said: "The effective

provincial funding received by OUC on a per-student basis . . . has dropped

from $6,757 in 1992-93 to $6,191 in 1998-99."

I also was reading an

article recently in the Times Colonist which showed that

North Island College has a similar situation, being the lowest-funded of the province's

six small colleges. The average funding for small colleges is $133 per capita, but NIC

receives only $89 per capita, although it serves the largest population of the six

colleges.

So I realize that there are some discrepancies out there, and it's created some

problems with some of the colleges and universities. I wonder if the minister could

respond to this discrepancy in funding.

Hon. A. Petter: If the minister wants a detailed answer, I can certainly get

back to him with one. In general, the distribution of FTEs is based upon population

growth, participation rates and utilization factors. So, for example, if you have an

institution in an area where there has been a higher-than-average participation rate, it

may fall, relative to other jurisdictions where we're trying to increase the participation

rate because there has not been the same access to education in that area. That may create

the appearance of a relative decline in position by an institution in an area that has had

a history of very high success. That's not a sign of disparity or a sign of retrenchment;

it's a sign that we are in fact targeting resources into areas of the province in which

participation rates have been lower.

I indicated previously in this debate that we have had some considerable success in

getting participation rates up in areas where they have previously been down. It's like

anything else. When the position of those institutions that are in areas with

lower-than-average participation rates goes up, the relative position of those that have

higher-than-average participation rates appears to go down, even though they're still

doing very well.

The number of FTEs has gone up substantially, I know, at Okanagan University College.

I'm surprised by the reference to the per-student funding going down, because in fact it's

gone up from $5,866 to $5,986 from 1998-99 to 1999-2000. That's quite a substantial

increase in funding, and it doesn't represent a decline at all.

J. Weisbeck: I'm interested to note that it would appear to be that some of

these institutions are getting penalized for being successful. You're saying that funding

drops as participation rates increase. That sort of worries me.

[1540]

Hon. A. Petter: No, not at all. And I may have solved the mystery of participation

on the per-capita . . . . It's true that if one looks at the period from '92

or a previous time through to today, because there was a period where federal funding was

not provided to the province, the province asked institutions to increase the number of

spaces for students without increased resources -- I explained that yesterday -- as an

alternative to what other institutions in other parts of the country had, where they had

actual cuts in resources. Then obviously as institutions take on more students, with the

same amount or a smaller-than-average increase in per-capita funding, which is what

occurred for those two years prior to my becoming minister, the per-capita funding would

go down. But in the last year that has not been the case; it's gone up.

It's not a question of punishing institutions or penalizing institutions that have been

successful, at all. It's a question of using that success as an example to other

institutions so that they too can increase participation rates within their areas so that

students in those areas enjoy the same opportunity. So we've increased . . . .

And 2,900 additional FTEs in the system this year is about 500 more than is required by

mere population growth. That has enabled us to meet the population pressures and also to

increase participation rates. Quite naturally enough, we've tried to increase

participation rates in an equitable way, to take account of the pressures that the

institutions face but also to take account of the fact that there are regions of this

province in which students simply don't enjoy the same equitable access to education, for

one reason or another. And we would like those students to enjoy that. I'm sure the member

would too. He doesn't want to see one

[ Page 12623 ]

region favoured over another. We want to make sure that students throughout the

province gain the same access.

I'll give North Island College as an example. North Island College has had a very low

participation rate -- in part because of the far-flung communities. We targeted some

additional FTEs this year at North Island College, specifically because they said that

they had the capacity and desire to increase their participation rates, to bring them up

from the bottom and bring them closer to the average. We want to support them in that. I'm

sure the member does as well. He doesn't want students in the North Island to be less

likely to go on to post-secondary education than students in the Okanagan. We want

students in the North Island to benefit in the same way students in the Okanagan do.

J. Weisbeck: I'm sorry -- I still don't see how you get a stimulation of

participation if you start penalizing somebody. But nonetheless . . . . I

guess we have differing views there.

As a result, OUC . . . . I have a letter here on behalf of the member for

Okanagan-Penticton, and I have received similar letters regarding a civil engineering

technology diploma. Because of OUC's difficulty in their funding, they've had to,

obviously, cut back some courses. This is one that concerns a number of students, because

it was a very successful course, with 85 to 90 percent placement. Unfortunately, now

they're cutting it back. From what I understand, they're going to be offering it every

second year, which in effect is probably going to end up killing the course in the long

run.

I want to read into the record that . . . . This is from Mrs. Joan

Konfederak. Her son had been registered for this course. He went through all the necessary

prerequisites and then found out that the course had been cancelled. It's obviously

affected their family a great deal. Once again, my concern with Okanagan University

College is that they've had to make some adjustments to some of their programs because of

their funding.

Hon. A. Petter: We had a discussion yesterday, as well, about the fact that

institutions have some latitude to make their own decisions regarding their

priorities and in some cases choose to drop courses in favour of other courses. That is

appropriate, because it gives them the flexibility to respond to local needs and to direct

the funding that they receive -- both the funding that is renewed from previous years and

the increases they receive -- into areas that are most in need of being fulfilled. The

college received 120 student FTEs this year, I believe. They've chosen to do some

reallocation in addition to the new FTEs. That's their right to do so.

I do have a bit of an answer in respect to the question the member passed over in

written form -- or the question he asked with respect to the information written for him.

As I understand it, the individual who has raised the concerns here is an employment

insurance client, and all of the funding should be provided by HRDC. It's not supposed to

be requiring clients to seek student loans. Furthermore, it's up to the institution to

determine which of their programs will be eligible for student financial assistance.

That's a matter that's left with the institution to determine.

[1545]

J. Weisbeck: Thank you for that answer on such short notice.

I have two final questions here; these are some of my student questions. Then we'll

move off to ITAC. These questions are from Chad Peterson and Mike Easton from Simon

Fraser. "Would it be possible to redirect education funds that are spent on less

essential courses and services and target that money to increase the funding of computer

programs?" The second question is: "Why aren't some types of public-private

partnerships being promoted if education funding is so sparse?"

Hon. A. Petter: It is possible to target funding for technical courses such as

computer courses. In fact, that's exactly what the government has done. Of the new FTEs

that were announced for this year -- some 2,900 -- 700 were targeted for

technology-related courses and areas.

I don't recall if the member said where the student came from. But if, like so many

student questions he's read, they came from the University of Victoria, there is in fact a

new software engineering course, I believe, offered at the University of Victoria as a

direct result of last year's announcement of 500 new spaces. So 1,200 new spaces

throughout the system, throughout the province at institutions like the University of

Victoria, are providing some influence.

On the other hand, we're going to have a tremendous need for teachers in this province

as well. We discussed that earlier with respect to universities, but the same could be

said of school boards. There is a big bulge of teachers who are going to be coming to

retirement age in the next few years. We're going to have to replace those and meet those

needs. You have to be careful that you're not trading off one need to fulfil another.

That's why institutions do have some flexibility in resolving these matters.

In respect of public-private partnerships, the government is pursuing public-private

partnerships. Perhaps the best example of that . . . . Well, I can give you

two examples of that, one at the governmental level and one at the institutional level.

But there are many others. I'll give you three examples. At a governmental level, the

whole Tech B.C. initiative is designed to encourage collaboration between the new

university and the private sector in terms of meeting technical needs.

The second example is that the B.C. knowledge development fund provides 40 percent

funding towards research infrastructure at colleges and universities. The federal

government matches it with 40 percent, and the private sector then comes up with 20

percent. It's a form of collaboration around research to encourage public-private

partnerships in very important research that will both help generate jobs and encourage

researchers to congregate around institutions in British Columbia.

The third is just a localized example of an institution here in Victoria, Camosun

College. Camosun College partnered last year with EDS Systemhouse. EDS has moved its

regional headquarters to Victoria, I'm very proud to say -- a major company. They have

entered into an arrangement with Camosun College in which they provide funding support to

Camosun College for equipment, and Camosun College provides training in technical skills

that are relevant to the needs of EDS and other like companies. It's a very good

arrangement.

The short answer to all that is that we're doing exactly that. We're encouraging

partnerships, provided -- and I want to reinforce what I said yesterday -- they're done in

a way that's consistent with and do not undermine the pedagogical objectives of the

institutions, the educational needs of the

[ Page 12624 ]

students. If they advance those needs, great; if they impede those needs, then

obviously they are partnerships that should not be pursued.

J. Weisbeck: The member for Chilliwack had a question. I'll let him finish and

have the final question on post-secondary education.

B. Penner: I have a couple of questions related to Tech B.C., otherwise known as

the Technical University of British Columbia. If my memory serves me correctly, Tech B.C.

was legally established on December 5, 1997, when the government officially proclaimed the

Technical University of British Columbia Act, which had been passed in this Legislature

some months previously.

[1550]

Since that time, a number of us have received newsletters on a periodic basis and other

literature from the board of directors of that newly created institution, indicating that

sometime soon, they will start teaching students. In fact, some of the literature looks

like this -- a brochure I received recently on fairly expensive-looking paper containing

nice pullouts and diagrams and so forth. But my question to the Minister of Advanced

Education is: how many students has Tech B.C. actually taught at this stage?

Hon. A. Petter: I believe that in the past year, which was their startup year,

it was probably 30 students. The target for the coming year -- for the year we're in -- is

250 students.

B. Penner: One of the ongoing issues, which I don't think has been completely

resolved, is the construction of a new building to house the Technical University. My

understanding is that in the interim, the plan is to rent space in a shopping mall in

Surrey and conduct classes in that rented premise. Can the minister bring us up to date as

to where his ministry is at in securing space for conducting classes for the new

university and when a new facility will be open to students?

Hon. A. Petter: I did answer a number of questions on this very topic earlier on

in these estimates, and the member might want to refer to those. But the short answer is

that an agreement was reached last year with the municipality of Surrey, whereby Surrey

will provide land at the Surrey Central SkyTrain station. Planning has been going on, and

discussions, concerning the nature of the facility to ensure that it meets the needs of

the Technical University and provides the maximum flexibility and best facility for their

needs. There is also a desire to have a facility that will facilitate partnerships with

the private sector and other partners in technical education and technical research.

There are also further negotiations that are hopefully in the final stages of being

resolved with Surrey and others concerning issues such as parking, for example, and in

addition, issues concerning other requirements that Surrey had, such as the development of

some commercial space in association with or on the same footprint as the university. So

that work has been ongoing, and I'm very hopeful that a more definitive announcement can

be made concerning the actual nature of the facility, its construction schedule, budget,

etc., in the coming months.

B. Penner: Well, that was the answer we got last year when I asked the same

question of the minister. It appears that very little progress has been made in terms of

finalizing plans for a new building. Let me be a bit more specific. Has a budget been

created for constructing a new facility? Is there a budget in place? Can the minister tell

us how much the government is prepared to spend to create a new facility?

Hon. A. Petter: There certainly is a budgetary figure in mind, based on a

mandate from Treasury Board, but given that some of these matters are subject to

negotiation and to discussions concerning the size of the institution, I don't think I'll

commit myself to a specific figure. In the past, just to give the member some sense of it,

the sense that there would be a public investment in the range of $75-100 million in this

facility was suggested. Certainly that is a range which I would say probably still

applies.

B. Penner: I note that the government first announced a commitment to build a

new technical university five years ago. Here we are today, and it seems like we're still

some way from finalizing plans for getting this thing fully implemented. Perhaps that's

not unusual, but it seems to me that it has taken quite a period of time, and we're all

getting older in the process.

[1555]

In fact, in the amount of time that's gone by since the government announced its

intention, a student could have enrolled and completed a four-year degree and graduated

and gotten on and, hopefully, found a job -- if not in this province, then somewhere else.

Yet here we are today, and it doesn't appear as though a firm budget is in place. I wonder

if the minister could tell us if a business plan has been prepared for Tech B.C. and, if

so, if he's prepared to make that public.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm sure that if we had rushed ahead, the member would have

accused us of not taking the time to plan the institution properly. I guess that's both

the advantage and the role of being in opposition. I see another member nodding his head.

The fact is that Tech B.C. is not just a structure. Structure will be important, but

the major focus has been on developing programming. This is going to be a very unique and

quite exciting institution, one that is designed to add value to existing institutions, to

articulate their programming, to broker programming to meet particular needs and to

develop partnerships with the private sector. Translating this vision into reality has

certainly taken some time in terms of establishing relationships with other institutions

and with the private sector and developing a curriculum. And yes, there has been work

going on by Tech B.C. to develop a business plan as well. If the member is interested in

that, I can certainly make efforts to share that information with him.

The facility itself is one that has to meet those unique needs. Again, it's taking time

to ensure that we take advantage of what is really a unique opportunity, provided by the

city of Surrey, to provide land without cost to the province for the construction of the

new Tech B.C. facility. But Surrey is anxious -- as are we -- that it be done in a way

that encourages the redevelopment of the Surrey centre area generally. Of course, the

university is very concerned that it be done in a way that meets the pedagogical needs of

the university, which is going to deliver some of its programs at a physical location and

others through virtual means, through the Internet.

B. Penner: Just to encapsulate his answer, is the minister giving his assurance

that he will release a copy of the business plan for Tech B.C.?

[ Page 12625 ]

Hon. A. Petter: It's not mine to release; it's the institution's to release. But

I'm sure that they are thinking of releasing that business plan in a timely way. I'm happy

to communicate the member's interest in that plan and to make sure that he is a recipient

of it when it is publicly released.

B. Penner: I wonder if the minister could tell us how much has been spent by or

on behalf of Tech B.C. since the government's intention to build that new university was

announced. As I stated earlier, it's been about five years now. I know I've received a

number of publications on behalf of Tech B.C., and it's my understanding that they also

have some staff already hired. In fact, I received a letter last year -- dated March 23,

1998 -- on Tech B.C. letterhead, which states: "We are now in the early stages of

hiring faculty members and staff, with an average of one full-time person every two weeks

joining our Tech B.C. team." About a month ago it was reported in the Vancouver

Sun -- on April 20, 1999 -- that Tech B.C. now has a staff of 50, including 17 faculty

members. I wonder if the minister can provide us with figures as to how much has been

spent by Tech B.C. to date, as well as the number of staff and faculty already hired by

that new institution.

[1600]

Hon. A. Petter: Yes, well, it is necessary to hire faculty and staff in order to

get a university off the ground. That's one of the up-front costs of any new institution.

Tech B.C. has been working hard to attract the best quality of both staff and faculty that

they can. I believe that if you were to include the total staff and faculty complement, it

would be something in the range of 50. The amount spent last year was $6.5 million, the

year before that, $2.8 million, and the year before that, $850,000. So the member can

calculate from that the total expenditure to date.

B. Penner: It's my understanding that the budget for the current year is $11.3

million. Is that correct?

Hon. A. Petter: That's correct.

B. Penner: I've been asked on behalf of the board of directors of the University

College of the Fraser Valley to make some inquiries as to their proposed phase 3 for the

Chilliwack campus. The minister may recall that it was a proposal to replace a building

that's now about 25 years old -- consisting mostly of administration, faculty offices and

some scientific lab classes -- with a new building. The existing building has a number of

health-related concerns regarding mould that is prevalent in that building. It has at

least been reported in the local media to have caused some students and staff members to

go home ill from time to time.

Prior to the last election, the government was hinting strongly that this phase 3 was

on the very verge of being given the green light. In fact, the NDP candidate for

Chilliwack, Rollie Keith, made comments to that effect during the campaign in 1996.

Shortly after the provincial election, on May 28, 1996, the current government announced a

capital freeze. Phase 3 was caught in that freeze.

I was just reviewing the Hansard debate that took place in the summer of 1996

between myself and the previous Minister of Advanced Education, the member for

Esquimalt-Metchosin. At that time he indicated that he thought cabinet would make a

decision about phase 3 by the winter -- referring to the winter of 1996-1997.

It's now the spring of 1999. The board of directors at the University College of the

Fraser Valley are wondering whatever happened to phase 3. I wonder if the minister could

inform people in my riding and the students of the University College of the Fraser

Valley, as well as the board of directors of that institution, if they should continue

working towards phase 3 or if in fact this government does not have any intention of

moving forward with that proposal.

Hon. A. Petter: I understand that something like $40 million has been spent on

capital improvements on the University College of the Fraser Valley in the last two terms

of this government. There is this proposal for an additional phase, which . . . . My

understanding is that the proposal was for $11 million for phase 3. It may be achievable

with less than that, but that's my understanding of what was proposed.

While I appreciate that the member wants us to spend more, given the amount that has

already been invested and given other priorities, it is not going to be a project that

will be funded in this year's capital envelope. It is on the list of capital priorities

that we brought forward for consideration for next year. But the decision was made by

government to try to direct capital dollars, as much as possible, in the post-secondary

sector in a way that reflected certain priorities to upgrade existing facilities where

necessary. This has made the list, but it hasn't yet been funded, and therefore we'll have

to keep trying to get it funded. But I do point out to the member that some $40 million

has been spent on this institution in recent years.

B. Penner: I believe that when the initial phase 3 proposal was put to this

government, it carried a price tag of about $11 million, as indicated by the minister.

When the capital freeze was announced following the last election, the board of directors

went back, and I think they presented the government with a scaled-down proposal. They

reworked the architectural drawings and came back with a proposal in the range of, I

believe, $8 million for a somewhat more modest facility. I'm not sure just which proposal

is now being entertained by the minister or his ministry. I presume it's the more modest

proposal.

[1605]

But the information I get from the board of directors is just that having this proposal

out there is causing some uncertainty. They don't know whether the university's energy is

best put towards pursuing this proposal or whether they should move on. That's the reason

for me asking the question of the minister.

Hon. A. Petter: It's certainly worth pursuing. As I say, it is on the priority

list to continue to be pursued. I think the member is right. There is a scaled-down

proposal which, if funding were approved, would likely be the level of funding that would

be approved. The numbers I have here I take to reflect the original proposal, which, as

the member indicates, has been scaled back.

B. Penner: I'll pass on the minister's comments to the board of directors at the

University College of the Fraser Valley.

I've just about finished with my participation in these estimates, but I can't let this

year go by without again refer-

[ Page 12626 ]

ring the minister's attention to the still-empty engineering school at the former

Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack. I debated with the minister at some length last year

about that facility. Just to recap, that was a $13 million building that the federal

government built and completed even after they announced their intentions to close the

military base itself. That building has 76,000 square feet, about 27 classrooms, 40

offices and a 300-person theatre. In the year that's gone by, nothing has happened at that

building, except that it has deteriorated somewhat due to lack of use and probably due to

lack of sufficient upkeep. I'm just raising this matter today to register my continuing

concern and my belief that we need to find some way of using a still valuable asset,

rather than letting it go to waste.

In this era of increasing debt in British Columbia, I think it's incumbent upon us to

find ways of using resources. The federal government seems, at this stage, to be quite

content to have that facility sit idle. I think that's wrong, I think people in my

community believe that's wrong, and I think that the more British Columbians learn about

the potential for that facility, the more they will think it's wrong. I merely ask that

the minister be an advocate on behalf of British Columbians to somehow harness the

potential of that facility and consider creative solutions or alternatives in finding some

way we can put that asset to work for students and all British Columbians.

I don't know if the minister's in a position to make any additional comments, but it

probably falls into his bailiwick for two reasons: first, as Minister of Advanced

Education, and second, as Minister of Intergovernmental Relations. I note that the federal

government does have legal ownership of that former military base, but I'd like to see the

province take a bit more of an active role in challenging the federal government to do

something productive or to allow us to do something productive with that facility, if we

have a proposal.

Hon. A. Petter: I'm quite happy to continue to look at possible uses. The member

did raise this matter last year, and I know that staff have looked at the facility. I

think he raised it last year as an alternative to the Tech B.C. site, and it was our

judgment that it was not a suitable use.

The member is probably in a better position than I am to consider whether it might be

suitable to use as a facility in lieu of the phase 3 proposal for the University College

of the Fraser Valley. But perhaps that's a possibility he might want to consider. If he

thinks it's doable, given his proximity and the fact that it's potentially much less

costly -- we have to explore that -- than building an $8 million or $11 million facility

at University College of the Fraser Valley, I'm certainly prepared to entertain that.

J. Weisbeck: That concludes our questions on post-secondary. I'd just like to

thank the staff very much for all their answers.

The member for Kamloops-North Thompson has some questions on ITAC. So if we can move to

that next, please . . . .

[1610]

K. Krueger: I'm not sure if the minister needs time to bring some different people

into the chamber. If so, I'll gladly wait for a brief recess.

Otherwise, I wonder if the minister might like to open with some comments about both

the successes and the challenges of ITAC over the past year. Reviewing last year's

estimates, there's a strong note of optimism -- still a lot of sense of newness to the

program. The B.C. Liberals, the official opposition, continue to feel supportive of ITAC

-- the initiative and the directions that have been set out. Certainly some challenges

have come to our attention, and we'll work through those.

But right off the bat, I want to make sure to express our support for ITAC and for the

people who are heading it up. I'm pleased to see Mr. Jothen in the chamber. We do feel

supportive.

There's always a sense of negativity when we have to raise concerns. I'm sure the

minister is aware that there are some fairly profound concerns from different groups of

people, and we'll work through those. But I want to invite the minister to report to the

House, essentially, on his sense of the successes and challenges of ITAC in the last year.

Hon. A. Petter: I thank the member for his question. First let me introduce

Kerry Jothen, who is the CEO of ITAC and who is joining me for this particular component

of the estimates debate.

As the member knows, ITAC is a partnership of business, labour, education and

government. It does have an arm's-length board. It has an industry-driven mandate, and

it's working to expand the industry training system. Indeed, that's its major mandate, to

make that system more responsive to the economy and labour market trends. I think there

has been some considerable work done to get the organization up and running. It's a

challenge because it is a new governance structure, it has an expanded mandate, and it

does operate arm's-length from government. It's designed to reflect the priorities of the

stakeholders as well as the needs of those who might benefit from the kind of training and

skills that ITAC can provide.

Maybe I'll just refer to some of the . . . . Well, first of all, where ITAC

is in terms of the agenda it's set . . . . The new board and policies are in

place. There is a new administrative structure. Many of the outstanding issues have been

addressed. There are a strategic plan and targets in place. It's been working to new

designations in programs and has a strategic plan.

The challenges that it has include expansion from 20,000 to 50,000 training spaces; it

has established both short- and long-term targets to achieve that. Some of the strategic

objectives, as I say, are to increase the number of spaces leading to employment from

20,000 to 50,000 by the year 2005, to increase the number of high school participants in

high-tech programs from 350 to 2,000, to lower the program unit costs and to increase the

number of workers completing skills upgrading.

ITAC is pursuing a pretty ambitious and what we would call medium-term agenda. It also

has some specific strategic targets for this year. One is to increase the number of

training spaces by 2,400, to increase the participation of secondary school students by 30

percent and to increase the number of workers in skills upgrading by 90 percent. As well

as dealing with many of the administrative challenges it has, it's also expanding

programming into some exciting new areas. We often think of trades training as being

carpentry and automotive -- people of my generation and maybe the member's generation --

but in fact, aerospace, tourism, information

[ Page 12627 ]

technology, film and multimedia are just some of the examples of areas that ITAC is

entering into, and I think the agency is showing some real excitement and direction.

[1615]

I was at an announcement just last week of the new career technical centres that are

being established by the province. It's a collaborative effort between the Ministry of

Education and the Ministry of Advanced Education in partnership with ITAC to create

centres in which high school students can pursue their high school education to gain

credits that will then lead on to technical training through the college system and

through spaces that are sponsored by ITAC. I can't possibly cover all the areas that ITAC

has under its wing and some of the challenges that it's setting for itself, but those are

a few.

K. Krueger: Certainly those are ambitious yet necessary goals, I believe,

because we have an aging working population. We anticipate a tremendous number of jobs on

the horizon, particularly with a new, shiny B.C. Liberal government one day soon and a

rejuvenation of the provincial economy and a lot of construction in the province. We'd

like to have the workforce ready. I'm advised in fact that even with the economy as tough

as it is, there's a shortage of skilled labour right now. I've been speaking with the

various construction associations, and there's a shortage right here in Victoria this

summer in a number of the construction trades. So I'm sure that everyone in the House is

cheering ITAC on in its efforts.

While somewhat reluctant to raise negatives, I think it's important that these matters

are raised in the House and answered and addressed in the House. I'm going to quote, now

and then, from documents provided to me by people who do have concerns about where we are

in the development of all these initiatives. I think that all of us are learning to

measure by results and to judge our success by what we actually deliver on the ground.

There's a concern on the part of many people that the focus of ITAC, as reflected in the

way its funding is spent, is shifting and has already shifted dramatically from

apprenticeship training to other initiatives. I wonder if the minister would respond to

that, including the relative numbers.

Hon. A. Petter: I appreciate the member's efforts to curb his natural tendency

to be partisan and negative.

The shift the member is referring to is, I think, nothing to be concerned about. What

ITAC is trying to do is retain efforts and resources in the areas of traditional trades,

where those trades are required and are needed, as they often are, but at the same time

capture some of the very exciting and productive opportunities that exist within new

areas, such as graphic arts, film training and the like. So there is an attempt here to

try to maintain the best of existing trades training, to try to encourage more students to

participate in those traditional trades.

If I may say, generally, I think that we in North America have not done as good a job

as European countries in fostering pride and in supporting students who may not be

academically oriented but who may be incredibly skilled and accomplished if given the

support to pursue trades training. I think the efforts like the career technical centres

and what ITAC is doing are evidence of this government's commitment to that.

At the same time, ITAC has a mind and an eye to some of the exciting new opportunities

that are being created in technical areas -- areas like film, multimedia and the like --

and is encouraging students to gain some of the technical skills. Aerospace would be

another area where these kinds of skills can ensure that B.C. students fill jobs that are

in fact opening and, by doing so, can help to grow the economy without the necessity of a

disruptive change in political direction that, I'm sure, would not be welcomed by the

people of British Columbia.

[1620]

K. Krueger: I was hoping that, included in the minister's answer, there would be an

actual numerical breakdown of the funding on entry-level training versus apprenticeship

training and the number of people training in the two areas.

Hon. A. Petter: Let me preface my remarks by saying that entry-level and

apprenticeship are both in respect of traditional trades. So it's not a trade-off between

traditional trades that takes place here. The dollar amounts are, with respect to

entry-level, $42,577,000, and in the case of apprenticeship technical training, $17.9

million. I think that in both cases those reflect an increase over last year's expenditure

level.

K. Krueger: Again, any of what the minister has characterized as negative

information that I have to introduce here comes from other sources than B.C. Liberal

research. These are people who have concerns. I'm going to get the concerns on the record

and look forward to the minister's answers.

This is a submission from the construction trades area:

"It is a continuing lament of industry dependent on the supply of apprentices that

government funding of apprenticeship has decreased or been eliminated, while other forms

of training receive more funding.

"Equally irksome to the disparity of governing representation is that of funding.

It is our understanding from sources within ITAC that entry-level training has recently

had allocated $45 million to provide ELTT to 5,500 persons. Apprenticeship, for a

comparison, received $15 million for approximately 15,000 persons."

Those dollar figures are somewhat different, but not remarkably so, from what the

minister just gave us. Even accepting the minister's numbers completely, there are still

obvious concerns about the breakdown between the two phases of this program.

The letter goes on to say:

"While it is recognized there are variants such as classroom instructional time

which explain relative differences, it ignores the obvious to note the per-person ITAC

budget allotment is $1,000 per apprentice versus $8,181 per ELTT candidate.

"To continue the comparison, for each FTE ten-month student, we are advised, a

college receives $12,000 plus $1,000, for a total of $13,000 from government. The same

training facility (college) receives a maximum of $75 per day per apprentice.

"It has been argued -- indeed, it is the opinion of some -- that a college does

not expend $13,000 per ELTT student but, instead, uses the revenue derived from that

source to supplement other college programs.

"College representatives on ITAC may be in a 'conflict of interest' when faced

with decisions which may favour one type of training over another. Their dependence on

government funding that is allocated according to political and social agendas makes them

susceptible to supporting programs that 'profitably' sustain their employers' revenue

sources."

I would like the minister's response to that: why it is deemed advantageous to allot

that much more per ELTT candidate than per apprentice and whether, in fact, there is any

grain of

[ Page 12628 ]

truth to this proposition that colleges may be put in something of a

conflict-of-interest position through the way the program is set up and administered.

[1625]

Hon. A. Petter: Well, there's a lot raised by that submission. Let me just deal

with a few points of it. First of all, with respect to entry level and trades training,

ITAC is intending to pursue a review involving the industry and stakeholders, concerning

the relationship between the two, to try to address some of these issues. The fact is that

the budget this year has increased for both, and the total budget increase is in the range

of $900,000. I believe about $400,000 of that is with respect to apprenticeship training

and about $500,000 is for entry level. We did add 150 new spaces at colleges for ITAC

spaces.

In addition, I think the apparent discrepancy the member references in terms of FTE

support . . . . You have to take account of the length of the program and the

amount of actual training that takes place within the context. As I understand it, within

the context of the apprenticeship programming, the program extends over some four years,

and the actual in-classroom component is perhaps a couple of months in each of those

years. Therefore the funding reflects those differences. Be that as it may, to the extent

that there are some of these concerns, there is a review that, hopefully, can help to

raise awareness and resolve some of these issues.

In respect of the role of colleges, the colleges are part of the partnership that is

ITAC, along with industry and labour. It's not a matter of any conflict or inconsistency;

it's a matter of each party having the opportunity to benefit from the relationship.

K. Krueger: I appreciate the minister's response and the fact that these

concerns are already being addressed through the process described.

The people in construction trades, across the board, express a deep concern about the

deskilling of the workforce in British Columbia. In the trades that they're involved in,

they also make a very valid point about apprentices being taxpayers and being able to

contribute to the economy in a much more direct way than a lot of students are able to

during the course of their education. They think -- and I think it's a good argument --

that apprenticeship therefore is something to be prized and supported heavily by

government. I think those are good points.

The same letter went on to deal with the issue of the product -- the ELTT trainee

versus the apprentice. The organization which wrote to me . . . . This is one

of a number, but it's quite concise, so I'll quote this one:

"Several trades are questioning the wisdom of producing a semi-skilled

tradesperson. While there is some benefit for an entry-level trained person to eventually

decide to enter an apprenticeship, too many cease training and enter the workforce to

compete with skilled, fully apprenticed tradespeople. The purpose of apprenticeship

training is certainly defeated. Surely there was enough evidence in the Barrett commission

report to show that poorly trained workers contributed to 'leaky condos'."

Of course, the opposition's well aware that that's another huge issue, which only

touches on this issue. There are a lot of organizations and people who have to answer for

the leaky-condo issues. The question of this organization is: why allow industry and

trades training to perpetuate the problems? I wonder if the minister would comment on the

deskilling issues and the allegations that these organizations are raising.

Hon. A. Petter: What ITAC is pursuing is a very aggressive policy of upskilling,

not deskilling, British Columbians. The reflection of government's commitment is in the

increased budget that's been provided for this year.

In terms of the representation of the construction trades, I guess I can say no more

than that the head of the B.C. Construction Association is on the board. There is

representation of carpenters and the electrical trades, and with the influx of resources,

I think that is a strong indication of this government's commitment to trades training

generally.

I add to that the initiative around career technical centres, which I referred to

earlier, and the efforts that are being made in the K-to-12 system to promote trades

training. I think it all adds up to a very aggressive initiative around upskilling and a

commitment to use ITAC as a vehicle.

[1630]

ITAC is a new institution. It has had some birthing pains, if I can put it that way.

It's an institution that is just finding itself and its mandate. I think it's doing an

extraordinary job in moving ahead in order to meet a very aggressive set of challenges and

goals that it set for itself, which I outlined at the beginning. These have nothing to do

with deskilling and have everything to do with promoting skills and taking advantage of

the talents of British Columbians -- in some cases, untapped talents of British Columbians

-- that can be harnessed for this kind of training.

B. Barisoff: I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

B. Barisoff: Today I'd like to introduce a group of grade 7 students from

Okanagan Falls Elementary School, along with their teacher Garry Sutherland, and chaperons

Bonnie Kandulski, Debbie LaFramboise, Georgina Anderson, Brenda Willson, Brian Thomas and

Victor Raposo. Would the House please make them welcome.

K. Krueger: In going back to the minister's response, again, this side of the

House is supportive of ITAC and of the funding that's going in that direction. The point

these people are making is that the weighting appears to be strongly in favour of

entry-level trades training rather than apprenticeship training. There will be a price to

be paid down the road in terms of a deskilled workforce, if we have a much higher

percentage of non-apprentices working than people who've made it through their

apprenticeship and become journeymen -- if that's still the correct term. Perhaps the

minister could comment on what drives the ratio. How is that funding allocated? Who

decides -- and why -- how much is available for apprenticeship training versus how much is

available for ELTT?

Hon. A. Petter: In fact, some of the issues that the member refers to date back

some considerable time before ITAC -- the question of entry-level versus apprenticeship

training. One of the roles that ITAC fulfils is to start to set some of those directions

itself, based on the input of those who are directly affected and partners in ITAC.

Government did provide additional funding for entry-level training through some of our

[ Page 12629 ]

allocation in the college system, but that was in response to ITAC's request that we do

so. ITAC then, within its budget, targets resources.

I just point out that entry-level training has been quite successful in placing

students into jobs. I think that something like over 80 percent of students find jobs in

entry-level training. I think that something like 30 percent go on to apprenticeships. I

think the whole value of having ITAC there is that ITAC can, based on the partnership that

exists and the knowledge that exists within that partnership, make these decisions for

itself and help to resolve some of the differences that exist historically around the

value of investing in one kind of training or another.

I'd also say that there's been no reduction of commitment to apprenticeship training.

Indeed, as this year's budget indicates, there has been an increase this year in dollar

commitment to apprenticeship training.

K. Krueger: ITAC obviously still reports to two ministers and two ministries.

With the funding coming from Advanced Education in the coming year, it appears to many

that the evolution appears to be running toward Advanced Education and away from the

Labour ministry.

Questions continue to arise about the composition of the commission. Last year the

member for Delta North canvassed the question of how appointees were determined. That may

have changed between then and now. I wonder if the minister could update the House on the

selection process for appointees to the commission.

[1635]

Hon. A. Petter: With respect to the latter point, the composition is a function of

consultation with the various stakeholder groups -- the Business Council, the B.C.

Federation of Labour and the like. They put forward names, and then the government makes

the appointments based on those recommendations and, I think, by and large follows pretty

assiduously the recommendations that are made. It certainly takes strong account of them.

The shifting in funding to this ministry is simply a reflection of administrative

convenience. It does not in any way reflect a diminution of the role of the Minister or

Ministry of Labour. I would remind the member that this ministry is the Ministry of

Advanced Education, Training and Technology, and if anything, I hope what it signals is

that we want to make sure that we put more focus on training and on trades training in

this ministry. It certainly shows no reduction in the attachment to ITAC and its mission

from the Ministry of Labour.

K. Krueger: Have there been any changes in the selection process for appointees

to the commission over the last year?

Hon. A. Petter: The selection process has only been run twice, and it's been the

same both times.

K. Krueger: Having been one of the team that opposed Bill 26 as zealously as we

could all last summer, I find myself in the curious position of now carrying forward

concerns from the very people and industry that we thought the government was catering to,

frankly, with Bill 26. One of those concerns, for example, is that the appointees

nominated by the B.C. Federation of Labour are not reflecting the knowledgable people in

the construction industry. The construction industry is very unhappy about that.

They feel as