B.C. AMTA was created under a previous program, the ASEP program, the aboriginal skills and employment partnership program, which sunset in 2012, I believe. This picks up on the comment about the uncertainty.
It was created very explicitly under a program that had a number of successes across the country, particularly those that involved the mining sector, but they didn't just apply to the mining sector. I understand there were some challenges with the ASEP program, with some other sectors where mining wasn't involved, but my understanding from ESDC at the time, was that the mining programs were very successful.
Then it sunset, and B.C. AMTA at this point was going great guns and having great success and having people come through the program and getting training and finding work in an area of Kamloops where there was an awful lot of opportunity because you had a new mine in development. They applied under the new program, the ASETS program.
I think that created some of the friction you're identifying because it was a different pool of money from which other groups were also drawing. That conflict didn't exist before because they were separate pools and then all of sudden they were all competing under the same funding source.
I think what makes the B.C. AMTA unique is the.... I think there are many reasons B.C. AMTA was successful in securing that funding, the success rate being one of them. The fact is that they had such high participation rates and such success in getting people through training and into jobs. It was very nimble. It had significant support from industry and the local first nations groups, the Skeetchestn and Kamloops indian bands in the first instance, so they were able to secure that kind of funding. I think that's largely the reason.
I understand that it created some tension with some other groups in the area that felt they were also trying to do this, but they didn't have the coalition of the willing that B.C. AMTA had.