Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 12 -- Wednesday, August 8, 2001

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Time

Introductions by Members		1400

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 11). Hon. G. Plant		1405
	Introduction and first reading

Oral Questions
	Settlement of nurses' and health professionals' disputes	1405
	J. MacPhail
	J. Kwan
	Softwood lumber exports to U.S.	1420
	R. Visser
	Mental Health plan	1420
	R. Stewart

Proceedings in Section B

School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8)
	Second reading
	Hon. C. Clark	1425
	J. Kwan	1430
	Hon. G. Campbell	1440
	Hon. C. Clark	1440

Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act (Bill 15)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Bruce	1440
	J. McPhail	1455
	J. Kwan	1610
	Hon. G. Bruce	1640

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 2)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Collins	1655

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 3)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Collins	1715

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act (Bill 4)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Collins	1720
	J. MacPhail	1730
	Hon. G. Collins	1745

Private Members' Statements
	Value-added. P. Bell	1805
	Hon. M. de Jong
	The power of small hydro. B. Penner	1820
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Fall fare. G. Trumper	1835
	V. Roddick
	Year of the Volunteer. K. Stewart	1850
	V. Anderson

Proceedings in Section A

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Finance estimates. Hon. G. Collins
	Vote 28: Ministry operations	1435
	Hon. G. Collins
	I. Chong
	D. Jarvis
	Vote 29: Registries	1515
	Vote 48: Management of public funds and debt	1515
	Vote 50: Contingencies (all ministries) and new programs	1515
	Vote 55: Public Sector Employers Council	1515
	Vote 56: Seismic mitigation	1515
	Ministry of Education estimates. Hon. C. Clark
	Vote 24: Ministry operations	1520
	Hon. C. Clark
	I. Chong
	R. Masi
	B. Lekstrom
	R. Lee
	Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise estimates. Hon. R. Thorpe
	Vote 23: Ministry operations	1605
	Hon. R. Thorpe
	I. Chong
	E. Brenzinger
	Hon. K. Falcon
	R. Lee

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House several members of the Sergeant-at-Arms fraternity from across the country and the United Kingdom. They are attending the nineteenth annual Canadian Sergeant-at-Arms Conference, and I would ask the House to please make them welcome.

S. Brice: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure today to introduce to the House Mr. Hewitt Helmsing, a resident of Saanich South, a good friend of many in this House and president of the Victoria Dragon Boat Festival. I ask the House to make him welcome.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We have a number of friends in the gallery today. The first one is Mr. Bob Fast. I don't see him, but I'm sure he's in the House. He is from Squamish. He's at a convention here in Victoria, and he wanted to see what I was doing in the House. We welcome him. We also welcome Mr. and Mrs. McEwan from West Vancouver. They're on their annual pilgrimage to Victoria and visit to the House. I hope you can all make them feel very welcome.

G. Trumper: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Dr. Diane Martin, who is the chief of staff for West Coast General Hospital in Port Alberni; her sister Janet Martin, who is the newsroom editor for RTE Dublin; and her daughter, Christobel O'Connor. I believe that Dr. Martin has her two daughters with her. Please welcome them.

Hon. R. Neufeld: Many of you will know that it's not often I get to introduce a real northerner, someone from Fort St. John. It's my pleasure to introduce the publisher of the Alaska Highway News, Mr. Bruce Lantz, who is here to observe question period.

Hon. G. Plant presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

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

Hon. G. Plant: I'm pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. This bill amends a number of statutes: Child Care BC Act; Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act; Commercial Transport Act; Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act; Medical Practitioners Act; Motor Vehicle Act; and the Offence Act. It also repeals the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act; the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001; and the Protection of Public Participation Act.

In conjunction with the legislative provisions with respect to the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, I would like to inform the House that the government is fulfilling another new-era commitment by appointing an independent task force to review pay equity. Nitya Iyer, a distinguished lawyer and former member of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, will head the task force. Ms. Iyer is an expert in charter and administrative law. She will look at current private sector pay-equity legislation to determine how effective and efficient it is in addressing sex-based wage disparities in the marketplace. Her report is due in February 2002. I will elaborate on the nature of the amendments in Bill 11 during the second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 11 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.

J. MacPhail: In May, when the Nurses Union urged its members to reject the offer that's now being forced upon them, the B.C. Liberal Party said the following: "They're justified in asking for higher wages, for better working conditions and better educational opportunities. We've said that's what they deserve."

Any nurse who heard the now Premier make that statement probably would have understood him to mean that the Liberal government would make a better offer. Well, it didn't. It's now perfectly clear that the Liberals had a hidden agenda all along.

To the Minister of Labour. He had an opportunity, when he met with them as recently as 48 hours ago, to reveal his government's hidden agenda to force the agreement upon the nurses. He didn't do that. In fact, he deliberately misled them on that. He wouldn't be straight with them.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, I must caution every member that the words "deliberately misleading" are

J. MacPhail: I withdraw. Let me rephrase, then. The Minister of Labour deliberately told the nurses something else than the actions that he did take within hours after meeting with them. Why wasn't he straight with them?

Hon. G. Bruce: The issue before us is a very serious one. It's not one to be trivialized or put in the field of political footballs bounced back and forth. We've dealt with it in a manner that we think is fair and equitable. We are here today, and shortly we will be debating this bill that will give our health care workers the highest compensation package in Canada.

My purpose in meeting and speaking with both of the unions during the weekend was to make sure that I knew their last offer, where they were at. This has been a long, protracted negotiation. I did that, and I then had to make a recommendation to my cabinet colleagues and the government. I have done that.

J. MacPhail: There have been members of the government who have agreed with health care professionals that this agreement isn't just about money. Everyone knows that you cannot legislate morale. Health care professionals are the backbone of our health care system. Nurses and health science professionals now actively participate in the management of our health care system. They actively participate in a cooperative way to retain and recruit health care professionals. They actively participate to ensure the health and safety of the workplace, to ensure that policies that affect patient care have the support of front-line workers.

To the Minister of Labour. Can the minister explain why he expects nurses and health science professionals to continue to cooperate in the management of the health care system when he has now rejected every single proposal that they have made to improve patient care?

Hon. G. Bruce: The member makes a true observation that morale is low and the frustration is very high. It has been ten years of a very difficult time for the health care system. The government of the NDP in the past ten years neglected health care. We are now faced with a very large task, indeed, to rebuild that morale.

Do I stand here before you today and say that tomorrow the people will be cheering in the streets, that the morale will increase overnight? No, it won't. The damage that was done is severe. The work to make this a health care system that we can once again be proud of and know that it's there for all British Columbians…. It is going to take a lot of hard work on behalf of all of us to get there again.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition with a further supplemental question.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask a very practical question to the Minister of Labour. It deals strictly with the actions that his government has taken. It's a practical question and deserves a practical answer for the people out there. Nurses in British Columbia proposed to work with their employers to reduce overtime costs and improve patient care at the same time. That offer was thrown out by the government in its forced settlements, just rejected out of hand.

Can the Minister of Labour tell us why he rejected the nurses' offer and tell this House how he now intends to address the question of overtime costs?

Hon. C. Hansen: We've spent several years now listening to nurses on the front lines around British Columbia. Registered nurses who are working in our facilities have come up with some excellent, excellent ideas in terms of how we can save costs and make the health care system work better. We've been listening to that, and we're going to be acting on some of those initiatives.

But the point that has been made by the Nurses Union executive is that yes, nurses are frustrated, and their first response is: "You can't pay us enough money to go through the frustrations that we have to go through." Then we have the Nurses Union come back and say: "Okay, maybe you can pay us enough to continue to be frustrated."

We don't want nurses in this province to be frustrated. We want to work with them to deliver on a health care system that works in this province. We offered the Nurses Union….

Hon. C. Hansen: We extended a hand of partnership to the Nurses Union. If the Nurses Union themselves will not work with us in that partnership to solve these fundamental problems, then we will gladly work with the individual front-line workers around this province to get their input. We will start to improve health care.

J. Kwan: I hope this government knows that it cannot legislate cooperation. The step this government has taken will ensure that the health care system further deteriorates.

Since the cooling-off period was legislated, the health care professionals have made several attempts to reduce their demands to the government, totalling tens of millions of dollars. The Premier has said over and over again that the health care professionals are asking for too much. Can the Minister of Labour tell this House and British Columbians what the monetary difference is between the nurses' and HSA's latest offer and his forced settlement? And will the minister also agree to table in the House his breakdown of these costs?

Hon. G. Bruce: As I mentioned, negotiations have been long and protracted in trying to come to a resolution. The fact of the matter is that the mandate was built by the previous administration. The negotiations were not done in a businesslike manner, which caused great difficulty for all of the parties to be able to participate.

The simple fact of the matter is that the bottom line between both unions and the government, the last offer — not the last offer but the combined offer, accumulated over three years — is $500 million apart. I think it's very important to note that the amount of money on the table that both nurses and the paramedicals are going to receive individually will give them the highest compensation package in the country.

J. Kwan: My simple question was to ask the minister to table the detailed numbers for this House. Further, the Premier said yesterday that he has a contingency plan to deal with the fact that nurses in B.C. will start to leave in large numbers as a result of his forced settlement action. Will the Minister of Labour assure British Columbians that precious health care dollars dedicated for patient care won't be used on a massive advertising campaign to recruit nurses and health professionals from elsewhere?

Hon. C. Hansen: I will gladly give the member the assurance that we will not be spending taxpayers' dollars on needless advertising, like the previous administration.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with one more supplemental.

J. Kwan: Will the Minister of Labour also assure this House and British Columbians that the standard of care provided by the health care professionals will not be eroded or diminished in any way by what this government has in its contingency plan?

Hon. C. Hansen: We have in British Columbia some of the best health care professionals of any jurisdiction in the world, and we have every right to be proud. The offer that will be legislated will make them the highest paid, in terms of wages and benefits, of any jurisdiction in Canada.

Finally, I think something that this House should know is that since the information about this offer has been in the public domain and circulating around North America and around the world, the number of nurses applying to British Columbia is up significantly over the same time last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, members. Order, please. The member for North Island has the floor.

R. Visser: My questions are for the Minister of Forests. Along with health care there is one other very real and very important issue that's looming over the future of this province, and that's the issue of whether or not the U.S. Department of Commerce will impose a retroactive countervail duty on Canadian softwood lumber products. The North Island relies heavily on the forest sector, and these tariff systems, if imposed, will have the potential to be truly devastating. Can the minister tell operators and workers in my constituency whether they're going to be asked to fork over money for products they've already shipped to the U.S.?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is the critical circumstance designation that the member is asking about, and it is the retroactive application of a duty. It is triggered by a finding by the U.S. Department of Commerce that exports of Canadian lumber have surpassed a 15 percent threshold over a particular period of time, and there's a seasonal adjustment factor. Our best information today is that Canada has not surpassed that threshold, and we are working with the Canadian government to impress that point upon the Americans. We are going to continue to impress that point upon the Americans. We expect a decision in a matter of days, and we will keep this House and British Columbians informed.

R. Visser: Under the previous softwood lumber agreement, which expired earlier this year, an operator's ability to ship lumber to the U.S. market depended on their having a quota. As the minister knows, this quota system created large divisions, not only with Canada but within British Columbia, between sometimes the interior and sometimes the coast. Will the minister please tell us whether the government is considering going to the U.S. and negotiating another quota-based trade agreement?

Hon. M. de Jong: We're not in favour of a return to a quota-based managed trade agreement. What we are in favour of is engaging the Americans in a discussion, a dialogue, to determine whether or not they are serious about bringing an end to a trade dispute that occurs with disturbing regularity. What we are in favour of is an agreement that grants British Columbia and Canada free, unencumbered, unfettered access to the American market. What we are in favour of is following through on our new-era pledge to revitalize and reform an industry that languished for far too long under NDP policies that brought it and the economy in B.C. to its knees.

R. Stewart: There's another side to the Health ministry as it was silently ignored by the previous government over the past decade. To the Minister of State for Mental Health. Clinical depression is a serious health concern that touches the lives of many British Columbians, affecting nearly 10 percent of our population. Fortunately, it's a treatable illness. Unfortunately, though, only half of those suffering from clinical depression receive treatment, due to the lack of knowledge on the part of service providers and many in the public who neither recognize nor consider clinical depression to be an illness. Will the minister tell us what plans he has to help these individuals who continue to suffer in silence?

Hon. G. Cheema: Mental health is a serious issue for this government. That's why the Premier has appointed me as the first Minister for Mental Health in this country. Unlike the previous government, we have a true commitment in our New Era document. We are going to be launching a depression initiative that will focus on patients, families and health care providers. We have a commitment to our patients.

We want to make sure our patients are treated properly, unlike the last government. They made an announcement for mental health three times, and there was no money attached to that. This time we are going to be launching a new initiative, and we'll also be implementing the mental health plan that the previous government announced three times. The plan was never implemented. Your government was only able to implement $10 million.

Hon. G. Cheema: We will be implementing and fully funding the $125 million plan.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates of the Ministry of Finance, followed by the Ministry of Education. In this House I call second reading of Bill 8.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that Bill 8, the School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001, be read a second time.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, if we could, let's let the members that are going to Committee A depart from the chamber.

Hon. C. Clark: Bill 8 is about parental involvement. Parental involvement is a critical ingredient in the education of any young person. Every study done shows conclusively that when parents are involved in their children's schools, those children achieve higher results. This government has promised that parents' right to volunteer in their children's schools will be protected in legislation. This bill fulfils that promise.

We know that parental participation is the single most important factor affecting how well children do in school. After years of hearing the opposite from government, we are today telling parents that they are not just being encouraged but being welcomed back into the public school system in British Columbia.

The legislation guarantees that parents may participate as volunteers in their children's education. It means that the right of a parent to participate cannot be negotiated away at any bargaining table anywhere in our province. No collective agreement will be able to limit the use of volunteers except where a volunteer would replace an existing employee.

This bill recognizes the government's belief that schools are learning places first and working places second. The amendments made to the School Act by this bill will provide an entitlement for parents by spelling out in the act their right to volunteer in schools, provided that those volunteer services will not result in the displacement of a board employee. The legislation will allow parents to support staff and teachers and to enhance the services that they provide. It protects those services while at the same time ensuring that parents have access to their children's schools.

Under the School Act, school boards have the right and the responsibility to oversee the use of volunteers. As such, they are to determine the rules and the criteria governing volunteers in their district according to their local needs. This legislation does not erode the autonomy of boards to permit volunteers in their schools and to make rules respecting volunteer services.

The amendments made by this bill will provide protection from legal action to volunteers. Where a volunteer is providing services at or for a school and they are abiding by the policies and instructions of the board, this legislation provides authority in the act for protection from legal action in the same way as is currently provided for employees of the board and for trustees.

Hon. Speaker, this government has put education and the needs of children at the top of its priority list. Parents are an essential partner in helping children do

as well as they can in our public schools. This legislation makes it clear that parents are welcome to participate in the public education system and are encouraged to be part of it.

The legislation has been embraced by the B.C. School Trustees Association. It's been applauded by the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils. This government promised to put children first, and we promised that we would put parents back at the centre of our education system. That is what Bill 8 does.

J. Kwan: I rise today to speak to the bill. I think it is important to note that in terms of the overall thrust in principles of allowing parents into the classroom, it has been one that has been welcomed not only by teachers and students alike but also, of course, by CUPE. It is important to note that historically, that practice has always been in place.

I know that the president of CUPE, Barry O'Neill, in fact has said on several occasions that he welcomes parents into the classrooms. Many of the CUPE members are parents themselves, and in fact, they volunteer in their own children's places of learning. In many respects, one actually does wonder whether or not the legislation is indeed necessary and whether or not this is just for political reasons.

Having said that, I would like to quote Barry O'Neill, president of CUPE, who said in today's National Post: "We have never had any opposition to parents volunteering. What we've said is volunteers should not be used to replace trained, professional staff. I am not sure what the government is trying to achieve." So there is no dispute from anybody with respect to ensuring that parents should have the right to come into the classroom. There is no question about that.

The question, of course, from the BCTF is an important one as well. They raise many issues. They have written a letter to the minister around educational issues, particularly as they relate to the learning environment for children. The BCTF have said very clearly that they want to ensure that the learning environment for students is in its best shape, and that is their utmost care and responsibility. They also have issues around educational funding. I will be asking some of those questions during the estimates stage with the minister.

J. Kwan: Well, yes indeed, it is the budget that was brought forward by the previous government, but it does not preclude questions being asked, because this is a new budget that this government has actually reaffirmed. They have said that they place a high priority in the area of education. I will be posing some of those questions during the estimates stage in this House.

With respect to the BCTF, they clearly have other issues as well, particularly as they relate to the collective bargaining rights issue and essential services. I have no doubt we will have opportunities to talk about that further on in our debates in this House.

The other points that are important relating to this legislation, which have been raised by the B.C. School Trustees Association…. It's interesting because when I look at the documents they sent to everybody in the House relating to this piece of legislation.... The B.C. School Trustees Association suggests that there needs to be careful management of volunteer resources and that boards will need to review their rules for volunteers to ensure that they provide adequately for control of the school environment, particularly since some of the rights the employees have achieved through collective bargaining may be diminished by virtue of the new section 26.1 described below, which I will talk a little bit about after.

They gave an example: should board rules provide that a teacher controls who volunteers in that teacher's classroom as well as what duties they perform? I think that's an important question for the minister to respond to.

I think it's also important to note that displacement has been noted in the legislation. However, displacement is not clearly defined. It would refer to a loss of position or a permanent reduction of hours in a position, possibly a loss of work that would otherwise have gone to an on-call employee.

So there are questions, in fact, that this piece of legislation would further erode the opportunity for parents to be at the workplace. These questions are important, I think, and would need to be answered.

Although the minister confirms that the legislation would not take away employment in the school for teachers and bargaining unit work, I hope that the minister will ensure what exactly displacement means in this sense and also answer the question from the B.C. School Trustees Association, because they're unclear on that question.

The bill also makes void any provision of a collective agreement that limits the use of volunteers other than as provided in the new section 26.1(2), and this replaces all collective agreement language dealing with volunteers. It would increase the

flexibility of some school boards, but it would also decrease flexibility in others. This is also a concern that has been raised. So it is not clear how it would affect the general contracting-out language that includes volunteers. On the face of it, the legislation appears to make such language void, rather than just read down to exclude volunteers. I think this is another point that the BCTF and CUPE and others…. It would be important for them to have clarification from the minister.

The other concern that has been raised by the BCTF is that this legislation may also affect whether or not teachers' professional autonomy clauses could be used to limit the presence of volunteers in the classroom. It isn't clear to them whether or not that would be impacted. So on the whole, there needs to be clarification from the minister in these regards.

It is important to note, though, that the president of CUPE has stated over and over again that they welcome parents in the classrooms. And to ensure that the CUPE members' work is not displaced and that they're not replaced and that skilled professionals who are providing expertise in the classroom are also not replaced by volunteers…. That is to make sure that we actually maintain and uphold a standard of professionalism within the school system. To that end, I think that if these aspects are adhered to, there is no quarrel from CUPE or, for that matter, from anybody to ensure that there is absolutely a place for parents in the classrooms.

So I would look forward to committee stage to ask the minister to clarify some of these points and to make sure that there is clear understanding in the classrooms for the teachers as well as for the administrators who will be engaging in making changes in relation to the bill, once it's received royal assent, and to make it clear to CUPE so that there's no misunderstanding with respect to the intent of the legislation and its application.

Hon. G. Campbell: It was interesting listening to the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant's comments. I don't know where she stands on the bill, now that she's completed her comments, but I did notice one thing: not once in that member's comments did she mention children. Not once in that member's comments did she mention students. I think that's one of the things that distinguishes this side of the House from that member opposite. We have been clear. The public education system is there for the public, and we will always put students' needs first.

There are lots of areas of debate within the education system. How do we give children the opportunity to maximize their learning potential? How do we create opportunities so that they can develop themselves completely as human beings? There is one incontrovertible fact which is borne out by study after study after study after study: when parents are included in children's education — any parent being included in a child's education means that child will do better — they will learn more, they will prosper, and they will become fuller and more complete people. That's why this government has been clear from the outset that we will guarantee rights of parents to be part of the public education system in every school in British Columbia.

I want to congratulate the minister on coming forward and delivering on the commitment that we made to parents. This government will support parent advisory councils; this government will support parents in schools. This government looks at parents as essential partners in developing a public education system that is second to none.

Hon. C. Clark: I don't think the Premier's comments really need any addition. Parents are at the top of this government's list. Students should be at the centre of our education system. Everything that we do — every single change, every single policy that we contemplate for the Ministry of Education — should focus on those two single things. That's going to be a big change in British Columbia.

With that, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Clark: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 8, School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce: I would just like to outline briefly what this act is about. We've had a long and protracted dispute in our health care field since January of this year until today. What this bill will do is make our health care workers — being the nurses and the paramedicals…. It will give them the highest compensation package in Canada. I want to reiterate that so everybody knows: it will give them the highest compensation package in Canada.

This bill provides collective agreements to settle the disputes in the health sector involving nurses and paramedical professionals, and it also ends the cooling-off period. These collective agreements are comprised of three elements: the collective agreements that

expired on March 31 of this year, provisions that have been negotiated and agreed upon by HEABC and the nurses' bargaining association and the paramedicals' bargaining association during collective bargaining; and also the provisions of the settlement packages tabled by HEABC.

The impact of this agreement is quite extensive. I'd just like to bring to the House's attention what's involved in this collective agreement. Apart from the fact of it awarding and providing for the highest compensation for our nurses and our paramedicals in Canada, this package is a 23½ percent cumulative wage increase for the average nurse. This is a three-year contract. The starting salary for a registered nurse in 2002 will be $46,400 per year. The salary for a level 1 registered nurse with eight years' experience in 2002 will be $61,000 per year. I bring that to the House's attention, not for anyone to go ah or ooh or anything along that line, but just so the fact can be stated as to what the compensation is. It also provides for the highest mileage rates in Canada, at 44 cents per kilometre, the highest on-call premium in Canada, maintenance of the highest vacation entitlements in Canada and maintenance of 100 percent employer-paid health and welfare benefits, the highest employer-paid rate in Canada. The additional cumulative cost of the agreement over these next three years is $634 million. I'd like to repeat that to the House. The additional — this is additional — cumulative cost over the entire three years of this contract, which the taxpayers of British Columbia will have to find for this portion of the agreement, is $634 million. That is in respect to the nurses.

In regards to the paramedicals, this three-year agreement also provides for the maintenance of the highest wages in Canada. There are wage increases of 5½ percent for 40 percent of the employees and 14¼ percent for the majority of the employees in the hard-to-fill positions. Again, it provides for the highest mileage rates in Canada, the highest on-call premiums in the country, increased funding for professional development, the highest paid leave and health and welfare benefits in Canada, and the maintenance of the highest vacation entitlements in Canada. That's four weeks in the first year. The additional cumulative cost of the agreement over the next three years is $135 million. I want to reiterate that. The additional cumulative cost of this three-year contract for the paramedicals is $135 million. We're looking at nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars of additional funds for the life of these two contracts to be found by the taxpayers to pay for these contracts.

The length of these negotiations has been protracted, as I've mentioned. The discussions started to take place in January. There were mediators brought in to try and resolve the disputes. There were a number of items on which there was common agreement, and they were set aside and agreed upon, but it became apparent that we were faced with a huge chasm in respect to the dollars between the parties. We were left, as a new government, to deal with a situation that had been left by the former government, the NDP, where they had expended the mandate and had bargained in a very unprofessional manner. We were left with a situation where we were literally millions of dollars apart. In fact, the difference between the two parties on a combined basis would be nearly half a billion dollars. That's half a billion dollars on top of the three quarters of a billion dollars that's already in this contract for the two parties. The difference was extensive; the difference was huge.

The general public, from one end of this province to the other, is looking for some stability. They're looking for the health care sector to get back together and start to rebuild and provide for a system that is good for all of the people of the province.

It's important that all of us now, as we get past this — and I do hope that we can get past this in a manner that…. I understand the frustration level that is there within those that have been in this negotiating process, but if we can get past this and start to rebuild the health care system, it will be one that we are all proud of here in the province of British Columbia.

This government understands the importance of the nurses and the paramedicals and the contribution and the dedication that they make on behalf of all the people of the province in delivering good health care. We understand that. We understand the hours that they put in. We understand their commitment to health care. Most of all, we understand the frustration that they have felt during these past ten years and particularly through this last negotiation period.

In a broader picture, Mr. Speaker, I think it's important…. I speak now, not just to the people in this dispute but to all of us living in this province, about this notion of always looking at what somebody else has and whether I want that too. It's a natural tendency on all of our parts that we would be looking to have what the other person has. Sometimes when we do that, particularly in a country such as Canada and a province such as British Columbia, we forget to reflect on what it is we already have.

Several years ago I had the good fortune to go to Thailand. I was travelling through the country, a country that has had some very severe difficulties over these past few years. I was coming back into Bangkok on a train early in the morning — one of those trains where the windows are down and you're sticking your head out the window to look at life as it starts to come to life there early in the morning, 4 o'clock. As we came in and the train was slowing into the outskirts of Bangkok, there were all these little shanty places — people who had lost what they had, living in little corrugated cardboard huts. As we slowed to one particular crossing, I could see this mother with two young children. She was getting them up, cooking over a little stove, dressing them up, trying to put on the spit and polish that a mother does as she sends them out to school. I looked at that and thought, what future do they have? Yet they were going through the motions. They were going to carry on and do what they needed to do to live and survive in a very difficult situation.

And there but for the grace of God go I. Here's a situation that is in one country half a world away, and we live here in this beautiful province with so much.

It's fair and understandable that when we get into a negotiation, we look for more. I understand that. But in the broad context of what we have in this province, I think it's time for all of us to take a step back and appreciate what it is we have here. Rather than look for how much more we can get, let's go to the other tack: how can we give so that we can rebuild this province to make it number one again in this country?

As I mentioned earlier and have continued to mention during this address, this government understands the importance of our health care workers and the contribution they make. We respect their dedication. This bill that we've introduced and this legislation that we are providing reflect the fact that we understand how important they are by virtue of giving them and making them the highest paid with the greatest compensation package for their professions here in Canada.

I take no joy in bringing in legislation that forces people back to work. It is somewhat ironic that we're bringing in legislation that in fact does that but in the same way makes them the highest paid in this country. Let us hope that with the actions that have taken place today and with the job action that we've seen to some extent through the province, cooler heads will prevail and the frustration people have will be vented. Though I understand they won't jump for joy, I hope they will realize we are on the road to recovery, and they will be part of the rebuilding process.

This bill is not to be taken lightly by anybody. It's not to be taken lightly by those who would see this as a political action. It is not. This is an action that needed to be done on behalf of the people of British Columbia. This was clearly a situation where the parties had come to a chasm that was too deep, too great to be able to step over. This government has taken the steps it needs to so that we can once again rebuild our health care system and have health care professionals working in a system that is optimistic, where it's fun again to go to work on a daily basis and where they can be part of the rebuilding process.

J. MacPhail: It is with great reluctance that I stand in the House today to debate the piece of legislation that is before us from this government, legislation forcing nurses and health care professionals back to work with a settlement imposed upon them that completely erodes good-faith bargaining and probably will throw our health care system further into chaos.

It is interesting to note that in this chamber, there are about a dozen Liberal MLAs. How important do they actually see this debate — that this debate is now of almost no consequence? There's a reason for that. It's because this government is so abusing the process of the Legislative Assembly and debate that they're just throwing mass confusion into the system of how democracy takes place here and how legislation is developed.

Earlier today the Attorney General tabled a piece of legislation, an omnibus bill that basically does away with several, if not a dozen, programs that British Columbians rely on but that have nothing to do with health care. Once again the public is thrown into absolute chaos by this government, trying to keep up with the changes it's making in taking good, solid programs and protections around the environment away from British Columbians in the continuation of their extreme agenda.

In another place we have the estimates of the Ministry of Finance going on, where we have a budget that's been tabled with the second-largest deficit ever in the history of the province. They're just going merrily along asking each other the question: "Tell us, how optimistic is your forecast, Mr. Finance Minister?" Meanwhile they're destroying the morale of health care professionals with this bill.

So here we have, out in the halls of the Legislature, a piece of legislation foisted upon British Columbians that will throw the environmental future of this province into chaos. It destroys child care in this province; it takes away an independent child advocate of this province. And here we are. This government has already moved on from its extreme agenda of imposing a settlement on nurses and health care professionals, and they're in there merrily debating away the second-largest deficit ever imposed on British Columbia.

Here we are, this before us, trying to make some sense of the extreme agenda of the Liberal government: their new era, the first 90 days of action, the fact that they've been in government since May 16 of this year. How long have they been preparing to impose an unfair and unbalanced settlement on health care professionals? Has it been since May 16? Has it been since April 16, when the election was called? Or has it been since May 28, 1996, that they've been deciding this extreme agenda which they refuse to reveal to us? How long has it been?

When the Premier was invested, along with his executive council, earlier this summer, he said…. It was not picked up by anyone, but it was a very telling comment and almost childish. When he was being inducted, he said: "I should have been giving this speech — this should have happened — five years ago."

You know what? Perhaps the extreme and hidden agenda of this Liberal government has been in the making since that time. Somehow they can stand up today and say: "It's all the doing of the last decade; we had nothing to do with it. And by the way, we were forced into this situation as soon as we came into office."

Well, I say to the Liberal government: you've been preparing to impose these extreme measures on nurses and health care professionals for a long, long time. The only thing you didn't do was reveal your hidden agenda during the election, when you were asked the questions directly.

The Premier promised a fair settlement, not a forced settlement. He promised one thing, and now

he's doing something entirely different than what he promised. There's a very striking contrast between the position taken by the Minister of Labour during the past week and the position taken by the Premier just yesterday.

No matter how much the Minister of Labour stands up and has to take the heat, be the toady to the Premier's agenda and no matter how much he can couch it by saying, "My gosh, we didn't want to force nurses and health care professionals with this settlement…." No matter how much he tries to couch it in terms of caring and compassion, the real agenda was revealed by the Premier in his news conference yesterday.

The Minister of Labour met and talked with senior officers of the B.C. Nurses Union and the Health Sciences Association as recently as Monday of this week. Today is Wednesday. On Monday of this week there was not a word about imposing an extreme and unbalanced and biased settlement — not a word.

Then the Premier got involved. He got involved by holding a news conference. That's something that we're going to see regularly, because they have absolutely no respect for the process of the legislative chamber — none whatsoever. They're keeping all British Columbians so busy with the chaos of their extreme agenda that there's absolutely no time to debate and examine carefully through real debate in this chamber. They use their arrogance of 76 members to shout and scream the message box of their hidden agenda, their extreme agenda. That's how they make their way in an arrogant fashion through the debate in here.

Then they hold news conferences out in the Speaker's corridor, where they bring in more extreme legislation. All the Premier can do now is dominate the news coverage, so he holds his regular news conference at 6 p.m. That's what he did yesterday. That's when the real agenda of this government was revealed.

Suddenly it was not just an extension of a cooling-off period. There was no more talk of negotiations. Basically, the Premier stood up and said to nurses and health care professionals: "It's my way or the highway." That's what the Premier said yesterday. The Labour minister said one thing to the nurses and the health care professionals, but clearly the Premier said something else.

Not only was the Premier in striking contrast with the Minister of Labour, within hours of them both speaking, but the Premier's position yesterday was also a striking contrast to what he said during the election. He urged nurses to push for more in their bargaining. On the very day that the nurses said to their members, "We reject it. Here's the last offer of the employer, and we recommend that you not accept it, and we'll continue negotiations" — now, mind you, we were in the middle of an election — the Premier said: "You know what? Nurses do deserve more. Nurses do deserve competitive wages and the best working conditions in the country."

Just maybe nurses thought, knowing that the Premier was responding to their rejection of the proposal, that the Premier was agreeing with them. Maybe they just said: "My gosh. There's the leader of the Liberal Party, knowing that we disagree with the last offer, and he's saying that yes, we deserve more." Maybe they just thought that once he assumed the power he'd been preparing for for five years, he was actually going to deliver on the nuance of that commitment.

Then the nurses — again, we were in the middle of an election — were putting questions to Liberal candidates each and every day. I bet you every single MLA of the 76 government members are sitting here in fear about what the nurses who put the questions to them have in their pockets about what they said during the election. I bet they're sitting here in fear, waiting for that to be revealed.

The nurses then rejected the offer by 96 percent, and now the Premier of this province is imposing the same contract on nurses and health sciences professionals that they rejected by 96 percent. He said one thing then, and he says another thing now.

Let's just review, for the record, what this government said when they brought in the legislation that imposed a cooling-off period on nurses and health care professionals. Let's just review that. There was an emergency debate on June 19. This new government brought in their new era by having to make an emergency call of all of us back to the Legislature — their first-ever time in this chamber. They had to come back here and impose emergency legislation on the health care system.

What did they say about that? What did the members say during their June 19 debate? What did they say to the public, and what did they hold out to the health care professionals then? Was there any way that they revealed their hidden agenda at that time? Well, let's see what they said.

The Minister of Labour — these are from Hansard: "I am confident that there will be good-faith negotiations taking place during those 60 days" — of cooling off — "and I'm also confident and hoping that we'll have a resolution." The Minister of Labour: "There are five million people in this province who are concerned about health care in British Columbia." I don't know where he got the five million people, but that's from him. "There are five million very good reasons why there's an incentive for the employer to negotiate in good faith with the nurses and the paramedicals and to reach a negotiated settlement" — very good reasons for the employer to negotiate in good faith. The Minister of Labour: "I'm appealing to those people, and I'm appealing to the employer to come back to the table and work out a negotiated settlement for everybody."

Keep that in mind. The Minister of Labour: "The whole essence of this bill is to have the parties come back quietly, to sit down as two and three parties in a negotiated instance and work out an agreement."

Tell me: what would be so wrong with the two parties having to come to the table to negotiate a settlement that we could both live with? What's wrong with that? That's in fact what we're talking about here. That was June 19 when this government imposed a cooling-off period on the nurses and health care professionals who were taking legal action to enforce their right to free collective bargaining.

The Minister of Labour, June 19, on cooling-off legislation: "All this legislation does is ask once again to bring the parties back to the table, to try and take that half-step back from where you're at and take a look at that bigger picture and how important it is for every single individual in the province that these two issues be resolved."

J. MacPhail: My gosh, maybe you could just listen up, Liberal MLAs, because this is from your own side. This is from the Minister of Labour: "Not that there be a winner or a loser but that there be peace here in British Columbia in our health care system…. We're confident that through this process of negotiation they will reach a negotiated settlement, and everybody will be working very hard to achieve that."

The Minister of Finance: "Give us a chance to sit down, to talk, to try and find some solutions so that we can work together to make sure this system is improved and the nurses' lifestyle is improved and the work that they do and the conditions they work under have been improved as well."

"I heard from the two members tonight" — referring to the members of the opposition, although they don't like to use that word — "that what they wanted us to do was bring the parties back, to get back to the table and get negotiations going. In fact, that indeed is what this bill does."

My gosh, what a difference six weeks makes. Just like six weeks of intransigence on the part of this government in the transit dispute made a difference, what a difference six weeks makes. That was then and this is now.

What else was said by the various members? The Minister of Labour: "This bill also provides that the parties must resume collective bargaining and must make every reasonable effort to conclude an agreement during that time, the cooling-off period."

The Minister of Labour acknowledges nurses, health science professionals and employers, and said they do not want to imperil the health and safety of British Columbians in order to reach a collective agreement, but they do want to reach a new negotiated collective agreement. "This bill will facilitate that objective." "We want to cool off this situation" — again, the Minister of Labour — "so that parties can get back to the bargaining table and successfully conclude a negotiated settlement."

The Minister of Health Planning: "Our government values our health care professionals. Our government has a genuine desire to work with all of our nurses, with our paramedical professionals and with all of our health care providers."

"We offered them that partnership; we told them we had a genuine desire to work with them" says the Minister of Health Planning. This is the minister that's now reaching out with an olive branch to nurses and health sciences professionals to resolve the health care crisis. "We want our health professionals to stay in B.C. We want them to stay and work in B.C."

"We're committed to providing opportunities for our health care providers to work with us to create a health care system that they will be happy to work in again and be a part of. We want them to be proud of this system."

My gosh, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Liberal members of this chamber can go out today and talk to nurses and health sciences professionals and find out how happy they are and how much they trust this Premier about what he said he would do. Actually, I think the Minister of Labour's been duped. He's been put out as the dupe out front to take all of the heat, to cover for the Premier so that the Premier can get away with his hidden agenda. He's the guy that stands up and says to people: "Oh no. Here's what we want to do. Don't worry. Don't worry. Don't worry. Here's what we want: to negotiate a settlement. We don't want to have winners and losers. We want everybody to sit down and negotiate." Of course, he was dead wrong.

But perhaps he didn't know that he was being duped. Perhaps the Premier didn't even reveal to the Minister of Labour what the hidden agenda was. I'm sure that the Minister of Labour, just 48 hours ago, wouldn't have said what he did say to nurses and health sciences professionals about wanting to negotiate a fair settlement. I'm sure that minister would not have said that if the Premier had told him about the Premier's hidden agenda. There's a very, very striking contrast between what the Premier said he wanted with this legislation and now what he's revealing to be his real agenda.

What's the reaction of the public? What's the reaction, first of all, of people who are out there right now? Let me tell you. Let me just read a couple of letters into the record, Mr. Speaker. There are many more. I can guarantee there are many more of these letters flooding in to every single government MLA's office as we speak. Perhaps they will have the courage to stand up and actually check the mail that they're receiving. Maybe the Minister of Labour can take a moment out of his smiling countenance to actually go and check his office to see the letters that he is receiving, because we're also receiving those same letters.

Let me just read a couple, because they're indicative of where the public is at:

J. MacPhail: "Yours truly, Keith Beardwood, Victoria" — represented by a Victoria MLA. I don't know whether they're sitting in the chamber here or not.

Here's a letter to the member for Vancouver-Burrard, who has already distinguished himself in this Legislature:

This next paragraph is extremely important considering the behaviour of the government members:

If there's one overriding theme as well as showing an absolute distrust of the Premier, it's a reiteration of the arrogance of this government. How arrogant they are as they sit with their 76 members in this chamber and perform in a way that is lacking in trust, that reveals a hidden agenda that they refused to reveal during the election and that shows how they are going to use the power of their numbers in an arrogant way to impose a settlement on nurses and health care professionals first.

Maybe, Mr. Speaker, the real agenda was made available to British Columbians at the beginning of June. Maybe it was, and maybe we just thought it was so extreme that it just couldn't be. So maybe that's what British Columbians believed.

That was when the real bonding of a relationship between Premier Ralph Klein and the Premier of B.C. came to light. Maybe that's when we all should have sat up and taken notice. Maybe that's when British Columbians should have said: "Oh my God, if the relationship between the Alberta government and the new British Columbia government is that close, maybe we should do something about trying to stop the extreme agenda of the Liberal government."

J. MacPhail: I was going to use the name of the Premier, and I apologize for that, Mr. Speaker.

One of Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's former key advisers says that Premier-elect Gordon Campbell has a mandate to crush labour like a bug, if it tries to get in his way. Last month he was in B.C. advising Campbell on how to change the Legislature.

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to caution the member that even if she's quoting, she's not permitted to use the names of members in the House. I know that we've asked her a couple of times in the past not to do that, and I just wanted to call her attention to the fact that she's doing it again. If she could perhaps refer to the Premier as the Premier, which is the way this House has worked for over 100 years.

J. MacPhail: I can certainly understand why the Minister of Finance would want that to be the case. I can certainly understand that.

"Rod Love was at Klein's side for most of the major changes he instituted in Alberta." Oh sorry, I read that part. "If labour is smart — a stretch, I know — they would accept the fact that their time is over for the foreseeable future," he said. "Rather than take to the streets for some tiresome 1960s protest that never worked, they should cut a deal with Campbell to hold on to what they've got and get out of the way of changes needed to the Labour Code. If not, the Premier has a mandate from the people of British Columbia to crush them like a bug." The same advice goes for the environmentalist, aboriginal, poverty activist groups, etc.

Now, maybe we all should have just sat up and taken notice of this advice that was being given to the Premier of British Columbia. Maybe we should have said: "Oh my gosh, there's the real agenda of the Premier. First he's going to crush working people like a bug. First he's going to crush transit workers and then nurses and health science professionals."

And then, next, British Columbians should say: "What about environmentalists? Are they next? What about aboriginal people? Are they next? What about poverty activist groups? Are they next?" Will the Premier now deliver on the advice he got from his mentor, Ralph Klein, and his advisers to crush them like a bug today?

Well, actually, we will see that. While all of us are terribly worried about the health care situation in this province, the government is introducing legislation, as we speak, to crush environmentalists like a bug. That's exactly what they're doing, as we speak.

The Premier is clearly making his choices known. He has a choice. He's chosen his wealthy friends and his corporate backers ahead of nurses and health science professionals. Let's just show how he's done that. Since the election, what have we seen in their 90-day agenda? What have we seen? Massive increases to deputies and senior officials.

Today we see legislation where they're going to meet amongst themselves and pay themselves even more money. They're going to have their little government caucus meetings, call it a committee and give themselves a big, giant salary increase. That's what we see today.

Then we see massive tax breaks for the richest British Columbians, Mr. Speaker, that actually weren't promised during the election. If one earns over $250,000 in this province — the group of people who earn $250,000 or more a year — they're getting a tax break worth $208 million. That's $208 million of massive tax breaks to the wealthy earning more than $250,000 a year.

When my colleague merely asks a very straightforward question of the Minister of Labour today, to table the facts about the difference between the employer's last offer and the nurses' last offer, because the nurses actually took the Minister of Labour at his word, and they continued to negotiate in good faith…. In fact, they made two substantial changes to their proposal since he imposed the cooling-off period. The employer, zero moves…. When my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant asked a very straightforward question, to table the numbers, he refused to do so.

Then we might have had an opportunity, if he had done that, if he had just done what it is his job to do.... He's throwing the health care system into chaos by saying that there's a massive difference between the two proposals of the health care workers and the employer. If he had tabled those numbers, maybe we then could have compared them to areas in the most recent budget that the Liberal government maybe could take back because they hadn't promised British Columbians that, like the tax break for the wealthiest in this province.

I challenge the Minister of Labour once again to put those numbers on the table. Even if his inflated number of what he describes as almost a quarter of a billion dollars stands up, that's equal to the tax cut he gave to the wealthiest people in this province. That's the part of the hidden agenda that the Premier of this province delivered.

Maybe there would be time now, as a face-saver, for the Premier to stand up and say: "Well, you know what? You're right: the voters didn't vote for that tax cut for the wealthiest of 200 million bucks, and there is a way to stand back and not choose a winner or a loser. There is a way to stand back and solve this problem. You're right: we don't need to make that tax cut right now. We'll see whether our trickle-down theory of economic recovery works. In the meantime, we can resolve the health care crisis that, frankly, is of this government's own making."

But the Minister of Labour refused to do that. He refuses to reveal the numbers. That's so that British Columbians, once again, must be beholden to the hidden agenda of the Premier of this province. They can't have the facts before them. They can't compare the massive tax cuts for the wealthiest versus what it would cost to resolve the nursing and health care professionals' dispute in this province.

What else did they do? What was their next action? They gave massive tax breaks to the corporate and business sector — again a hidden agenda — worth, to use the phrase of the Minister of Labour, a quarter of a billion dollars. That's the phrase: a quarter of a billion dollars. That's exactly the continuation of a massive giveaway to their corporate backers that was announced a week ago Monday in the budget.

Did they keep another promise, which they reiterated year after year after year to British Columbians, that they'd balance the budget? No. Actually, it turns out that their massive corporate giveaway has the second-largest deficit ever experienced in British Columbia. Actually, some of the members were members of the Social Credit government of 1991 that brought in the biggest deficit in British Columbia's history. Now those same members are back doing the second-largest deficit. So some members — they now call themselves Liberal — now have the dubious recognition of being in government for the two largest deficits ever experienced in this province.

Apparently it's okay to spend billions to attract deputy ministers and pay B.C. Liberal Party presidents the biggest salaries ever and to reward corporate high-rollers, but there's no money to recruit and retrain nurses and health science professionals. Once again, the message to the health care givers of this province from the Premier is: "It's my way or the highway." Today he said to them: "I guess it's the highway. Take a hike."

What does the Premier really think about the future of the health care system in this province? What system has he set up to make our health care system better — which is, of course, what he promised during the election? What system has he put in place? Is it the Progress Board that the Premier's blue ribbon corporate CEOs so proudly work upon now? Do they have any mandate to look at progress within the health care system or in social programs at all?

Do they have any mandate to look at the outcome of the legislation that's being forced upon health care professionals today? Well, I guess actually it turns out that they don't. The blue-ribbon Progress Board of corporate CEOs, the board packed with business people, doesn't have a mandate to look at our health care system.

So where is the progress board for health care? Where is it? I guess maybe people who need health care in this province and have to rely on the health care professionals to deliver that health care see the progress right in this piece of legislation. That's the only place they have to turn to. What it says is: "We didn't intend to do anything else but impose the employer's last offer on nurses and health care professionals. We treated the last 60-day cooling-off period as a joke, and we had no intention," says this government, "of doing anything except waiting it out and then forcing a settlement on nurses and health science professionals."

This legislation is unfair, it's biased, and it's extreme. Even the Premier of Ontario, Mr. Mike Harris, requires binding arbitration in his latest back-to-work…. But this bill simply ignores the ability to have third-party intervention. There wasn't one piece of legislation, until yesterday, in the history of British Columbia that imposed an employer offer, that forced an employer offer or a union offer, for that matter, on the parties — not one piece of legislation. No matter how much this government wants to say that all of this is just a repetition of the past, they are simply dead wrong. This piece of legislation is unique and has never, ever been done before in British Columbia, to take one side and impose it on the other — not one piece of legislation.

It is unprecedented in its extreme nature. I wonder why this government chose to ignore the third-party help that it's actually been given. There's a special mediator in the Health Sciences Association collective bargaining, and there's a special mediator — an industrial inquiry commissioner — in the bargaining affecting nurses. Once again this government has taken the most extreme approach and has said: "Sorry, special mediators. Thanks but no thanks. We're going to take a side here. We're going to pick a winner, and we're going to force a loser." The losers are the health care professionals that do the work each and every day, and the winner is the employer. That's what the government is doing with this legislation.

Good health care requires cooperation. Patient care requires the most complex of services. It requires integration of services. Good patient care requires long-term planning. A social worker has to work with the nurse who has to work with the doctor, all for the benefit…. That cooperation leads to good patient care.

I would suggest today that it's a very, very sad day for the families that need health care services for their children or their parents, because the fact that this government has legislated cooperation away means that patient care will now suffer. It will suffer in the short term, and it will very, very much suffer in the long term.

Good patient care requires problem-solving. The health care professionals have to work together. They actually have to work together to solve problems. They have to work with the management team to do that. Good patient care requires cooperation based on mutual respect, not forcing one side of the health care team to do things that aren't good for the patient. It requires that the employer not get their way on everything. That's what good patient care requires in cooperation. Does this bill do anything to promote that kind of cooperation? I know they tried to legislate cooperation, but what this bill does is so unfairly put into imbalance the patient care delivery model that it may break down. It may break down in a way that will take so long to recover that the system will require an unprecedented amount of resources just to make up for the damage that's done by this piece of legislation.

In question period today I actually put some very practical questions to the Minister of Labour about the formal cooperation that exists in the health care system now. Once again he refused to answer. He went to rhetoric. He went to blaming everything that happened in the past, even though the questions I was putting to him were about models that are in place now and couldn't possibly be blamed on the past. But he went into his full flight of rhetoric about how they're not responsible for anything, even though the question was directly about how he was going to manage the ill effects of this legislation in the current system today. He refused to answer.

Let me just outline some of the risks to our health care delivery that this government is imposing as of today. There's a joint committee on recruitment and retention. What a joint committee is, for the public that's on the receiving end of the delivery of health care, is a committee made up of employers, Health Sciences Association professionals, B.C. Nurses Union professionals, Hospital Employees Union professionals, workers and others. I expect that there are physicians on that as well. They work together to figure out how to retain and recruit health care professionals.

Well, that system is based on a cooperative model. As of tomorrow, I wonder how much the health care professionals who have had this settlement forced down their throats are going to want to give their time in a cooperative way. I wonder. In their bargaining, the nurses put forward a proposal to work in a joint fashion — employer and front-line workers working together — to reduce overtime and to put that money back into patient care. This government, by choosing a winner, the employer, and by forcing a loser, the nurses, said: "No, we don't want your cooperation. We don't want your cooperation in reducing overtime."

How is that better for the health care system? How is that better for managing a health care system that this government says it's not going to put any more money into but it's going to manage better? Let the government members stand up and tell us — tell the public, tell patients, tell health care professionals — how their outright rejection of proposals that would

assist the employer in better health care outcomes will help the management of this system. Let the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Health Planning and the Minister of Health Services answer a very direct, practical question about the consequences of their actions.

There's a joint committee of professional front-line workers and the employer that examines every method of delivery of patient care in a way that works for front-line staff. It says: "Here's the method by which we're going to deliver patient care. Let's work together to see how it's best implemented by the front-line workers."

So first and foremost, patient care is the top priority. That is exactly the way it should be. Then there was a joint committee to put that priority into place, but it's a committee based on cooperation in the best interest of the patient. I'd like the government members to stand up and tell British Columbians how their actions — their extreme actions of forcing a settlement that was rejected by 96 percent of health care workers — are going to continue that cooperation.

They don't have an answer, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Labour refused to answer it earlier. The Minister of Health Services tried to blame it on the past. It's not likely that he's going to get away with that when it's their government's actions that will provoke a breakdown in that cooperation.

What else does this legislation do that demonstrates how biased and unfair the Liberal government is? Well, the cooling-off period, we were all told, was meant to bring about negotiations. Everybody was supposed to get back to that table and negotiate. That's what the Minister of Labour said; that's what the Minister of Finance said. On June 19 when asked, "What is your real agenda? What's your hidden agenda, government?" they said: "We have no hidden agenda. We want the parties to get back to the table and negotiate, and we expect both parties to do that."

Well, like the caring, concerned professionals that they are, both the health sciences professionals and the nurses went back to the bargaining table. But they bargained with themselves. It turns out only one party showed up at the table. In fact, to give one example, the nurses made substantial change to their proposal — substantial change. They made two substantial movements.

Again, that's why my colleague and I were trying to seek information from the Minister of Labour about what the real costs are in reaching a settlement — not a forced settlement but a negotiated settlement. We couldn't get that information, but the nurses gave us the information. The nurses reduced their proposal, just this Monday, by $137 million. And they'd already made substantial movement in other areas for the benefit of patients.

With health sciences professionals it is the same situation. They gave that information to the government on Monday. Today is August 8. On August 6 they gave that information to the government. They said: "We took you at your word. We think you do want free collective bargaining, even though we don't have the right to withdraw our labour. So here's our second major move."

And what did the Minister of Labour say? Well, he certainly didn't tell them the Premier's agenda. He certainly didn't reveal the hidden agenda of the Liberal government that merely one day later — just a little more than 24 hours later — was going to bring down the hammer on nurses and health care professionals and say: "Sorry, we didn't mean it when we said we wanted bargaining to take place. We didn't mean anything other than we actually just wanted to take the employers' proposal and impose it on you."

What else has the government got planned for others in society? What else has this government got for others whom they meet face to face with and say: "Thank you very much for your input. We care about your input"? What can other British Columbians expect from this government in their extreme hidden agenda? I think we'll see it as the days unfold. I think we'll see it, the nature of how so many British Columbians will be affected so negatively by this government's hidden agenda.

Today we debate only one of the ill effects of that agenda. There was no compromise. I expect, if we go through Hansard, we'll see that the government, under their cooling-off legislation, wanted compromise, wanted the parties to come together. So they said. But there was no compromise. It's all one-sided. Why didn't they just say so? Why didn't this government just come clean and say that they were going to take a side? Why did they, for 50 days, mislead everybody in British Columbia that they were not going to be biased and unfair? Just come clean. What kind of leadership is that, where they won't come clean with their hidden agenda? I expect British Columbians will be asking that question themselves today.

If the government really cares about patients, it has to respect and work with nurses and health science professionals. This government is playing such a game of chicken with our health care system. The risk they're playing with in that game of chicken is the risk of patient care. They're talking about calling people's bluffs. They're delivering ultimatums. When they call people's bluffs, who's really at risk? It's the patients of our province.

They're not willing to take one risk of waiting to deliver on their promises for their corporate backers. They can't get there fast enough to deliver on their extreme tax cut agenda for their corporate backers. Day one, they stood up and pounded their chests to say they're delivering a tax cut way beyond what any British Columbian had thought they would do for the wealthiest.

Their budget which, for sure, drew a line in the sand of the choices…. This government had a chance to allocate moneys in whatever way they wanted, and they made their choice very clearly. They drew the line in the sand. They were for corporate and the wealthiest getting tax cuts, and they were against health care funding. That's the line in the sand that they drew.

Today we see the consequences of that agenda. We see them because they've drained the coffers of the public purse. We see what they're willing to risk. We see them playing chicken with the health care system in this province. They can't afford to deliver the promise that they gave to nurses and health care professionals of paying them a fair and decent wage. They can't deliver on that promise because they've given it all away to their corporate backers. So now they're saying: "We don't think health care professionals are going to do anything other than carry on. We're going to take the risk. We're going to play chicken with the health care system." And it's patient care that is fully at risk here.

I wonder how they're going to play chicken in their various communities. I wonder how they're going to deal with the risks that they've placed on the health care system. Clearly, every single government member has said: "You're not serious about your resignations, nurses. And health care professionals, where are you going to go anyway?" As recently as earlier this afternoon, government members stood up and said: "They're not going to leave the province. They're not going to leave the profession." Just a couple of hours ago the government continued to play chicken with health care professionals, continued to challenge them.

Well, I surely hope that nurses in this province don't resign, don't carry through on their threat of resignation. I fully understand that anybody has a right to work where they want to. I fully understand that anybody has a right to leave their profession. I fully understand that no one can be forced to work anywhere under any circumstances, but I wonder what the government's going to do if indeed the resignations come to fruition.

Here are what the consequences are, community by community. Just as recently as this morning, in the West Kootenays 43 percent of nurses said they wanted to resign if the government imposed the last offer on them. In the Vancouver metro area 23 percent of nurses said they want to resign if the government forces a settlement of the last offer on them. In the Okanagan-Similkameen area 30 percent of nurses said they would resign if the government forced a settlement on them. In the northwest — some members' own areas here, sitting and cat-calling in this chamber, showing an arrogance — 28 percent of the nurses have said that they would resign if the government forces a settlement on them.

The statistics and facts about nurses' individual despair concerning this government's actions are extremely concerning, Mr. Speaker. When we ask what the contingency plans are of the government in case nurses are so frustrated and in such despair that they actually do resign, we have the Minister of Health Services standing up and saying: "There are more nurses than ever wanting to come to this province." Well, I hope he's right, because the consequences of this government playing chicken and trying to say to our health care professionals that it's just a bluff are huge.

I've just outlined what the consequences may be for the government members and the health care in their community. Even if a fraction of those nurses resign in the government members' communities, the health care system can't survive. Yet this government is on its extreme agenda. They don't show one iota of understanding, compassion, compromise or fairness. I truly hope that the nurses don't follow through, because the consequences will be dire.

Today let's look at the first days of office of this government. Let's just look at what the new era means for British Columbians in our health care system. A couple of weeks ago the health science professionals took illegal job action, self-acknowledged. In the first 50 or 60 days of this government's — actually, it's closer to the full 90 days…. They started the clock much later, but it's almost 90 days of this government being in office. The health science professionals — dedicated, hard-working, committed professionals — took two days of illegal job action. You know what? They had a total of five days of job action in their previous 30 years. In their previous 30 years they'd only been off the job for five days, and within only the first months of this government they've had two days of illegal job action.

Let's look at the nurses; let's look at what's happening today. Let's just look at this government's record. This government can't blame anyone else for what happened today. What happened to patient care in Fernie? Well, nurses didn't go to work. Community nurses supported their fellow nurses in the hospital. What happened in Victoria? Victoria General Hospital nurses were out. Elkford, Eagle Ridge, Langley, Children's and Women's, Prince George, the West Kootenays.... All the long term care, all the community hospitals, all the small hospitals in Grand Forks, Rossland, Nelson and Arrow Lakes were all feeling the effects of nurse frustration today. In Chilliwack, Kitimat, Terrace, Prince Rupert and Fraser Canyon, patient care today was thrown into chaos as a direct result of this government's actions.

You can't turn to anyone else; you've got to look yourselves in the mirror and face it. The Liberal action's extreme agenda caused a deterioration in patient care in each and every one of those communities today.

So that's what the new Liberal era means. That's a lot different than what the government, the Premier, promised and reiterated over and over again in the election. Here's what they promised: "A B.C. Liberal government will work with front-line health care professionals to act on their ideas for maximizing the value to patients of every health dollar spent."

Let's have the government MLAs stand up and say how they're delivering on that Liberal new-era promise today. Stand up, get on your feet, and tell us how you're "working with front-line health care professionals to act on their ideas for maximizing the value to patients of every health dollar spent." Get up, stand up, and tell us how you're doing that in Fernie, in Sparwood, in Hope, in Langley, in Vancouver and in

Victoria. Stand up, rise up on your feet, and tell us how you're delivering on your new-era promise. I bet you not one will stand up and address that issue specifically, because they can't. Their new-era promise is not being delivered upon.

I'm shocked when the government members have to stand up in question period and say, "Oh, Minister of Education, is it true you're going to deliver on your new-era promise on X, Y and Z?" — somehow indicating that they think their own members may be lying. They stand up and say: "Please tell us it's true that you're going to deliver on your promise."

I am always kind of a little bit surprised. I don't know about my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, but I'm thinking: "Why, did you doubt? Did you think you weren't going to deliver on it? Was there some doubt?"

But let's get the government MLAs to stand up in question period and ask a question to the Minister of Health Services. Maybe the members representing Sparwood or the community of Langley or Trail or Rossland could stand up and ask this question: "Tell me, Minister of Health Services, how this forced settlement that nurses rejected by 96 percent is delivering on the B.C. Liberal promise to work with front-line health care professionals to act on their ideas for maximizing the value to patients of every health dollar spent?"

I hope tomorrow in question period…. Somehow you get a sense that the government caucus members are worried about them delivering on their promises. I can understand why. This is the first of many examples of where this government will break a promise. The people who are affected by their broken promises, their hidden agenda, their extreme agenda, are the people of B.C. No one else, Mr. Speaker.

Once again we have a situation where the government has completely ignored what they said in the past and are saying: "We're willing to risk the health care system so we can deliver for our corporate friends; we're willing to risk pretty much everything in order to deliver for our corporate friends."

On the thirtieth day of November 1998 an MLA stood up in this Legislature and asked the then Minister of Health a question. The question was this: "When is this government going to stop attacking the caregivers of British Columbia and start listening to their concerns?" I guess when that MLA, the now Premier of British Columbia, stood up and asked that question, he was just playing politics. I guess he was desperate for power so that he could impose his extreme agenda on this province, so that he could deliver for the corporate agenda, his corporate backers, the corporate CEOs and the wealthiest in this province.

I guess he was actually revealing his true agenda — his agenda of crass opportunism. He was willing to pay politics with the health care system. We see that today because he didn't really care a whit about the substance of that question. He knew full well that his agenda was to attack health care givers. He knew full well that he wasn't going to be listening to the concerns of nurses and health sciences professionals. He knew full well back then that he had an agenda. He was going to keep the agenda hidden right up until now.

It's finally been revealed. We finally know the real agenda of the Premier of this province. We know to what extremes he is willing to go to deliver the tax cuts that have been demanded by his corporate backers. We know the extremes to which he's willing to go. He's willing to play chicken with our health care system. He's willing to wreak havoc upon it, and he can't look to anyone else but himself to take full responsibility for that extreme agenda.

J. Kwan: It is actually with sadness that I rise today on second reading of this bill. I have to think first and foremost about the impacts of this government's action on the future of patients and their families, and the discord that I think would be caused by this government with their extreme actions by forcing a collective agreement, the first ever in the history of British Columbia, on the nurses and the health care professionals.

I've spoken with health care professionals and nurses, front-line workers, on this issue. What they told me was that during the election, there were candidates for the Liberal Party who went and met with them. They heard on the news, on the media and on the radio what this Liberal government, if they formed government, would do. You know, what they thought they would do versus what they are doing now is completely different. They were provided different information at that time, or at least hidden information at that time.

J. Kwan: I have an example and will actually provide some quotes. We have a situation where the current Premier said…. It wasn't that long ago; it was actually May 9, 2001. This was during the election campaign. The then opposition leader had said that he wasn't going to prejudge what individual nurses were going to do when they voted on the agreement put forward. He said: "I think it's important to let them decide. I believe that they do have a reason, and they are justified in asking for higher wages, for better working conditions and better educational opportunities. We've said that's what they deserve." This is what the then Leader of the Opposition, the current Premier, said to nurses and health care professionals.

After the election the first thing that he did in the first session that was called back to this Legislature was impose a cooling-off period on health care professionals and nurses. During the election, even the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of State for Women's Equality had signed pledges, had signed petitions agreeing with health care professionals and nurses that they would not impose a settlement, that they would not take away concessions that are being bargained right now. But

after the election all of those words were forgotten. They vanished. They weren't part of the promise that they had made not only to health care professionals and nurses that they have spoken with but to the broad public as well. All of those words have now disappeared and have been forgotten.

Then, during the first emergency session that was brought back to this House, the Minister of Labour said that he would want to negotiate in good faith with health care professionals and nurses, and that's what the legislation was meant to do. Well, we have seen, since that time, the intent of this government. The intent of this government is such that they had no intention whatsoever to negotiate in good faith. They have made no substantive changes to the offers at the bargaining table, to both the nurses and the health care professionals. Instead, they have chosen to use a format that would provoke further discord in the areas of cooperation and patient care by simply legislating the first-ever collective agreement in British Columbia. He had said that he would want to sit down and talk and bring people back to the table. Instead, they've acted the opposite.

At the time the Minister of Labour had the intention to carry through with that, perhaps he didn't know that the Premier had a different agenda, a hidden agenda that maybe he didn't share with his ministers until yesterday. Perhaps the minister had no idea that he was, in fact, providing false information and false hope to health care professionals and nurses. Perhaps he had no idea that his words were simply hollow and that they had no depth to them and that, in fact, the agenda the Premier has in store was already planned out — perhaps not just recently, perhaps as far back as five years ago.

You know, when the Minister of Energy and Mines was heckling in the House earlier, he actually admitted for a moment: "Well, yes, that was the agenda five years ago." The only difference is that the government members in the House never let that on and told any British Columbians during the last election. Even as recently as Monday, when the Minister of Labour met with the nurses and health care professionals, he didn't let on to the health care professionals and the nurses that they have a different agenda altogether. The nurses and health care professionals were led to believe that they would meet again — in fact, today — to further discuss the cooling-off period and the next steps. They were assured that they would not have to go to the extreme stage that they have now adopted, which is to impose a collective agreement. They were told they would not have to take that extreme step until it was the last resort.

The folks who met with the staff and ministers were led to believe that they were going to engage in further discussions. The nurses had believed the genuineness of the offer to negotiate, and they actually want back to the table before this day with a couple of offers, lowering their demands, in the interests of patient care, by $137 million. That was out-of-hand rejected by the government. I'm not even sure, given this action today, that it was even considered. The health care professionals had done similarly by engaging with government, by wanting to negotiate and talk with them to clarify assumptions to make sure that the numbers on the table, on both sides, were correct and understood.

Instead of that meeting, we have this situation today. I have a statement here from the nurses who have advised that they met with the Minister of Health Services and the Minister of Health Planning on Thursday, August 2, and were told that they had a new offer which reduced the gap between the offer and HEABC's by more than two-thirds. He contacted the Minister of Labour, who asked the nurses to give the details of the new offer to Vince Ready the next morning, August 3, which the nurses did. They met with the Minister of Labour at his request on Monday, August 6, to explain it to him. The minister discussed the offer with them, said nothing about legislation and then said he was going to contact HEABC.

Here's the offer that was described to Vince Ready and the Minister of Labour: three years' agreement with HEABC proposed in three years which matches B.C. wages to Alberta in years 1 and 2, personal vehicle compensation, no increase in increment steps, no further changes to casual call-ins, move the super-shift premium offer by HEABC to night-shift premiums, and minus savings from designated days off as per the PSAC fact sheet which was presented to them on June 30, 2001 — which is similar to the transit gain-sharing of efficiencies. In this last offer the reduction in cost to government amounts to $137 million.

That was the discussion that took place with the nurses on Monday and the events preceding it. I know that the Health Sciences Association were anticipating further discussions with the Minister of Labour and his staff as recently as yesterday. Instead of receiving a call to schedule a time to make sure they had the right people at the table so that all of the information was understood, they heard nothing. Then, on the 6 o'clock news they heard that the government was going to impose a legislated settlement.

Hon. Speaker, this is a government that says it values nurses and health care and health sciences professionals, but this is how they treat them. They don't provide forthright information. The only two reasons I can think as to why this would happen would be that it's deliberate — that the minister never had the intention to provide the information and to negotiate in good faith, as he himself had put the legislation forward and committed that he would do.

Alternatively, this minister had the rug pulled over him by the Premier. The Premier had an agenda all along. He knew exactly what he wanted to do. He had zero intention whatsoever to negotiate in good faith and had, in fact, planned this forced settlement all along. Is this the way to treat our health care professionals who provide care to patients and to families when they're in need? Is this the way to treat the nurses who take care of our family members and our friends

when they're sick? Is this the way they would describe respect and dignity? Is this the kind of treatment they engage in with our health care professionals and nurses? I would say that is the furthest away from the definition of respect, from the definition of treating health care professionals and nurses with dignity.

I think it's a shame that this government has forced it to this stage. I think it's a shame that this Liberal government has politicized the health care issue. Instead of sitting down and engaging in fair collective bargaining, they have in fact gone the other way. You know what, hon. Speaker? The impact will be felt not just for today but for a long, long time to come.

What worries me the most is that we do have a shortage of health care professionals and nurses throughout the province. Not only do we need to engage in a constructive manner to bring the workers back to work to ensure that patient care is provided, but we also need to recruit other members from elsewhere. We need to encourage young people to get into the education system and become health care workers and encourage those that are in the system now to stay in British Columbia once they graduate. Given the tactics to date, I have zero confidence that we will be able to recruit and retain the nurses and health care professionals that are critical to a health care system.

The members talk about the numbers that have been offered and the differences. I heard, actually, in one news report from the Premier that in fact the differences are over $200 million apart. However, the information I've received from the nurses and health care professionals, the Health Sciences Association, is that those numbers are incorrect. So today in question period I rose and asked the Minister of Labour to present the numbers in detail so that we would know what the facts are, so that we would know the information that's presented before us — so that all British Columbians could know what the facts are.

Instead of coming forward with that information, the minister refused to provide it. So I asked the minister what he has to hide. What is he hiding? Is it another hidden agenda we don't know about? Is it information that on the one hand he'll share with British Columbians, but it's only partial information or misinformation, but on another day it's something completely different? Why doesn't the minister simply present the facts as they are so that British Columbians will know the facts?

I challenge the minister to rise and present in detail the differences between the latest offer from the nurses and the health sciences professionals versus this forced settlement. Don't hide behind this veil or the Premier's wall of misinformation, perhaps, or hidden agenda. Simply come clean and give that information to British Columbians.

I wonder how the member for Vancouver-Burrard is feeling. I would hope that the member for Vancouver-Burrard would respond to his constituent who wrote to him and asked for this letter — which they have also provided my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself with — to be cc'd and forwarded to his colleagues in cabinet.

This is directly from a letter that's been addressed to the member for Vancouver-Burrard. I hope that he will respond to his constituent. I hope he will be forthright and say that the Liberal government, during the election, had said: "Yes, we value nurses. Yes, they deserve a higher wage and a better work environment." In fact, ministers in our cabinet have signed petitions to say that they'll take away concessions, that they will not force a settlement. Well, just kidding. That was during the election, but this is now. Perhaps the member will be forthright and give that information to his constituent, because that's what's happened today.

When I think about the detriments to the health care system of this action by this government and what it could do to it and how it would impact it, it worries me greatly. It worries me greatly because not only would it cause, I think, long-term damage, but it would poison the work environment in the health care system for nurses and health sciences professionals. It would also prevent us from recruiting new nurses and recruiting and retaining nurses and health care professionals.

When I think about the number of possibilities that could happen…. We have heard that potentially over 5,000 nurses, in fact, have indicated that they may resign if a forced settlement is passed in this House. Let's just think about what the impacts may be. In central Vancouver 9 percent of the nurses may resign. In the region of coastal mountains it's 12 percent; in the northwest it's 28 percent; in the Okanagan area it's 30 percent; in the Shaughnessy area it's 18 percent; in Simon Fraser it's 23 percent; in South Fraser Valley it's 20 percent; in West Kootenay it's 43 percent.

These are dramatic numbers. Even if the nurses do not resign — and I know that my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings and myself sincerely hope that the nurses do not resign — it would damage and destroy our health care system to the point where I know patient care would be so dramatically impacted that its recovery would take a long, long time.

I know that the nurses don't want to take these steps. I know that they care about their careers — but not just their careers. They chose that career because they care about people. That's why they chose to be in the caring profession, in the helping profession within our community. Even if they didn't resign — and I urge them not to — think about the poisonous

environment in which they would be forced to work afterwards. Think about the idea of cooperation. How does one work and cooperate with an employer who is not forthright with them, who says they will have further discussions with them and who later turns around to completely dismiss that and then takes completely different actions than they've been led to believe this government would take? Not only that, but to take the action that this government has taken by not informing them personally…. None of the ministers — there are four health-related ministers — took the trouble to talk to the nurses or the health sciences professionals.

Do you know how they learned about this piece of legislation? They learned about it on the 6 o'clock news. That's how they learned about it. There was no courtesy whatsoever from the ministers, from the Premier, who says he values our health care system. He says he values the health care professionals and the nurses. He didn't even bother to pick up the phone and say: "This is our action. You may not like it, but we're moving ahead with it anyway." Instead, they learned of it on the 6 o'clock news.

This is what the new era of this government is going to be. It's going to be one that says: "I value you. I value you as a worker, but on the other hand I will completely treat you with disrespect — completely. Zero courtesy whatsoever, zero consideration. When we decide to take extreme action against you, you learn about it on the 6 o'clock news." That's communication, the open government, the Liberal government in this new era: the news on BCTV at 6 o'clock. That's how you can learn what changes are being proposed in this Legislature. That's how you can learn how your lives are going to be impacted. That's when you're going to learn how our health care system will be impacted. Do you know what? I fear that's how British Columbians will be treated overall by this government not just on this issue but on every single issue that impacts people's lives.

I think about the numbers in terms of the signals that the nurses have sent with their discontent and disappointment with this government by even offering over 5,000 resignations to be considered or to be held by their representatives at this time. Even the existence of this number, this magnitude of nurses who are this unhappy and discontented in their workplace…. What would it mean when it's compounded by vacancies, already vacant positions in the different regions?

In the Fraser Valley region we have some 57 positions that are vacant in the nursing and health care professional area. In Vancouver General Hospital we have a total of some 172 permanent positions that are vacant, including medicine, ER, transplant, cardiac, ICU, day clinics, etc. That number rises to 235 positions. When I look at the Children's and Women's hospital, 80 positions are vacant. The Simon Fraser health region has 27 positions, Royal Columbian Hospital has 101 positions, and Vancouver Island has 108 positions. The Lions Gate Hospital, where the doctors went out, has 45 positions.

When you compound all of the tensions and needs in a health care system together, think about the impacts this action would have in the short term and also in the long term. When I think about the treatment of nurses and health care professionals, I sit there and think: for the Lions Gate Hospital, when the doctors had a dispute with this government, this government did not rush in to bring in legislated settlement of the doctors. They wrote them a nice little letter that said: "You make sure you get to work. Don't jeopardize health care and patient care." And when the dispute was not resolved, they went to binding arbitration. They invited a third party to come in — who was completely unbiased on either side — and look at all the issues fairly, to make an assessment and then to move forward.

But for the nurses and health care professionals, the health sciences professionals, they didn't get the same treatment. Instead, this government rushed in, came in with an emergency debate that supposedly legislated a cooling-off period that obligated both sides to get back to the bargaining table to negotiate fairly — which this Liberal government has not honoured, has made no substantive offer to the table and just simply refused to even entertain it when the nurses tabled substantive changes on several occasions at the bargaining table with a reduced offer on demands — no attention paid to these offers.

Instead we arrived here yesterday, and on the 6 o'clock news this government's intention was made clear and the hidden agenda was then exposed to say this is what their intentions are. That is, we will legislate a collective agreement, legislate a settlement — no third-party arbitration, no mediator discussions and no third-party unbiased person to review the case. We are just going to impose. There was no fairness in the process, no equal treatment for the doctors, the nurses and the health care professionals.

What makes it even sadder is that when I look at the New Era from the Liberal government on their first two commitments that they followed through with, one was on the tax-cut agenda. But that, too, was delivered in a secretive way. During the election the Liberal government had promised the lowest brackets tax reductions — campaigning at the time. Instead, they brought in the highest tax reductions for the wealthiest and, on the corporate agenda, further reductions for their corporate backers. If they had only paused for one moment to think that a fraction of the cost in the taxes that they have given away to their corporate backers could be provided to health care professionals and nurses, then we would not be here today. Health care services for British Columbia would not be further jeopardized.

Mr. Speaker: Second reading, Bill 15, Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act. The minister closes debate.

Hon. G. Bruce: You know, it would be nice to think that with the passage of this particular bill — that the

damage that has been done over ten years — this would be the final piece that we would have to deal with. But you know, when I….

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, when I look at what this past NDP government has done…. For ten years it's been brutal in this province. You've affected so many people's lives. You had a complete boondoggle with the ferries — $465 million of taxpayers' money that you just blew. You chased the mining industry away from this province, totally destroyed the mining industry. We're faced with huge problems in the forestry sector because of the NDP government's policies — absolutely kneecapped that industry.

Then we have the health care system, where you've put people into a situation that was untenable. Your policies have put the nurses, health care workers and paramedicals into this situation for six or seven months now. Then you have the audacity to talk about the concern of Small Town, British Columbia. You have the audacity to rise in this House and be concerned about the implications of what may happen or what could happen relative to health care, when you've destroyed the backbone of our province in the small towns from one end of this province to the other.

You know, I look at my own particular community. We have four small communities: Lake Cowichan, Duncan, Chemainus and Ladysmith. When I look at that downtown core area — I was born and raised there — never, ever have I seen it in that type of economic despair. I'd never seen it like that before, except now, as you finished up your government. You destroyed Small Town, British Columbia. So for you to rise in the House and talk to us about the concern of what's going to happen in Small Town, British Columbia, is really, really tough to take.

Hon. G. Bruce: Patient care, winners and losers…. The patient care, you betcha. This government's prime duty is to make sure that the people of British Columbia have the health care they deserve where they need it and when they need it, and we've done that today. What we've done is taken a dispute that had no way of being negotiated, had no way of being put together, and we brought it to a conclusion after seven months of futile negotiation, because of the manner in which the NDP government brought the whole negotiating process through and then dumped the mandate off the back end of the truck during the campaign. You have the audacity to rise in this House and talk to me about politics, about the politics of what we're doing here. The politics of this whole labour dispute got caught up in the government of the NDP trying to stay alive, trying to save its bacon in respect to that last election — politics to the very end.

Tax breaks. I have a hard time understanding your math, but then, obviously, so did the majority of British Columbians. So what we're supposed to do here, if I understand that, is cut the tax breaks. That's what we're supposed to do. In this bill we're already giving to the nurses and the paramedicals a compensation package making them the highest paid in Canada. We've combined with that for them, as well as for other British Columbians, a tax cut that will be very substantial. That very group of people in the province will enjoy a large return of that tax cut. Yet I hear the opposition saying: "Take that away." We're supposed to take that away.

It's really hard to understand where the opposition comes from. It's clearly understandable why the population in the province said: "Enough is enough is enough." That's why there are 77 members of the B.C. Liberal Party in this House. That's why there was a 58 percent majority given to this government: so that we would come in and clean up the disaster that the NDP laid into this province over the last ten years.

But I digress. It's difficult not to come back to the mess and the hurt that you have placed on the people and the province. But we need to move ahead. Let us be clear. There's not one member of government, not one member of the B.C. Liberal Party sitting in this House today, that enjoys the thought of bringing in legislation that legislates settlements. I can tell you that to a man or to a woman that sits here in this House. However, faced with the possibility or faced with the probability of never being able to bring a negotiated settlement, because of the manner in which you would set the whole negotiations up when the NDP was government, we're prepared to do the job that needs to be done.

I want to say that this bill, as difficult as it is, is what the people need so that we will protect the patient care from one end of this province to the other for the people of this province when they need it and where they need it.

	YEAS — 75
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Nettleton
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Anderson	Jarvis
Penner	Chong	Weisbeck
Coleman	Neufeld	Abbott
Stephens	Nebbeling	de Jong
Bond	Clark	Collins
Campbell	Murray	Hagen
Thorpe	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	R. Stewart	Bell
Chutter	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
Belsey	Hayer	Christensen
	[ Page 325 ]
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Hunter	Manhas	Kerr
Hawes	Sahota	Hamilton
Sultan	Brice	Suffredine
Bloy	K. Stewart	Cobb
MacKay	Lekstrom	Visser
Wong	Bhullar	Nijjar
Locke	Les	Harris

	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Bill 15, Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I'll just advise the House that Committee A will be resuming momentarily. As well, I'd like to call second reading of Bill 2, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

J. MacPhail: Just for the information and consideration of the House Leader, the opposition will be addressing Bills 4 and 5. Take that into consideration in terms of the speed with which we move through these bills. I ask for his consideration on that. I've just been informed that we'll be proceeding through Bills 2, 3, 4 and 5. I just ask him to take that into consideration.

Hon. G. Collins: I now understand what it is. My understanding is that the member for Vancouver-Hastings will be speaking to Bills 4 and 5. We are moving through, trying to address the four finance bills here today, if possible. I understand she just wants to make sure that we provide her the opportunity, and I'm glad to do that. We'll let her know when we're getting close to those ones.

Hon. G. Collins: The bill contains amendments to four acts that were announced in the economic and fiscal update and that are designed to meet three of the government's key priorities: (1) to introduce a dramatic personal income tax cut within 90 days of being elected, (2) to have the lowest income….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the members leaving the chamber please do so quietly.

Hon. G. Collins: I know other members have to go to Committee A, so they won't stick around to hear my scintillating presentation, I'm sure. Some of them, I see, are rapt with attention.

The government, obviously, in Bill 2 is trying to meet three of our key priorities: (1) to introduce a dramatic personal income tax cut within 90 days of being elected, (2) to have the lowest income tax rates for the bottom two tax brackets within our first term, and (3) to phase out taxes on investment and productivity growth.

Bill 2 amends the Income Tax Act to cut personal income taxes by 25 percent. By January 1, 2002, British Columbia will have the lowest tax rates in the country for the first two tax brackets. We believe this is a crucial step in restoring British Columbia's economic vitality. We believe that it was critical to give people in British Columbia a bit of tax relief after ten years of fairly significant and oppressive taxes.

The people of British Columbia have responded in a very positive way to that, and we're already starting to see some turnaround as a result of that. Certainly in people's attitudes towards living here in British Columbia, a sense of hope and optimism has been restored, in part, due to some of the changes that this government has made already — probably, though, more in part due to the actions the voters of British Columbia took on May 16. So a lot of credit goes to them, I believe.

This tax cut will be accomplished in two stages. The first reduces the rates for the 2001 tax year. That's this year. Most taxpayers started to receive the full benefits or appear to have the full benefits on their paycheques, starting at the beginning of July. The second step will be to reduce tax rates again on January 1, 2002. As part of the personal income tax cut, the dividend tax rate will also be reduced to 5.9 percent for 2001 and to 5.1 percent for 2002. This change will bring the reduction in the overall tax rate for dividend income more in line with the tax cut for income from wages.

The personal income tax cuts are dramatic, but we have to do more to make British Columbia's economy competitive. Bill 2 also includes amendments to reduce taxes on investment and productivity. The corporate capital tax on non-financial institutions will be eliminated in two steps. Bill 2 reduces the rate to 0.15 percent from 0.3 percent, effective September 1 of this year, and the tax will be eliminated one year later. For technical reasons the amendments to accomplish this are contained in Bill 3, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001, which I'll be speaking to later.

In addition, Bill 2 will reduce the general corporation income tax rate by three full percentage points to 13.5 percent effective January 1, 2002. British Columbia's general rate has become increasingly uncompetitive with other provinces, and this cut will bring the rate in line with our major competitors. The government will make every effort to ensure that the rate stays competitive in the future as well.

British Columbia has charged provincial sales tax on production machinery and equipment since 1948,

when a tax was first introduced. Over the last decade this tax has been a major contributor to British Columbia's inability to attract the investment needed to increase productivity and create new jobs and income growth in the province. I announced in the fiscal and economic update that the tax would be eliminated by introducing a new exemption for qualifying production machinery and equipment purchased by manufacturers and by persons regularly engaged for commercial purposes in logging or in the exploration, development and extraction of petroleum, natural gas, minerals and coal.

Bill 2 provides the legislative framework for the exemption. The amendments provide a new exemption for prescribed production machinery and equipment purchased or leased by prescribed manufacturers or other prescribed persons. The details of that exemption, which is the prescription of who is prescribed and what is prescribed, are contained in a regulation that is available in draft form on the government's website. The regulation will be passed after the legislation has received royal assent. This is a far-reaching exemption that will help high-tech industries such as software development, as well as our traditional manufacturing sector.

The government is also committed to ensuring that British Columbia's position as an important transportation gateway to and from North America is enhanced. Bill 2 includes amendments to reduce the fuel tax on domestic jet fuel to 2 cents a litre from 5 cents a litre, and also to reduce the rate on aviation gasoline to 2 cents per litre as well. These cuts will help attract additional flights to the Vancouver International Airport and will provide a much-needed boost to regional airports throughout the province.

As well, Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that in negotiations that have been ongoing for some time as to where Air Canada will likely locate its discount airline, this has been a big boost to the Vancouver bid in order to attract their headquarters to YVR, Vancouver International Airport, as opposed to some other place in western Canada. So the harmonization or the competitiveness change that the government has done may see a benefit in the near future. Those issues are still up for debate and discussion, but it's encouraging to hear that this was a welcome change and may in fact bring some new business here to British Columbia. I know that to those members of the Legislature who represent some of the smaller communities in British Columbia, this will be an added bonus to their regional airports and their ability to provide economic development and transportation in and out of their communities as well.

To further strengthen our competitiveness in the transportation sector, Bill 2 eliminates the 7 percent sales tax on bunker fuel effective August 1, 2001. Bunker fuel is the fuel that's used to run large ships, and eliminating the tax will open up new opportunities to fuel ships visiting British Columbia ports and will assist in attracting new cruise ship business as well. That is a very competitive market, a very competitive industry, and to be able to attract additional cruise ships, which inject literally hundreds of millions of dollars into the economy on an annual basis, is a benefit certainly to the tourism sector, to the service sector and to just attracting more people here to B.C. to see some of the great opportunities and potential we have.

As well, we've already heard some anecdotal evidence of individual suppliers signing contracts in the neighbourhood of $100,000 and $150,000 (U.S.) to provide bunker fuel to ships. If we're able to attract some more shipping here to B.C., that will certainly help people who in many cases are employed in some very high-paying jobs as well. So there's potentially some significant upturn there as well.

Finally, Bill 2 raises the threshold at which the vehicle surtax starts to take effect. Effective July 31, 2001, the threshold will be raised to $47,000 and the rates that apply…. [Applause.] Thank you. You can always tell the members that are from outside the lower mainland, Mr. Speaker. Those rates that apply will be 8 percent from $47,000 to $48,000, 9 percent from $48,000 to $49,000, and 10 percent from $49,000 to $50,000. The increase in the threshold will ensure that British Columbians throughout the province are better able to afford cars and trucks for their personal and business needs.

This new threshold is intended to apply to vehicles purchased on or after July 31, or on the first lease payment due on or after July 31. It has come to my attention that there has been some question in the legislation about whether people who have recently purchased vehicles can return them and repurchase the same vehicle based on the new threshold. Unfortunately, that is not the government's intent, and those people who made their purchase just prior to the date have my sympathy. But we're doing what we can, and I can tell them that on the next vehicle they purchase, they will receive the lower tax rate. I hope they'll look in the future and see the benefit that will accrue to them.

I will be tabling an amendment to this bill to make it very clear to people that it wasn't the government's intent that people could return a vehicle and buy it back. We'll be doing that perhaps tomorrow or sometime next week, just to make sure that people understand how that works.

The amendments that are included here in Bill 2 mark an important turning point in returning British Columbia to a position of economic leadership in Canada, combined with the government's other competitive initiatives such as reducing the regulatory burden. I'm convinced that they will lead to renewed prosperity and growth in the province. These are the first steps.

There is much, much more to be done if we're going to turn British Columbia around and make sure that our economy continues to grow and is one of the most competitive places in the world to do business, where people will come and bring their investment dollars. People will move to B.C. to build their futures and raise their families. We've taken some very early,

very decisive corrective action to make sure we're competitive and to make sure that citizens of British Columbia start to see the benefits of these moves right away.

Certainly there has been some comment made by the member for Vancouver-Hastings and the other member from the NDP — the two members of the NDP — in recent days about the big tax benefits to business and how little average families receive. I want to make it clear for the record that that simply is not the case. In the economic update that I presented last Monday, in Bill 2, the contents are there; $1.15 billion worth of tax reduction goes directly to individuals and not to business. There is about another $250 million that does go to address those other issues which I spoke of, but certainly the tax — the $40 million of that which goes to offset the cost of raising the threshold on the tax on vehicles — does not go to business. That goes directly into the pockets of working people and families across British Columbia who need those vehicles to safely get to and from where they need to go in this province. Again, that money goes back to individuals.

About $200 million of the almost $1.4 billion worth of tax changes that are included in the economic update that was introduced last week can be said to go to business or to address business concerns. The vast majority of it, the rest of it — almost $1.2 billion worth of tax changes — goes directly into the pockets of people right across British Columbia from one end to the other. Over half of that goes into the pockets of people earning $60,000 or less.

So by far the biggest change that this government has brought in on the tax side will benefit average working families. They're already seeing it on their paycheques. They're already making investment and spending decisions in their communities right across British Columbia to go out and move into a larger house or to buy a house instead of renting or to purchase a vehicle they need or some other sort of investment. Whether they're putting new tires on their car or painting their fence or whatever it is, those people are already injecting those dollars right now back into communities right across British Columbia and helping us to turn the corner and get this province back on track.

Second reading of Bill 2 approved unanimously on a division [See Votes and Proceedings.]

Bill 2, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 3, the Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001, be now read a second time.

Our tax system, as I said earlier, must be competitive to encourage the investment that is fundamental to restoring economic growth in British Columbia. The corporate capital tax has been a significant deterrent to investment, and the economy has suffered as a result. Bills 2 and 3 together provide the legislative authority to phase out the corporate capital tax on corporations that are not banks, trust companies or credit unions. Bill 2, the Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, cuts the rate in half from 0.3 to 0.15 percent for the period from September 1, 2001, to August 31, 2002.

As a second step in the process of eliminating the capital tax on general corporations, Bill 3 repeals all of the provisions of the Corporation Capital Tax Act relating to non-financial institutions, effective September 1, 2003. The tax is eliminated for these corporations for any taxation year that starts after September 1, 2002.

I don't have much more to say on Bill 3, but I do note with interest that the last bill, Bill 2, that the House considered is the one that contained the tax changes that the members of the New Democratic Party have been so vehemently opposed to since the personal tax was first announced on June 6, and then corporate tax reductions that were announced last Monday. I noticed that when it came time to speak or vote against them, the members didn't attend for the division. I just find that interesting. I guess that means they actually are in favour of the taxes and the tax changes the government has made, or maybe it means they're not in favour of them. I'm not sure which it is, but I'm sure that at some point in the near future the two members of the NDP, who I know are with us today, will make their comments clear. Perhaps they can do it in committee stage when we actually address those changes section by section.

Bill 3, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 4, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, 2001, be now read a second time. Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Vancouver-Hastings intends to speak to this bill, so if her staff are available, they may want to let her know we're now at that stage.

Bill 4 reflects our commitment to both fiscal responsibility and ministerial accountability. The bill requires the government to balance the budget by 2004-05 and prohibits a deficit in any year thereafter. In addition, in any year when a surplus is budgeted, the bill requires that at least 50 percent of the surplus must be achieved, which is a slightly larger target than perhaps most people would have expected. There are also no exceptions for unforeseen spending or revenue changes. Until 2004-05 the government is permitted to incur deficits but will not be permitted to incur any actual deficit larger than is forecasted in the budget.

In support of this budget commitment, Bill 4 requires that all members of the executive council have their executive council salaries reduced by a 10 percent holdback throughout each year. This holdback is only payable to members of the executive council if the public accounts for that year show that the bottom-line requirements established by this bill have been achieved. This 10 percent holdback reflects cabinet's collective responsibility for achieving bottom-line results.

The government is also committed to individual ministerial accountability. In support of this objective, all members of the executive council will have their executive council salaries reduced by a further 10 percent holdback throughout each year. This holdback is only payable to each member if their individual goals established under Bill 4 have been achieved.

Bill 4 establishes three different types of individual goals for the members of the executive council. For all but one member of those who have responsibility for budgetary appropriations — whether those appropriations are for ministries or for other items such as contingencies or interest on the public debt — the member only receives the holdback if the budgeted expenses for the year in which he or she is responsible are not exceeded by the actual results for that year.

For that one exception, the Minister of Provincial Revenue, Bill 4 requires that for the holdback to be paid, revenue targets specified by Treasury Board and made public prior to the start of a fiscal year be achieved. This exception recognizes the important fiscal role that the minister plays in achieving government's objectives.

The third type of goal is for the ministers of state who do not have expenditure or revenue responsibilities. Bill 4 requires that for their 10 percent holdback to be paid, performance targets for each minister specified by Treasury Board and made public prior to the start of the fiscal year must be achieved.

All of these additional 10 percent holdbacks reflect this government's belief that each minister has individual responsibility for achieving their share of what we have publicly said we would do each year.

Finally, Bill 4 repeals the existing Balanced Budget Act, which is to be replaced by this more comprehensive legislation. I know that the previous legislation that was introduced in the dying days of the previous administration was different. It was different in its intent, and I know that these issues were canvassed at some length by the members of the government of the day. They chose to be collectively responsible for changes. They felt that everybody around the cabinet table should collectively be responsible for what happens in each individual ministry.

We believe there is a certain amount of that collective responsibility, and this bill reflects that. But there is also an individual accountability that ministers are required to deliver upon the targets that are set for them and that they agree to, which they sign off on as being able to achieve. That is why those provisions for individual accountability are included as well. We believe that it's always easy to push the responsibility off to somebody. And if nobody takes personal accountability and responsibility for hitting their own targets, then collectively nobody will hit their targets, everyone thinking that somebody else will make up their shortfall. We're trying to establish that discipline for individual members, and I think it's a novel change. I think it will really force ministers and senior staff people to focus carefully on what they're signing off on at the beginning of the year, knowing that those estimates are realistic and are achievable and that we don't have wildly optimistic figures being included in budgets, as we've seen in years past. Those targets are actually the ones that the minister responsible believes he or she can attain and then will go about the year attaining them. We think that's crucial to better accountability, more accurate budgeting and more significant personal and collective accountability.

Mr. Speaker, as well, I know that the previous legislation that was in place had a schedule for deficits leading up to the point where the government was finally going to balance its budget. That was what the previous government put together. Certainly, if you look at what the fiscal review panel looked at, the independent panel — they looked at what was going to happen in future years —it's clear that those targets were arbitrary figures that had been slapped into the budget, and the government was hoping that that would be achievable. The last couple of years the previous government benefited from a significant increase in the value of electricity and energy exports, which gave them some windfall revenues that allowed them to exceed the targets they'd put in place. What's very clear is that those windfall revenues don't happen every year. Those one-time revenue benefits don't happen forever. In fact, it's unlikely that a government relying on those figures would be able to

This is a new government. It was elected with a significant mandate to do things differently. That's why the Premier has directed that personal accountability be included in this. The personal accountability will take place starting with the budget that we introduce next February — the third Tuesday in February, February 19. Attached to that will be service plans for each ministry, and between now and next February this new government, after a mere 60-some days in office, will embark upon a review of each ministry, will embark upon a review of each Crown corporation, a core services review to try and determine what the business plan, what the service plan, what the performance plan for those ministries and Crown corporations will be in the years ahead, particularly the next budget year, which starts April 1, 2002. Together, members of the government caucus committees and ministers and people in leadership positions in Crown corporations will be putting together those plans that will lay out a whole bunch of performance measures but also lay out some fiscal measures. It will take us that period of time to put that together in a way that we believe is accountable and realistic. At that point, people will be able to look forward and see the three-year fiscal framework that will be in place for the government of British Columbia..

It's interesting to note that in 1991, when there was a change of government partway through the year, the NDP took from October through to March before they came into the Legislature with a budget. This government decided not to spend the entire fiscal year working on special warrants, or even a portion of it, and decided to come back in early. We came back at the end of July to allow us to get supply in the proper fashion. That has meant that we brought in this year's economic and fiscal update earlier than it would have been if we had perhaps done it in October or November, in keeping with past practices. Certainly at that point in time we would have been able to give a much more clear idea of what the fiscal sense of this province was, looking at out-years. I believe that we've taken the responsible way and the accountable way, and this spring, when we introduce our first full budget, contained within that will be a fiscal plan for this province to ensure that we hit our target of a balanced budget by the 2004-05 fiscal year, our third full budget. That's a commitment we made several years prior to the election, made in the lead-up to the election, made during the election and made after the election, and we'll hit that target in 2004-05. I know that's an unusual thing for governments to do in British Columbia — to actually say they're going to do something and stick with it and actually start to work to achieve that — but that's the intent of this government.

So there are some significant changes between this bill and the bill that was in place previously, and I know that the members of the NDP who are here now to speak to this bill will obviously have some comments and want to compare it to their legislation. All I can say is perhaps if they had implemented their legislation in 1991, at the beginning of their mandate, instead of 2000 and 2001, at the end of their mandate, they'd still be here on this side of the House.

J. MacPhail: I rise to address the contents of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. The Liberal government has introduced two pieces of legislation, one called the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act and then also Bill 5, Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001. It is the two pieces of legislation that have to be taken together. I will of course be addressing Bill 4 now, but I would ask British Columbians to keep in mind that there is another shoe to drop in the legislation called the Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, brought in by the Liberal government.

It was interesting to note how the Minister of Finance went off script and became quite defensive, actually, in his justification of this piece of legislation. He has a right to be defensive, because of course, despite all of the rhetoric of the Minister of Finance, this government, the Premier and the Minister of Finance have introduced legislation that greatly weakens legislation that is already in force and is the law of the land here in British Columbia.

They've weakened legislation. Isn't that a surprise? They've weakened legislation on accountability; they've weakened legislation on balancing budgets. The Minister of Finance has the gall to stand up and say: "It's what we promised. Shouldn't we be patted on the back for doing what we promised?"

Well, in fact, that's not the case. Throughout the tenure of the Minister of Finance, he has committed, over and over again, to an ideology that deficits are an anathema, deficits are a disaster to the economy, no exception — not one exception has this Minister of Finance ever labelled as justification for a deficit. Deficits are bad; balanced budgets are good. That has been the ideological mantra of the Minister of Finance, supported 100 percent by the Premier of this province.

What do we have here today? We've got Bill 4, which says that the law of the land, which now requires a reduction in deficits continuously, is out the window. It's out the window. In fact, we're not even going to tell you what we're going to do until 2004-05. In fact, guess what. I don't think the bill even comes into effect until April 2002. Yes, this act comes into force seven or eight months from now.

So all the great rhetoric about the great sacrifice that the ministers on the opposite side are going to make about their salary…. Well, guess what, British Columbia. They're not going to be affected one iota. All the bravado of the ministers opposite…. Their paycheques keep coming in.

In fact, I expect they're going to be taking in more money for their personal expenses as ministers. I expect, just like we saw today, that the government

uses their massive, arrogant majority to pay themselves even more. That's what we saw today. That's what we actually see today: the government introducing legislation that says government caucus members are going to be making $6,000 more a year. That's what they introduced today. I'm sure that will come as a surprise to British Columbians. They've expanded the massive budget that they already have to do their internal work.

I understand why. With all of the hasty, extreme agenda that they're bringing forward, the government caucus members' constituents are going to be very upset. The government caucus members are going to be feeling the heat. So you've got to pay them somehow; you've got to buy them off.

Here we have today one piece of legislation, an omnibus bill introduced today, where the government is using its massive majority to pay themselves — just themselves, nobody else — more money. And in this bill, Bill 4, they're trying to take credit for having their salaries reduced if they don't meet some nebulous target seven or eight months from now. I'm sure British Columbia will be overwhelmed with the contribution this government is making. And they're doing it in the context of repealing much stronger balanced-budget legislation.

One might ask why they even need to wait until 2004-05 to deliver on their balanced budget. They were handed a balanced budget. They were handed the third balanced budget, actually. The year 1999-2000 was balanced, 2000-01 was balanced and had the largest surplus in history, and 2001-02 is balanced. Their own fiscal review panel couldn't find anything wrong with it. They said they were actually being handed a fiscal house that was in order. All that rhetoric of the past that deficits were bad and balanced budgets were good….

J. MacPhail: All of a sudden that story has changed. Why has it changed? What changed that they didn't admit to during the election? They said: "Gee, we had to get in there and look at the books because we can't trust the books." Well, in fact, they put forward their own fiscal review panel. It turns out the books are just fine. I'm sure it was one of those acts of a new government where they are going: "Oh, my God. We appointed a panel; they came back and told the truth. That doesn't work for our agenda. The books are in good order." They couldn't use that as an excuse.

So the next thing they try to do is use their trickle-down theory. They did say to voters during the election that tax cuts will stimulate the economy so vigorously that they'll pay for themselves. When asked if those tax cuts would pay in the same fiscal year so that programs wouldn't be affected…. Well, absolutely. There isn't another jurisdiction in the world where the theory hasn't worked.

So there we are. They actually don't even trust their own theory. They can't even trust themselves to deliver on their theory, so they have to give themselves leeway. They have to say: "Oops. You know what? The theory of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest and the corporate backers won't actually restore the revenue, so we have to have a deficit. We have to have a deficit, and we are actually going to allow ourselves a deficit, so we have to repeal that terrible previous legislation that required us to balance the books. We have to repeal that legislation and give ourselves a lot more room. Because you know what? Maybe we're not sure that our theory will work, our very risky agenda of massive tax cuts actually delivering back to the taxpayers of British Columbia."

What we have is a schedule that required governments to reduce the deficit each and every year — a mandated, legislated law-of-the-land schedule requiring reduced deficits and balancing the budget of 2004-05. Mind you, let's keep in mind that the previous government actually did balance the books and delivered a surplus, but that wasn't good enough for this government. They actually had to say: "Yikes. We've really taken a huge risk on behalf of British Columbians, and we don't want to be tied down to legislation that would test the risk or prove how risky we are, so we're going to repeal that legislation and really water it down."

It is interesting to note that the government sits there and pats itself on the back that maybe one day next year they'll take a pay cut if they don't actually balance the consolidated revenue fund — another difference, an absolute other difference. They only have to balance the consolidated revenue fund; not even the Crown corporations have to be taken into account. Here is this great government that used to say that you have to look at government broadly, you have to take into account the Crown corporations, you have to use the summary accounts to determine your balanced budget and/or your deficits. And in fact, we did do that.

Now all of a sudden the legislation says: "Oh no, we're only going to be accountable for direct government operations. We actually don't want to be held accountable for the Crown corporations."

The legislation has been watered down even further, so the ministers opposite don't have to be held accountable at all for the Crown corporations. That goes against every single statement made by the Minister of Finance in this Legislature over the last ten years. But you know what? Maybe they think, in their arrogance and the fact that they have a hidden extreme agenda, that they can get away with this. In fact, they're keeping everybody so busy in their haste that the media aren't able to keep up. I don't blame them at all. The lack of opposition…. It is not able to keep up. Absolutely, that's the case.

We are not able to keep up with this. But we do know that this is an extreme measure, moving British Columbians backward in terms of fiscal responsibility.

I expect the reason why this Liberal government doesn't want to hold itself accountable, wants to weaken the legislation, is because they know secretly — and are keeping it from the voters — that their risky economic agenda will not work. But I hope it does. I actually hope their risky economic agenda does work, because if it doesn't, all of the hard work of British Columbians through an economic downturn, putting the budget and the fiscal house in order, is at risk. And beyond that, our social programs are at risk as well.

The government plays chicken with the voters, the patients, the people needing child care, the people needing employment standards protection and the people needing environmental protection. The government plays chicken with their needs, with their families' needs and with this province's greatest strengths. So that's why this legislation is here; that's why this legislation is weakening the standards that are already on the books.

I know that there will be much discussion about this legislation when the government uses its massive majority to pass it. I know that as British Columbians pay closer and closer attention to who this government represents and who loses because of this government's economic agenda, people will turn to this legislation and say: "Oh my God, what happened there? What happened that we are now put in a situation where we don't have the protection to keep our fiscal house in order that we did before?" That is what British Columbians will do.

And I know that there will be very little discussion of it for the next couple of months — very little discussion about it. But rest assured that the elimination of the need to take responsibility across the summary accounts will come back to haunt British Columbians. The lack of accountability in any form whatsoever by this government for the next seven months will come back to haunt British Columbians. The lack of requirement for the government to do anything — anything — about deficits until the year 2004-05 will come back to haunt British Columbians. And I doubt that the haunting will be in the form of Casper the Friendly Ghost. I can pretty much predict that it will be in the form of British Columbians saying: "My God, what have we voted for? Why weren't we told that this was what their economic agenda is?"

I would just remind British Columbians that the budget brought in by this Liberal government ten days ago is a risky agenda. It has an economic forecast that exceeds anything that anyone else is predicting. It has massive, massive tax cuts for large corporations and the wealthiest that were not contemplated nearly three months ago. There's no recognition by this government that health and education spending requires increased funding as the population demands more, as it increases and grows older. As our education demands the best and most highly skilled workforce in the province, it requires extra funding.

That budget is very risky. It gets no scrutiny whatsoever. There's no accountability for this budget they just introduced — zero, nada. This legislation doesn't come into effect until April of 2002. I am very saddened that the people of British Columbia are having to take a step backward today, that their fiscal protection is less today, that the risk under which they are now being governed has increased with absolutely no protection for the taxpayer — absolutely none. No matter how much this Liberal government wants to rise here today and defend their actions, they have to come clean and tell British Columbians that they took a step backward today. They took a step backward. I'm very, very saddened by that today.

Hon. G. Collins: Interesting drama, not a lot of fact. That's something I learned to expect from some members of the NDP when I sat on the opposition side of the House. Often reality and what was being said were two very different things. Let me just put this in a little bit of context. The former Minister of Finance, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, was raging about the tax cuts, but she didn't have the guts to come into the House about 15 minutes ago when the division bells rang to vote on them, yea or nay.

If this was the biggest step backward for the province, I know that when I was a member of the opposition I would have got up and raged against what the government was doing and put my name on the record. But the member didn't come in to express her opinion on that. The biggest change in taxation in this province in the modern era, which she is 100 percent opposed to…. She thinks it's the worst thing for British Columbia. Where was she?

There wasn't one nay. I listened attentively. I heard distinctly 76 yeas, because the Speaker didn't vote. You'd almost count them; they were so enthusiastic. You could almost hear each individual voice speak in favour of the tax changes. I waited for the two dulcet tones of nays coming from the opposition benches. I heard nothing — not one nay, not even a quiet nay, not even a whimper of a nay. Yet that's the "terrible agenda" of this government, the "secret agenda" that the member said we couldn't do.

I wonder why that opposition wasn't voiced so enthusiastically when the vote happened. I suspect the reason is because that member knows that $1.2 billion of those tax cuts go directly into the pockets of working families and British Columbians…. Despite her rhetoric, she knows she has to rely on at least some of those people four years from now to get re-elected, and she doesn't quite want to offend all of them just yet.

When that member talks about accountability, I'm sorry, but it's a little hard to listen to. I don't know. Some of the other members who were here from 1991 — or from 1994, I think, in the case of the member from

Abbotsford — would have lived through the wonderful, repeating budget speeches of the member for Vancouver-Hastings as she made commitments in this House that never once were hit. Not one time did she hit a target — not a revenue target, not an expenditure target, not a balanced-budget target — when she was Minister of Finance, so I'm sorry if I don't give a lot of credibility to the passionate opposition to this legislation that the member opposite made.

She talks about accountability of Crown corporations. Well, if I remember correctly, that's the member who sat on Treasury Board when fast ferries were sinking like a rock. That was the minister who, when she resigned as Finance minister, turned up in Public Accounts when the opposition was trying to get to the bottom of the fast ferry mess. She moved the motion to shut down the debate on that, despite the Premier saying we'd have a full and open debate.

So I'm sorry. It's a little hard to hear the member for Vancouver-Hastings talk about accountability with Crown corporations, but let's be even more specific. Let's talk about ICBC for just a moment here, with just a little vignette of what happened. Well, the member for Vancouver-Hastings was recently the minister responsible for ICBC, because Bob Williams, a longtime member of the NDP, a former member of this House for a decade or two….

Hon. G. Collins: Three? A long time anyway. I know he was here for a long time.

The government appointed him to be the Chair of ICBC. Well, it came to the attention of the opposition that Mr. Williams had hired somebody, a consultant, at a figure of $7,000 a day to do a study — get this, Mr. Speaker — about why public sector insurance was better than private sector insurance. It was part of his transition package for the next government.

When we became aware of that, we made that clear to the government. We made it clear to the people in the NDP government. But did the contract get cancelled? Did it even get stopped before it was signed? No, it went ahead and got signed. When we came over, when we became government in June, we had to deal with that. That's one of the little droppings that we've had to clean up over the last 63 days while we were trying to restore the economy of British Columbia.

It also came to the attention of the opposition that ICBC was spending hundreds…. I don't remember what the figure was. Maybe the former minister can tell me the exact figure. They were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a docudrama, the history of ICBC, which was going to be broadcast live, like a little miniseries, to the people of British Columbia on BCTV. I'm sorry, but it's a little hard to talk about accountability when that kind of stuff happens.

But that's not the big one. That's not even getting close. There are others. When that member was the minister responsible for ICBC and Bob Williams was the Chair, ICBC embarked upon the acquisition of real estate. They decided that it was a really good thing for the public insurance company to go buy real estate, so they went out and bought the Telus building. They went out and started the Surrey centre development — hundreds of millions of dollars. But get this: it was in violation of Treasury Board directives.

I don't know if the minister was sitting on Treasury Board at the time, but it was in violation of Treasury Board directives. We had the spectacle of that member sitting, I think, in that chair, and the Minister of Finance previously sitting just over there in that chair in question period, trying to figure out who was talking to whom, and the fact that the Minister of Finance was having to tell the Chair of the Crown corporation that was accountable to her to be in compliance of the legislation, to obey the law — the Financial Administration Act — and the member opposite did nothing.

Hon. G. Collins: Yeah, it actually does get a little worse. The minister had the opportunity to let Mr. Williams just walk off into the sunset. His term had expired last December. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. We don't know what the heck you were doing when you were here, but thank you. There's the door. Thank you for your service. We'll clean up the messes now. The party's over. Time to go.

No, Mr. Speaker. The minister reappointed him. But did she reappoint him for the term until the next election was going to happen by statute? No, she reappointed him for three years — three years. That meant that when the new government came in and found out all of the…. Well, we still don't know all the details, although I must caution the member that day by day it gets more interesting. As we started to discover what was really going on at ICBC under the careful, accountable scrutiny of the member opposite and decided that it would probably be better to have a different Chair at ICBC, it turns out that the taxpayers are going to be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars in severance payments to Mr. Williams, if he decides that's what he wants. So it's a little hard to get the accountability lecture from the member opposite.

I heard some of the other things that the member was speaking about. She says I'm being defensive. I'm enthusiastic in supporting this legislation. I think it's going to make a real difference.

Many people in British Columbia have advised me that it's going to take a lot longer than one year to clean up the messes that we're finding almost on a daily basis. Every day we discover another little booby trap or another little mess that's been left somewhere, sometimes deliberately, sometimes not deliberately but just through incompetence, which is almost as bad. They say: "It's going to take you at least a term. It's

going to take you maybe two terms to turn things around." It's going to take more than 60 days, I can tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, for the member opposite, given her record and given the record of her government for ten years, to actually expect members of the new government to be accountable for the trajectory of the mess created for this year, and looking up to next February, is absolutely ridiculous. We'll be responsible for our actions, and she can be accountable and responsible for her actions. The accountability for individual ministers takes effect April 1 of next year — our first full budget, the first fiscal year where we're in charge of working on the people of British Columbia's agenda and not some hidden, irresponsible, incompetent agenda that was led by the previous administration.

Hon. G. Collins: I noticed that the member also mentions a bill that's not up for debate right now, so I'll respond to it. She raised it. I'll respond to it even though it's probably a little out of order. She talked about the changes in the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act today to give Chairs of the GCCs an honorarium, like what was previously done by parliamentary secretaries. It's a change in term. It used to be that the Premier could appoint a parliamentary secretary, and they received an additional payment of $6,000 per year. The former minister, the current member for Vancouver-Hastings, doesn't mention the fact that there are five government caucus committee chairs in our government. What she fails to tell you is that in the previous government, when they held this side of the Legislature, virtually every single warm body on this side was either in cabinet or a parliamentary secretary.

Hon. G. Collins: It is true, Mr. Speaker, and I'll go back and check the numbers. You know what, Mr. Speaker? Perhaps the member opposite was as in touch with what was happening in her government as she was with ICBC, so I'll give her the benefit of the doubt that maybe she doesn't know that.

We also heard the member opposite complaining about the fact that we're driving this fast agenda. That's right. We've got ten years of incompetence to make up for, and I'm not going to waste one waking hour getting back on track.

So, Mr. Speaker, we're not slowing down this agenda. We're at 64 or 65 days into 90 days. We're going to hit that 90-day agenda, and for once the people of British Columbia are going to see a headline that says: "Government does what it says."

I'm sorry if the members of the media can't keep up. We're not governing for the media. Unlike the previous administration, everything we do isn't geared around what the media said this morning in the paper and what they're likely to say tomorrow morning. It's geared around what agenda the people of British Columbia endorsed in an overwhelming record way in the election on May 16. I'm sorry if the media is having trouble keeping up. But I'm not a bit sorry if the members of the opposition are having trouble keeping up, because we're cleaning up your messes, and we won't slow down for one minute.

	YEAS — 74
Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
Barisoff	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
Hunter		van Dongen

	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

Bill 4, Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply A, having reported resolutions, was granted leave to sit again.

P. Bell: I'd like to take this opportunity to address an issue that's extremely important to my constituency of Prince George North, and that is the use and production of value-added wood products. When we look at the value-added industry, I guess there's four opportunities that we can look at for growth and expansion of the industry. The first one is to take old products and go to old markets. That doesn't seem to be that successful most of the time. We can take old products and look for new markets, and there is value and merit to that. We can certainly take new products and look into our old markets, and again, there's value to that process. But I believe that the biggest opportunity lies in looking at new products and moving them to new markets.

I'd like to refer momentarily to the Peter Woodbridge report on the value-added industry. Currently, we place 52 percent of the fibre harvested in British Columbia into the primary sector which manufactures 2-by-4s and dimensional lumber. Most of that is shipped to the United States. That particular industry in the U.S. represents about $35 billion (U.S.) annually, and 16 percent of that market is controlled by British Columbia companies. Conversely, when we look at the value-added market, about 17 percent of our harvested fibre goes to value-added. That represents a $200 billion opportunity in the United States, and we control less than 1 percent of that market. Not only that, value-added grows annually at a rate of about 8 to 10 percent. There's a huge opportunity for us in the United States marketplace in value-added.

Now, when we talk about valued-added, most of us think in terms of cabinets, flooring, furniture and that sort of thing. Valued-added is much more than that. Certainly some of the key areas that we need to invest in and review are prefabricated wall systems, engineered flooring systems and in fact prefabricated buildings along with wall-panelling systems. There are many opportunities for us in the value-added sector.

Moving beyond value-added, there's another huge opportunity for us. We have to take a much closer look at what we're doing on a provincewide basis with wood. We have to attract our industry, and the only way of doing that is to stimulate demand. How do we stimulate demand? Well, we can lead by example here in the province by creating a wood culture. How are we going to do that? We need to create a wood culture starting in our forests with certification and the certification process. That's extremely important to all of our markets. We can create wood culture in the products we build with and the products we develop. We need to expand our wood culture in terms of our knowledge base and our post-secondary education. Currently, when we look at institutional and industrial-type buildings, we don't encourage construction with wood products through our architectural and engineering programs at UBC and SFU. We need to expand and develop those programs, creating that wood culture.

In short, we need to build with wood, and we need to make wood our first choice every time we have an opportunity to do that. We need to do it with innovation, and we need to learn from the strengths of wood and what we can do with it. We need to promote wood in industry and institutional building.

I'd like to talk briefly about a school that was built in my riding a couple of years ago called the Heather Park Middle School. It houses approximately 700 students. We had to invest an additional $50,000 in the original design of the school in order to adapt it for the use of wood products, but we came up with some kind of interesting numbers, I believe, once we actually built the school. The cost savings in the school were about $200,000 — and that includes the incremental $50,000 that we had to spend on design — by building with wood as opposed to the traditional concrete and steel that we're used to building with in the schools.

However, there's an area that I think is of more importance with regards to this particular school. That's the fact that we used over $700,000 of additional wood products in that particular school. Now, what does $700,000 translate into in terms of the amount or volume of wood? I'll tell you what it translates into: approximately five days' worth of production of a medium-sized sawmill in the province. If, in fact, we refocused our energies in terms of the construction of schools and institutional and commercial buildings with wood products, I'm told we could build two additional sawmills in British Columbia and have those operating on an ongoing basis.

So I think there's a huge opportunity with the wood industry, both in the value-added side and in the construction process and industrial and commercial uses. I believe that for us in Prince George North there's a real opportunity there.

Hon. M. de Jong: Who'd have thought, a few weeks or months ago, that I would respond as Minister of Forests? I say that because it's a bit intimidating when you consider that a member like the member for Prince George North probably has forgotten more about some of these issues than I, in my short time as minister, will have become acquainted with. But he does, I think, very accurately identify an issue that is a challenge not just for his riding but for the entire province.

My father used to say that if you wanted to sell your neighbour some hay, make sure he saw you feeding it to your livestock. If we are going to do what I think we need to do, and that is take a message to the world that we have a product that we produce in an environmentally responsible way, that we harvest in an environmentally responsible way — a good product made using leading-edge technology, employing the best people to be involved in the forestry sector — then we have to demonstrate that we believe that at home. I think that's part of the message that the member for Prince George North is talking about here.

We have some challenges in terms of our traditional markets. The member talked about the American market and the fact that a preponderance of our softwood products head south. We are now in the midst of another softwood lumber dispute. He identified, I think correctly, the fact that we need to diversify our markets. We have to lessen our dependency on that one market south of the border. I agree with him. I think there is work being done exploring opportunities in the Far East, in China, in Taiwan. I think that is going to be tremendously beneficial not just for Prince George, where the member hails from, but for other parts of this province.

I think that when we talk about leading by example, which I think is the message that the member brings to this chamber here today, we have to think in the terms that he has just described. What about those institutional buildings that we see going up in all our towns occasionally? Let us think of where we can put our home-grown product to work.

I have, in the short time I've been minister, toured facilities where they produce products of incredible beauty that we attempt to market around the world. But sometimes you ask yourself: "Do we buy them? Do we market them? Are we aware of them right here at home?" If we can remind ourselves that we need to be proud of the people that are working in the forest sector, that we employ the best technology and the best people and that we produce a product that is second to none, then I think we can eliminate that defensiveness that has plagued the forest sector — I think largely as a response to governmental policy by the previous administration. We can get over that hurdle.

Thanks to the member for Prince George North and some of the members of this House, I think we're going to accomplish that, Mr. Speaker. I think we're going to get our message out. I think we're going to do it in a way consistent with the undertakings made by this new government during the campaign. We are going to engage in that marketing campaign that we talked about as part of our election campaign. With the talents of the members like this member for Prince George North, I think we're going to get an industry back on its feet again.

People in Prince George are going to be proud again of being involved in the forest sector. People in Cranbrook and people in the interior and the Okanagan Valley are going to once again have something to celebrate, and it's all because there are people thinking innovatively, like the member for Prince George North. So I very much appreciate him coming to this House and utilizing this forum to promote a message that I think we all have to promote in order to get the economy moving again.

P. Bell: First, I would like to congratulate the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman on his appointment to the Ministry of Forests. I can't think of a better member of our caucus to represent us internationally with the softwood trade agreement, and certainly I am very supportive of his role in that. I believe he is the right guy for the job.

Unfortunately, over the past ten years we have seen many opportunities go amiss. I would like to just highlight a few of those in terms of where we could have applied this technology to growing the wood industry. A few examples recently are the UNBC forestry and research lab which has been tendered, unfortunately without the extensive use of wood; the Decker Lake Elementary School — they are about $6,000 over budget, and again we haven't used wood; the Lakes District Secondary School — same story; Gabrielle-Roy elementary — same story; the Vernon multiplex.

I would like to bring to all the members' attention some key opportunities that we still have in front of us, and I would like everyone to think about these particular projects because there is a real opportunity for us to utilize wood in them. As we all know, the Victoria multiplex may be an opportunity for the utilization of wood products. Convention centres in Nanaimo, Penticton, Whistler. The Surrey cultural centre. Different aquatic centres that are in the planning process right now in Chilliwack and West Vancouver. And by no means the least of any of the opportunities, and the one that I'm most excited about, is the 2010 Vancouver/Whistler Olympic bid, which I think would be a great opportunity for us to showcase our wood products on an international basis.

There are some successes right now. A few of them are worth mentioning. Certainly Jackpine in Williams Lake produces a wonderful product and certainly has done very well. C&C industries in Quesnel, Spruce Capital Homes. The Minister of Forests has indicated we need to research the China market, and Spruce Capital Homes is very active in that marketplace today and continues to be. So there are great opportunities. East Fraser Fibre in Mackenzie would be another one.

So in closing I would urge all members of this House, as you move forward in the coming years, to consider wood in any projects where you have an opportunity to utilize it. Wood will be good for all of us.

B. Penner: I rise tonight to speak about a B.C. industry that is ripe with potential — one that can generate significant revenues to government and one that is environmentally benign. And I must confess that until about a year ago, I really didn't know anything about it.

The industry of which I speak is sometimes referred to as "micro-hydro," although for reasons I will soon discuss, the word "micro" doesn't really do the industry justice. British Columbia has a long history of generating electricity by using falling water. The reason is probably obvious to most of us: it often rains a lot around here. Some would say we're blessed.

Others would say we're challenged by a topography that provides plenty of gravitational energy to that falling water. The best-known dams in B.C. are located in the Peace River area of the province and along the Columbia River. In total the 29 dams that make up the B.C. Hydro system generate more than 10,000 megawatts of electricity. Now, what is a megawatt? I know that in the media a megawatt is often defined as sufficient electricity to provide power for 1,000 homes. I think that's a bit of a stretch, and I think the number has been rounded up for convenience sake. I suspect it's probably more accurate to say that one megawatt is sufficient to provide electricity to about 700 homes.

But 93 percent of B.C. Hydro's total electricity generated comes from hydro, which of course is a renewable resource — at least when the rain and snow comes in normal amounts, which unfortunately has not been the case this year. Only 7 percent comes from thermal. Most of that is from Burrard Thermal, a natural gas–fired plant near Port Moody. With growing international concern about global warming, that is something to be proud of: 93 percent of the electricity in the B.C. Hydro system is generated from a renewable resource.

British Columbians are justifiably proud of our hydroelectric system, and most of us have grown up knowing that we have some of the most reliable and affordable supplies of electricity anywhere in the world. In many ways we have former Premier W.A.C. Bennett to thank for that, for leaving British Columbia with a legacy of abundant power for future generations.

The members representing the ridings of Peace River North and Peace River South will already probably know that almost 29 percent of B.C. Hydro's electricity come from the G.M. Shrum and Peace River canyon dams on the Peace River. The G.M. Shrum dam alone can produce 2,700 megawatts of electricity with ten turbines.

The size of various facilities in the B.C. Hydro system varies greatly. In the Fraser Valley there are a number of much smaller hydro projects. In Chilliwack there is the Wahleach power plant. That was built around 1950. In fact, one of my uncles worked on a construction project. That facility has been there, quietly doing its business, generating about 60 megawatts of electricity fairly consistently. In other words, that plant has paid for itself many times over, and with 60 megawatts of generating capacity, it provides enough electricity and more for the Chilliwack area. Another local facility in the Fraser Valley is near Maple Ridge at the Alouette Lake reservoir, which generates only nine megawatts of electricity. So you see the range is anywhere from 2,700 megawatts to nine megawatts.

Producing electricity from smaller-scale projects is not something new in British Columbia, and not all of our electricity has come from huge dams. I would like to acknowledge here that there are some legitimate environmental concerns that have been expressed by various groups concerning the impacts large dams can have on the health of our rivers. But I still believe that when you look at the range of options for generating new sources of electricity, hydro power does look pretty good when compared to many of the other options.

Doing nothing is not an option. We just have to look to California to realize that point. There you had a state with a population that was growing dramatically, and of course, electricity use was growing along with the population growth. What did they do? They didn't build any new sources of electricity. They counted on their neighbours to bail them out. It's been compared by others to a situation where you say: "I don't need to go and buy more sugar because if I run out, I can go to the neighbour's house with a cup in hand." What happened to California this past year is that they found all the other neighbours wandering around in the middle of the street with outreached hands and empty cups, all counting on their neighbours to provide them with the extra electricity that wasn't there.

So we have seen dramatic price fluctuations for electricity in the United States. British Columbia has been largely sheltered from that — at least for now. As I've said, demand for electricity continues to increase throughout North America. You just have to think of all the new electronic gadgets like computers, cell phones, larger TVs, DVDs, microwaves and others to realize that no matter how much people talk about conservation — and it's a worthwhile goal, and there's more that can be done — the bottom line is that we've all gotten used to using electricity. Perhaps it's something we've taken for granted for too long.

There are things we can do about that. Building codes can be changed to encourage more conservation. U.S. states like Montana and Washington State have recently passed laws requiring their utilities to provide net metering and encouraging individuals to generate their own electricity at home, thereby reducing demand on the system.

But in an age that depends increasingly on electronics to fuel the economy, those jurisdictions that can provide reliable and affordable electricity will have a huge competitive advantage. In B.C., as I said earlier, we have some unique advantages. We have mountains, and in most years we have lots of precipitation. We also have a very creative and talented private sector that can build and operate smaller-scale hydro projects to generate electricity.

I would like to acknowledge at this point one particular person who saw this vision before most other people. He served this Legislature with distinction and the people of British Columbia for many years. He was, in fact, B.C.'s Minister of Energy in the 1980s. I'm speaking about the late Jack Davis, former member for North Vancouver–Seymour. He is a man whose energy — no pun intended — was almost unlimited. He had a vision. He encouraged B.C. Hydro to permit entrepreneurs to come forward with proposals to generate electricity on creeks and rivers in British Columbia with small environmental impacts. Those entrepreneurs had to bear the risk. They had to put up the capital. They had to meet strict environmental standards, and they did that. To his

credit, we now have 12 small privately owned hydroelectric projects in the province of British Columbia.

I'll have more to say after hearing from my colleague the member for Peace River North and the Minister of Energy and Mines.

Hon. R. Neufeld: I thank the member for Chilliwack-Kent for his thoughtful presentation in regard to hydro generation in the province of British Columbia. I agree that far too often, too many of us take for granted our electricity and our use of energy in this province. All too often we leave light switches on when we walk out of rooms. We leave things running that we shouldn't leave running, because we enjoy very low hydro rates.

British Columbia has the second- or third-lowest hydro rates for residential, commercial or industrial in all of North America. We have enjoyed that because of a gentleman by the name of W.A.C. Bennett, who built dams on the Peace and the Columbia. The Peace actually, I believe, creates about 38 percent of the hydro produced by B.C. Hydro. The member for Peace River South and I share the dams and the reservoir. The member for Peace River South has a reservoir, and in my constituency are the dams. So we share that.

But we do have something that many areas of Canada and specifically south of the border would wish to have. We have also decided, and committed to it in our New Era document, that we're going to look seriously at some of the projects that the member talked about, small run-of-the-river projects, in our core review of B.C. Hydro. Independent power producers, IPPs, will become a larger part of generating hydro in British Columbia. There are many areas in the province where run-of-the-river can be used.

There are areas of the province where we should be looking at coal generation. With the technology today for coal, it can be burned almost as cleanly as natural gas. We have to look at natural gas, generating electricity with that.

On top of that, in our New Era document we have committed to looking at a lot more of the solar energy, biomass energy and all kinds of smaller projects that are a lot less impacting on our environment. We made that commitment, and I know that in the core review process that we go through with B.C. Hydro, which will be starting soon, we're going to look at how we can incorporate a lot of that. There's wind power in some areas. I listened to some speeches here earlier, and there's lots of wind power in a few places in the province. And you know what? We're going to harness all of that wind power that we can.

It is an exciting portfolio for me as minister. I enjoy it very much, and I look forward to developing all kinds of processes with the help of the member for Chilliwack-Kent, who is very interested in these issues and things around this. That's why he's bringing it forward today, so that we can continue to provide very cheap energy to British Columbia and still enjoy some good revenue to the province from export of electricity and electricity trade.

B. Penner: I'd like to thank the minister for his comments. I'd like to tell the members about one particular small hydro project that I've visited now a number of times. It's privately run, as I've said earlier, and it's in the Boston Bar area of the Fraser Canyon. The gentleman that manages that project, Alan Walton, has shown tremendous patience with me and the various people I've brought to that facility. He has given us very good tours and excellent explanations about how the project works.

It's located on what's called Scuzzy Creek, which, notwithstanding the name, is actually a beautiful location up in the Fraser Canyon. This facility takes a small amount of water — perhaps 20 percent or so — out of the creek and diverts it into a tunnel, a pipe, that's about five feet in diameter with a one-inch steel casing around it. It transports that water down a hill and eventually right over a cliff 300 metres down to the generating station that's built right above the banks of the Fraser Canyon and the Fraser River.

What happens is that by taking only a small amount of water, because of the vertical drop, you get tremendous power from that water. It's the pressure that turns the turbines and generates electricity for people in the Fraser Canyon.

The first time I was up there, that plant was producing close to seven megawatts of electricity. That's not a huge amount of electricity; it's enough, probably, for around 6,000 homes. However, that is more than adequate for the Boston Bar area, so they can be said to be self-sufficient in terms of electricity for most parts of the year. And that's where the potential is for small hydro.

You don't have to take a lot of water out of the river. You don't have to build a huge dam across the river. You don't have to flood major areas of land. You can simply develop a small weir that raises the water perhaps a foot or two and then have an intake pipe to take the water down the mountain and into a generating station. It's what they call head pressure from that vertical drop that gives you a huge bang for your buck in terms of energy.

There is potential on Vancouver Island. I know Vancouver Island is facing serious electricity shortages in the years to come, and a number of private entrepreneurs who are already operating one station called Soo River near Whistler are operating one called the Doran-Taylor project, five megawatts, on the road to Tofino. They've done sitings and have identified other great sites with tremendous potential here in the Vancouver Island region. What government needs to do is encourage private industry to make investments and to find solutions that we will all benefit from. The New Era document, which my colleague the Minister of Energy referred to earlier, commits this government to

promoting clean and renewable alternative energy sources like wind, thermal, solar, tidal, biomass and fuel cell technologies.

Now, small hydro is not mentioned there, but clearly it does fall under the heading of clean and renewable energy sources. There is virtually no environmental impact. Most of these creeks don't have any fish in them because the projects are built above where the water goes over a waterfall into some larger water source. So all this is doable. I look forward to this government encouraging more investment in that sector, because frankly, it's something the NDP talked about and didn't do anything about.

G. Trumper: Mr. Speaker, I have lived in the Alberni Valley for over 30 years, and when people think about the Alberni Valley, they tend to think pulp mills, sawmills, whitewood mills and logging. But we have other things happening.

Today in our fast-moving world of industry and technology we need to remember from whence our food comes. We seem somehow removed now from the sources of food, but it wasn't like that in earlier times. I won't call it an easier time, because the men and women who grew their food and fed their families and made their homes from the land certainly worked hard, but it was a time that probably had a simpler, clearer focus. I can remember one individual who, when they came to the valley in a very hard winter, said that they took the potatoes to bed with them so that they wouldn't freeze — no heat in their homes.

From the beginning of time people farmed and tended their herds to feed themselves and to barter the surplus. Today we rush to supermarkets that are open, fortunately, late at night, buying the neatly displayed vegetables and meals that come from around the world. Every so often when you're looking at this produce, an automatic misting spray comes on, often with thunder in the background, to make the produce appear fresh-looking. Our meat comes in saran-wrapped packages. We rush to the deli for precooked dinners, or we maybe order in from local restaurants. On Saturdays, if we have the time, we might visit farmers' markets for produce and visit the local crafts displayed there.

We look at the produce, etc., and see that a great deal of the food is imported. Also, in many cases in the stores it is cheaper than home-grown food. In the urban areas there are those who have never seen a farm and have never seen cows in the fields or chickens laying eggs or vegetables growing. It is easy to forget that in the small communities of our province and the country, there are those working incredibly hard to produce fresh vegetables, tending orchards and raising cattle and poultry. Who can deny the wonderful taste of fresh eggs and grain-fed, free-run turkey? As one drives through the rural communities, often on weekends you will see small stalls on the sides of the roads selling produce and preserved food. Preserved food used to be the way that you kept food through the winter. There were no fridges or freezers. When I see this, it also reminds me that there is someone out there tending their gardens, digging the earth and providing us with food. All this comes to culmination in the fall, when communities hold fall fairs to celebrate the harvest.

In the Alberni Valley this year we celebrate the fifty-sixth annual fall fair. But what passes…. Today fairs all over the province have added, may I say, attractions such as the wheel of fortune, Ferris wheels, children's rides and commercial sales booths. Quite often there are more people at those attractions than actually at the fair. The main reason for the fair is to give us an opportunity to celebrate the agricultural world, to recognize those who work in the fields and grow the produce such as, in the Alberni Valley, corn, potatoes, greenhouse cucumbers and wonderful berries. They are also now starting vineyards, so hopefully we will have another method of diversification.

So often the Alberni Valley is viewed as a blue-collar industry, based on the forest and fishing industries. So often the farmers and the people who till the fields are overlooked. The fall fair is the highlight for so many who have worked through the year to provide the produce and, hopefully, to be able to make a living at it. In these days this is extremely hard.

The fall fair also takes the opportunity to host logger sports, which celebrate the skills that were taught in the past. I would just remark to the member for Prince George North that we have used wood in our new facilities that have just opened in the community.

Farming today is really hard. With much of the new technical equipment that is coming which makes it so expensive for them, it's incredibly hard for them to make a living and to compete in the world market, to provide food. But we must always remember that that was the mainstay of many of the settlers who came to this country, many of whom settled in the valleys and who, today, we should be encouraging and supporting in their way of life so that we do not become a society of packaged foods, not knowing what the taste of fresh food and fresh produce is.

V. Roddick: I am delighted with my colleague from Alberni-Qualicum for bringing up this topic. It's an important one for me personally, as my background is in the farm supply business. And it is important to my riding, which is a unique agricultural community in the midst of the largest urban area in B.C.

There was a time when almost every community had its own fall fair, which was an important part of the annual agricultural calendar. Part display, part market and part celebration, farm fairs were the places where goods were bought and sold, excellence in farming was rewarded and innovations were highlighted. They honoured the producers who ensured our food supply for yet another year.

Many of us have memories of crisp air, great smells, strange noises, wonderful tastes and amazing sights. Yes, agricultural fairs appealed to all our senses while they educated and entertained us.

With a few exceptions, today's farm fairs are a pale imitation of what they once were. Commercialization and urbanization have taken over, and carnival rides have replaced blue-ribbon cows as the major draws to these events. Mass-produced goods, mostly from elsewhere, that have no relation to farming are marketed, and high-tech entertainment replaces agricultural prowess.

There are still groups striving to protect and promote agricultural activity in the community, such as 4-H and the Delta Agricultural Society in my riding. We also had a wonderful initiative in Delta called the Variety Farm Training Centre, which provided training and supervision for challenged young people and adults by involving them in cattle, egg and crop production. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer of these programs as areas become urbanized, and there is this perception that it has become infra dig to look after farm animals.

You might think that any kind of agricultural display is a good thing, but there is a serious consequence of picturesque window-box farming displays. They remove the producer from the consumer. They sanitize what is by nature a robust, often smelly, messy business. Children are growing up thinking salad comes in sealed bags, eggs from Styrofoam cartons and hot dogs from Oscar Mayer. Consumers demand blemish-free produce year-round at low cost in every store, without considering the true cost. Meanwhile, our farmers are at the bottom of the production chain, receiving the least of any incremental increases in return for their efforts.

At the heart of this issue is our very independence as a country. If we lose the security of our food source and our water, we threaten our sovereignty. So I applaud the statement of the member opposite about farm fairs. I encourage individuals and communities to ensure their survival — not Disney versions but real, authentic agricultural fairs which celebrate our bounty and ensure its survival. I hope to see you all at one soon.

G. Trumper: I would like to thank the member for Delta South for her impassioned support of agriculture and fall fairs. The Alberni Valley that I live in boasts deer farms, emu farms — and if you've ever eaten emu meat, it's an education — dairy herds, sheep farms and poultry. At the fair one can see on display vegetables, beautiful flowers and various breeds of poultry. I wonder how some of these tiny white fluffy birds are ever able to produce eggs. We have an Old MacDonald's Farm, where children can pet the various animals. Rabbits abound at the fair. Some of these, I believe, have escaped, as we now have a large population of wild rabbits in the valley, which is creating havoc with many people who have gardens and fields. The fall fair is an opportunity for children to learn about where our food comes from.

We have a thriving 4-H club, where the young people show the animals they have raised and the crafts they have made. They also show their equestrian skills that they have learned over the year. There are wonderful handicrafts on display, which we now admire as works of art, but originally they were made to keep homes warm and to clothe us. Quilts were made to keep out the winter chill, and clothes were made at home, because years ago there was no Zellers and no access to mass-produced clothes. It is through the skills of our local farming families and artisans that these high-quality products continue to be made and admired.

I bring this whole issue to your attention, since in this technological age we must always remember and celebrate those who hewed the wood and tilled the earth to keep everyone fed and clothed. I invite you all to the beautiful Alberni Valley to attend our fall fair from September 6 to 9. The fair has won many awards due to the hard work of talented, dedicated volunteers and participants. Or visit a fall fair near you, but wherever you go, be sure to support the farmers and providers in your area.

Deputy Speaker: With the final private member's statement for this evening, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

K. Stewart: It's my pleasure tonight to discuss a topic that I know all of us have been involved with in some portion of our life. I doubt there's a member sitting in the House tonight, or who usually sits in the House, who hasn't been a volunteer at one time during their life. This year, 2001, we celebrate the International Year of Volunteers. We join 128 other countries, along with Canada, in celebrating those who are so special to our community.

Volunteers. When you look into your community, you cannot look too far without finding a successful organization that is supported by a group of volunteers. In Canada we have 7.5 million Canadians who volunteer and 175,000 non-profit organizations. In Canada on December 5, 2000, we launched the 2001 Year of the Volunteer.

I would like to take some time tonight and go through a number of organizations in my community. Through this, you'll see the types of volunteers that are represented by those organizations. I'm sure these volunteers are paralleled in every community in every riding in British Columbia and across Canada and many others countries of the world.

I'd like to touch on first — following up on the earlier member's comments on the fair — one of the volunteer organizations in our riding of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows, which recently had its 100th year of

agricultural fairs. When we look at the statements made earlier about agricultural fairs, we can just see the numbers of different volunteers it takes to keep a volunteer organization going for 100 years. We have people who volunteer their time looking after the grounds and organizing all the displays. That's one area where we've had volunteerism in this country for a long time: those people who take their wares and help to display other people's wares and entertain the people at these fairs.

We also have an arts council, as I'm sure many other communities do. They're a group of dedicated volunteers who take the artistic talents of the community and expose them to talents of those from outside the community, again enhancing the life that all of us lead in those communities.

Another society that we have in our community, which again I'm sure is paralleled elsewhere, is our historical society. The historical society had a group of very dedicated volunteers. When as a community we decided to go out and get a historical crest for our community, we elicited support from the historical society, and they came and helped enhance that particular process. So it grew from just simply getting a community crest to the point where we had the Governor General come out to present it. The contribution of volunteers helped to enhance a small idea into a larger concept that made the community very proud. That is what volunteers all do so well.

Another organization that we can be very proud of is Adopt-A-Block. This organization is a group of volunteers with pride in the community who came together so that they could go out and volunteer, just to help do things as simple as cleaning up litter in our community. That's another group of volunteers who help to make our community much more presentable not only to the people who visit but to the people who live there.

I've already touched upon our agricultural fair. Again, it was such a great pleasure to see those volunteers come out who have supported a community event for over 100 years. When we opened it two weeks ago, it was under a deluge of rain, but still the enthusiasm of the volunteers shone through.

Other groups that we have in volunteerism are people who come together for a special interest, whether it be health or whatever. In British Columbia we have many associations that have chapters in our communities, such as the Autism Society and the Coalition of People with Disabilities. All of these organizations are constantly having their energies renewed from volunteers. These people are out there looking after those who are less fortunate, volunteering their time, which also brings up the question of why people volunteer. Why do people go out and do this?

For many of them, it's a sense of giving back to a community that's been very supportive of them over the years. We look at things like the hospice society that has volunteers that come in, wanting to share the passion and caring that was maybe given to some of their family members when they most needed it. These are the types of things that volunteers do for our community, and I'm so very proud to have the opportunity to discuss this tonight.

I will now allow the member for Vancouver-Langara to continue with some response to this topic.

V. Anderson: I'm pleased that the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows brought this topic to our attention, because it's a very important one that we all are involved in at one time or another, as he has mentioned. Sometimes we don't realize the significance of volunteering on a worldwide scale. One of the realities is that the non-governmental agencies, the NGOs which are made up of volunteers from around the world, have undertaken relief work, medical work, agricultural work, scientific work, all kinds of activities as volunteers. Professionals and non-professionals have gone to countries around the world to share their expertise.

These organizations have become so well organized and so well undertaken and professional in their activities that they're now recognized as part of the United Nations movement in world peace and in overcoming the world poverty that's around us. Also within the Canadian scene the volunteer organizations have come together in a national volunteer organization which operates in cooperation with the federal government, and they're being discussed as a third sector. A third sector was fundamentally important in the social life and the social well-being of Canada.

Similarly, within our own province the many thousands of volunteer organizations are also coming together. They come together in United Way. They come together in the B.C. voluntary fellowship, in which they can share with each other as they negotiate and partner with governments — municipal, provincial and federal — and undertake to make our communities richer with each other.

We have volunteer grandparents who provide grandparents for children who do not have grandparents in their community. We have volunteers with Big Brothers and Big Sisters of B.C., who provide a family to young boys or young girls who are in need of that kind of support. We have Boy Scouts and Girl Guides, and we have the many thousands of persons who give leadership in track and field, swimming, hockey, soccer and T-ball and all of the major sports that are so important.

Everywhere we go in our community there are activities which are run totally and solely by volunteers, who do it without financial remuneration. In fact, most of the volunteers are spending a great deal of their own time and their own money in providing the resources they share with other people.

Canada has been built on this kind of sharing and caring with each other. I grew up in the Prairies, and of course you had the barn raisings, and you had the families coming together, a whole family to come and do the farming for a person who had been hurt or who had been sick. It's that kind of interaction that we have come together to celebrate.

The Year of Volunteers is to celebrate the social fabric of our community and how men and women and children.... Interestingly enough, one of the largest groups of volunteers is teenagers, like those teenagers who work in hospitals, who work in community service, who work in helping their neighbours. Everyone from every age has the opportunity to volunteer, the opportunity to share and to make our communities richer and stronger because we reach out to others.

Every one of these volunteers will tell you that after they have exerted themselves with sweat, they have gained more than they gave, because volunteering is enriching. As you give, you receive. Our communities are richer because of these efforts.

Deputy Speaker: With final remarks, the member for Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows.

K. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I'd first like to thank the member for Vancouver-Langara for his kind comments tonight. I'd like to thank him on behalf of his community, because I'm sure that he's contributed many volunteer hours over the years. I'm sure that he, along with many other members…. Their communities are very grateful for that, and I thank him for that.

I'd just like to touch on a few other points on volunteerism before this night concludes. I'd like to touch on the institutional volunteers — those that go into our government institutions and volunteer and help those that are in there. We can talk about our prisons, where we have many people that go in and assist those professional people that are hired by government. They are assisted by these volunteers. They give that connection to the community that is sometimes lost.

They go into our schools. Parents go into the schools and help enhance the children — not just their own but others that may need that extra little bit of help. Studies have shown beyond a doubt that in those schools that have parental involvement, students learn better.

These are the types of areas where volunteers play an important role in our institutions. I'd also like to touch on some of the different areas of volunteerism. Sometimes it's a short-term project, where volunteers come together for a specific goal, and that can be very beneficial for the long-term sustainability of a community. I know that in our area we have the Pitt Polder Preservation Society that comes together occasionally for various projects. When that project is over, they continue on. They bring on specialists from the community who volunteer their time for the projects.

I can also consider the Fields for Kids project, where many people that had an interest and knew the importance of what athletics do for children came together for a period of years to contribute time over that set period, to get the community behind them, get donations and work together to bring together Fields for Kids. It was a crowning achievement for the area.

I could go on and on, and I'm sure that many members in the House could, about all the great volunteer organizations in their communities. I can look down at the list just from my community of Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows and see 20 pages of volunteer organizations. Again, the purpose of this discussion tonight was to highlight how important those volunteers are to our community. I'm sure that if anyone out there is interested and hasn't yet volunteered in their community, there is lots of room for you. We'd like to acknowledge that by the Year of Volunteers.

Deputy Speaker: That concludes private members' statements. I'd like to thank the members for their statements this evening.

Hon. G. Collins: It is my pleasure today to introduce the estimates for the Ministry of Finance for fiscal 2001-02. Before I begin, I'll introduce a couple of the people that are here with me today. Chris Trumpy, who I don't think is any stranger to this room, is the Deputy Minister of Finance. Paul Taylor, who is new to our British Columbia process, is our deputy minister responsible for Treasury Board as well.

Today, Mr. Chairman, we're engaged in one of the more exciting challenges in recent memory, I think, for British Columbia. That's the challenge of bringing back the hope and opportunity and prosperity that were vacant from our province for the last ten years. All of us in government share that challenge. Our role in the Ministry of Finance is clear. We are at the centre of fiscal reform, and our work is focused on three key areas: improving accountability, innovation and the overall performance of government. I want to address each in turn, starting with accountability.

This government promised to manage public resources responsibly, and we've already taken steps to meet that commitment. On July 30, I introduced the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which mandates a balanced budget by 2004-05 and for every year thereafter. It also makes cabinet members, including the Premier, personally accountable by tying our salaries directly to the success in achieving our budget targets.

At the same time, amendments to the Budget Transparency and Accountability Act ensure that we will move to fully implement generally accepted accounting principles. They also eliminate the traditional use of special warrants. We'll continue to work closely with the auditor general to ensure that the province's public accounts, the final independently audited numbers for a given fiscal year, are presented as quickly as possible after the March 31 year-end, when the books are closed. This year's public accounts were released on July 30. That's the earliest time to date. These are all significant steps in making government more accountable.

Treasury Board staff will work closely with the Premier's office to support the development of three-year service plans for each ministry that focus on customer-centred service and performance measures. These plans will tell British Columbians what government is going to do, how we'll do it, how much it will cost and the results we expect to achieve. As part of this commitment to focus on outcomes, Treasury Board is shifting its attention to focus on results. Rather than micromanaging individual decisions, we're working with ministries to put three-year plans in place that provide the latitude for those ministries to be innovative and creative within their approved spending envelopes.

Meanwhile, we will monitor and report to ensure that British Columbians know when we are on or off track as well as what steps we are taking to ensure that we achieve the results they expect and demand. In other words, we're encouraging innovation, and this ministry is leading by example.

For example, staff in the capital division of my ministry have been exploring new and better ways of doing business, with new approaches to funding, building and maintaining the public infrastructure in all of our communities. They are looking at things like alternative service delivery mechanisms and better use of existing assets and public-private partnerships. They're working to streamline the capital approval process to improve capital management practices.

At the same time, staff in the banking and cash management branch are moving forward with two innovations: replacement of outmoded paper processes through a purchasing card program that allows government to make purchases of under $5,000 from small business, and a new range of credit card payment options so British Columbians can pay for everything from fishing licences to business fees directly through the Internet. These kinds of innovations will save money and, at the same time, improve the quality and access of those services to the people of British Columbia.

I look forward to seeing other creative ideas come to the fore in the weeks and months ahead. I expect my colleague the minister of government services, through his new waste-buster website, will probably be getting hints from the public and people in government on ways we can improve those kinds of services.

Encouraging innovation is one way to strengthen and rejuvenate an organization, but change also calls for hard decisions. Change is the root of our commitment to performance. Under the last administration both the government and the province underperformed, and we intend to turn that around, partly by making sure we focus spending where it's needed most.

For example, last month we ended the B.C. savings bonds program. That program may have had some attractiveness to people on the outside looking in on it, but I must inform people that it actually cost the taxpayers of British Columbia about $140 million in added borrowing costs alone since its inception in 1993. That is not efficient, not in the public interest, so it's no longer part of this government's mandate. Nor is the old us-and-them dichotomy we used to see between the province and other levels of government.

As part of the core services review, the Public Service Employee Relations Committee will revitalize the public service. We're forging new relationships with governance partners like school boards and municipalities. We all share the challenge of rebuilding

our province, and I'm proud of the role this ministry is playing and will play in our future.

I want to conclude by saying what a pleasure it's been to work with the ministry's dedicated professional staff. I want to thank them for helping to try and bring me up to speed as quickly as they have been able to do over the last little while, given the other work they were doing. I can't say enough about how impressed I've been with the talent and the calibre of people working in the Ministry of Finance; the support that they've given to the new government over the last period of time; how prepared they were, in advance of the election, to provide information to us in a timely manner. I can't go far enough in complimenting them on the work they did in the first few days of our government, the first 50-some days, to produce another budget, which we introduced last Monday. I know people worked through the weekends and in the evenings and really sacrificed a huge amount of their time and energy to do that. I can't say enough how much I appreciate that.

I do have one complaint, though. We were working them so hard about a week ago that they all got colds and were sick. They worked through the weekend. I just wanted to inform them — I'm sure it will give them some pleasure — that I spent this weekend with their cold. I am feeling a little better today, but they might notice my voice isn't quite as clear as it usually is. There was a bit of retribution for the minister driving a tight time frame.

I do think we've accomplished a great deal in the amount of time we've been in office in this ministry. On day one we reduced personal income taxes by 25 percent. It had a big impact on the economy, and we're starting to see the benefits of that already. As well, we got rid of the B.C. bond program, which was something that I think needed to be done for some period of time.

There were also significant changes in our budget last week to present a more competitive face of British Columbia to investors here in the province, across the country and around the world. Those things have sent a very clear message to investors right around the world: British Columbia is back and is ready to play the game, compete and win, the way we used to do for so many years.

I just want to say thank you to the members of the Ministry of Finance staff who have worked so hard in the last period of time. I know some of my colleagues have some questions, anyways. I look forward to answering them, and we'll see where we end up.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for his opening comments and acknowledge, along with him, that yes indeed there are challenges. We know that in order to deal with those challenges, accountability is a key factor in that area. When people elected us on May 16, they wanted to see a government that would restore hope and opportunity. Of course, I know this government and staff will work with this ministry to do just that.

Also, I am glad to acknowledge and hear, in particular as an accountant, that the generally accepted accounting principles have finally been enshrined in legislation. That was always clearly a problem in the previous administration. I am sure the accounting bodies around this province are applauding that move as a step in the right direction.

In addition, the people wanted to know that restoring the public's trust was of the utmost importance, which is why our financial reporting must offer more openness and more truthfulness. For that reason, it certainly was a concern when the Minister of Finance introduced his economic and fiscal update on July 30. That revealed that there would, in fact, be a deficit in fiscal year 2001-02.

I know this must have been a difficult choice for the Minister of Finance, given that he had to inherit from the previous administration a structural problem in the way spending was done in the past. I expect that a deficit had to occur, because there was little room to move in the area of spending and the pressures were certainly mounting.

My question, though, to the Minister of Finance is this: how will this deficit that is projected in the year 2001-02 affect our credit rating, given that we had been on credit watch in the past? I would like to know if the minister can assure us that we are no longer unstable or on credit watch across the country, where our bond-rating agencies are certainly watching British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: First of all, I want to say that we've never been on unstable footing or credit watch, but we are at a stage…. When governments of any kind release significant financial information, like a new budget that changes direction, rating agencies will always look at that. They do that on an ongoing basis. But certainly when one releases a budget that has a significant change in direction, such as what we did — first on June 6, with the personal income tax reductions, and then the changes last Monday in our fiscal update — they will issue a statement in response to that. I want to make it clear that at no time were we ever on any shaky ground as far as any sort of a watch, but they do review it.

The member says that it must have been a difficult choice to make these kinds of decisions. I would say it wasn't a difficult choice but it presents some difficult challenges. The choice was clear. We had tried the alternative. We'd been trying the alternative for a decade. The alternative resulted in well below average national growth. In fact, we trailed the country for a significant number of years as either the last or second-last in GDP growth. We saw a declining average take-home pay for British Columbians over the last decade. B.C.'s take-home pay declined by far the most of any province in the country. A number of provinces increased significantly over that last period of time; B.C. declined by 8.5 percent. It's pretty hard when you work for a decade to build an economy and you're actually worse off at the end of it.

We had tried the alternative. The alternative was to keep doing what we'd been doing, keep managing our expenditures the way we had been, keep managing our tax system the way we had been and continue getting the results we had been. That really wasn't much of a choice.

In fact, government campaigned on a very different alternative. The public rallied to that in significant numbers. They didn't need to give us 58 percent of the vote to throw out the other guys. They could have done that with a lot less. So there was some of that that threw out the other guys, but there was a big chunk of it, I think, that said British Columbians wanted a different direction. We've done that. I think we've sent a very clear message that B.C. is heading in a different direction.

I must say I've been reassured by Moody's Investors Service. They've confirmed our credit rating, given the changes we've made. As well, Dominion Bond Rating Service came in recently to confirm our credit rating. So despite the significant change in government and the new tack and direction we're headed in and some of the rhetoric that was out there about all the risks, I think the fact that the agencies have confirmed what we're doing is a real boost to us.

But it doesn't mean that it's all over. We've done the easy part. Reducing taxes is the simple part. You do it. The other part, controlling our expenditures, is going to be far more challenging. Certainly the Minister of Health, when his estimates come up, will be able to convey to the members just how much of a challenge that truly is. I know that all members of the government side, anyway, are going to be spending a great deal of their fall and winter and very early spring grappling with how we put together next year's budget, which is going to be that much more challenging, given the demands we have in health care and other things as well.

Government took some pretty clear action yesterday and today to try and manage the growth of health care expenditures in one case, with the nurses and the other health care professionals, but we have a whole bunch of other things we need to rethink if we're going to do the difficult part of the equation, which is keep our spending under control.

But I do want to confirm for members that both Moody's Investors and Dominion Bond Rating Service have confirmed B.C.'s credit rating, which is very good news for us. We expect to hear from Standard and Poor's shortly, and I don't expect any difficult news from Standard and Poor's. I expect that it'll be similar to what we've seen already from the other two.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his clarification for the record. I guess my concern had been that because of the previous administration, there was at one time, as I recall, a downgrade. Certainly the previous administration had been on that kind of a path, and it's reassuring to know that we have been confirmed and that there is no change in our credit rating. I'm sure the bond-rating agencies will be watching with great interest.

Very quickly, I'd like to move on to another area. I apologize to the minister that I didn't have a chance to canvass this as fully as I wished to. It has to do with the area of the Strata Property Amendment Act. I know a letter has been written and sent in to the minister. If it's necessary, I could follow this up with his staff to find out the answer.

It stems from the previous administration having amended the act in 1998. It was problematic. There was a section — I believe it was 15(6) — that was a problem in that act. I know there have been some people who have written to me and were asking the ministry to take a look at that. I would just like to put that on the record at this time. It's perhaps more complicated than it needs to be.

If the minister has a response, I'd appreciate it. If not, as I say, I will work with ministry staff to find out how we intend to proceed on this. On July 20, I think, a letter did come to the minister's office. It's not a constituent of mine, but at the time, those constituents dealt with me simply because they were not getting a response from their other MLA that was supposed to have responded. So if the minister is able to provide some direction as to what's happening with this act, I would appreciate it.

Hon. G. Collins: Thank you for the question. The Ministry of Finance has been moving pretty fast. We haven't moved fast enough to have an answer to the question from July 20, but we'll be working on it. I'll certainly get back to you personally to give you an update as to where we are and how we're addressing that issue. So I'm glad to work with the member on that.

I. Chong: I thank the minister. Those are my questions, and I'll yield the floor to my colleague.

D. Jarvis: I have no complaints about the Ministry of Finance, in the sense that I'm very supportive of them. I think they've been doing a good job — up until now, maybe. [Laughter.] Nevertheless, the questions that I wanted to ask are questions about ICBC, which is under the purview of the Minister of Finance.

On the basis of openness and all the rest of it, I previously supplied the minister with a…. Actually, it was about half an hour ago that I gave him a list of my questions I was going to ask him.

However, why I'm asking these questions, Mr. Chair, is that having been the critic for ICBC for the last seven years, I have been asked a lot of questions over that period of time, including since we've been elected, and I get more questions from people calling that have been directed to me from the Premier's office. So I assume the Premier's expecting me to still be a critic to him, if we could call it that, on that basis.

There's also the fact that some of the questions are somewhat future business. I don't expect him to divulge or know all that's coming down the pike in the

next little while, but ICBC still is in question. If he could clarify in some way some of the things that are coming down the line…. On that basis, my first question would be: what are the terms of preparing a split-company scenario, on the basis that we have our compulsory side of insurance versus the non-compulsory side of insurance? Is the minister prepared to answer that, although it is future business?

Hon. G. Collins: I'm prepared to answer whatever I can at this date for the member. I know he's been the critic for this Crown corporation for a long, long time. I think he probably knows a lot more about it at this point than I do, given the short time I've had at it. But I want to just give the member and the House some assurances and some idea of what's happening at ICBC right now.

We appointed Nick Geer as the new Chair of ICBC within about ten days to two weeks, I think, of the new government being sworn in — somewhere in that time frame. He took some time and worked with the Premier's office and others in government to select new members of the board. There is now a new board in place at ICBC as well.

The member will know from the correspondence I've received from the Premier, which is fairly public, that one of the issues each minister has to deal with is a core review of the programs in their ministry as well as a core review of any Crown corporations that they may be notionally accountable for.

Mr. Geer has been directed by the Premier and myself to engage in that review. He is looking at how he is going to make ICBC perform as well as possible for the people of British Columbia. That will involve a greater competition in that market. That was part of our campaign prior to the election. The question is: how do we do that? The scenario that the member raises, of taking ICBC and separating the compulsory portion and the optional portion into two separate corporations, is one of many options, I suppose, that could be considered. That, I think, would alleviate some of the worries the competitors might have that ICBC was cross-subsidizing one way or the other.

Those are concerns I do know the Chairman is aware of. I have spoken to him about them. That is one of many options they may be considering. We're certainly not at the point — at this stage anyway — where I could give the member any sort of concrete sense of what direction the Crown was headed in, other than that the Chairman is trying to do what he was asked to do, which is to get the best value for the people of British Columbia and make sure they are paying amongst the lowest rates for the best service in the country. That's his goal, and I know that's the goal of government.

D. Jarvis: The monopoly aspect of ICBC, up until now, or a short time down the road…. You can appreciate where this question came from. It is regarding RoadsidePlus, the roadside package which is basically in direct competition with the private sector out there. Why hasn't ICBC, knowing that the government is ostensibly not in favour of a monopoly in competition to the private sector, stopped this RoadsidePlus program? They are proceeding with it and distributing their brochures, etc., in the malls. Could the minister clarify that for me?

Hon. G. Collins: This is an unusual program that is being offered by ICBC. I think the member is correct in saying that it is a little unusual, because it is a roadside assistance service, much like BCAA would provide, or it could be done through some other service. ICBC has embarked upon it as a new business they may wish to get into. I have drawn that to the attention of the Chairman and asked him to look at it — obviously inside the whole core review process — to see whether, given that it's in the early stages, it is something he thinks ICBC would want to continue to promote and expand while that review was ongoing.

I don't know what his determination has been on that yet. I am glad to pursue that further, if the member would like, to get some more fresh detail on it. Other than that, I can give the member assurance that I have raised the issue with the Chairman, and he is looking into that specifically, I understand.

D. Jarvis: My next question would be that the…. How would I put it? I've written it out there. I'll read it out: "By the standards of the financial regulators in Canada, ICBC's high level of investment risk would seem to warrant review." To cut to the chase: has the minister agreed or given instructions or feels that a full actuarial review of ICBC should be warranted?

Hon. G. Collins: ICBC did very well during the heating-up period of the equity markets. They did very well on Nortel stocks; they did very well initially, as did many people. ICBC did expand its asset base and its investment portfolio pretty significantly in that period of time. I know that in opposition, one of the concerns the member had, and I had as well, was that perhaps that growth in the performance of the results of their investment portfolio may have overshadowed some of the other operational things that were happening at ICBC.

I continue with that concern. There have been a number of things I know the member was worried about that I had concerns about as well. I think it does require a look at ICBC's investment portfolio, on an ongoing basis. I think you should do that anyway, but certainly, given the change in the marketplace recently…. I think we probably have seen a downturn. I don't know the exact figure or in fact if that has happened, but I would anticipate that they've seen somewhat of a decline in their performance, on the equities market anyway.

As well, the member talks about an actuarial re-look at ICBC. Prior to bringing in our minibudget on July 30 — I think it was toward the end of June or mid-June — we asked all the Crown corporations to give us a revised estimate of what they thought the revenues

would be. You will recall that from March 15, ICBC said they anticipated returning net revenues to government of $75 million. The economic update I put out on Monday last showed $35 million, I think it was, and that is the number we received at the beginning of July, if I remember correctly.

In the intervening period the Chairman of ICBC has done a more thorough examination of some of the actuarials, the future costs of claims, etc., and of some of the stuff that was in the works at that time. It now looks as though ICBC will have a somewhat lower figure than the $35 million figure that was around at the beginning of July or end of June. It's still very early in the fiscal year, and that review is not complete.

The early rumblings I'm hearing are that ICBC's numbers this year will in fact probably be lower than the $35 million. It could be a small amount lower. It could be a large amount lower. It's still possible at this date that it could be a higher number, as it is still fairly early in the year, but it is not…. Let me put it this way: the risk is more on the downside than the upside at this point. I do know that the Chairman has asked for a more thorough examination. I can ask and find out whether or not he has actually commissioned another actuarial review of all of the claims, but I don't know that off the top of my head.

D. Jarvis: In regard to the rebate that was given to us some months ago, I was advised that the basis of that rebate was from investments on the stock end of it and the fact that most of that stock had been Nortel. I was wondering if the minister has had an opportunity to look into that aspect of it and to ascertain how much of the Nortel stock they had sold when it was at the high. Where did they buy it? At what price did they buy it, at the middle or at the bottom? We now know that Nortel has gone back to the bottom again, and I was informed that the rebate was based on only half of the Nortel stock being sold. I don't know if you've had an opportunity to find out at all.

Hon. G. Collins: No, I do not know the answer to that, nor do I know whether it's something that as minister I want to direct — that is, the investment policy of ICBC. I certainly don't feel qualified to do that. I think that the Chairman will examine the investment policy of ICBC. It's known that recently, they have invested not a huge amount, but it's certainly a larger number than what would be normal in real estate ventures.

There have been questions in the community about whether or not those were wise investments. The previous Chair, Bob Williams, was pretty gung-ho. I think he bought the Telus building and the Surrey Centre. Those are investments that I've come to learn were perhaps not the best capital real estate investments for an insurance company to make, but I have a great deal of confidence in the new Chairman. He will be looking at that.

I also wouldn't want to comment on how well ICBC did on particular investments. First of all, I don't know the answer. Second of all, I don't know whether I should be putting that information out into the public, but I'll certainly speak with the Crown and find out how much of that can be made public. I have heard from a member of the press gallery, Russ Francis, who has had an FOI in for similar information for about a year and has been stymied, that there has been an appeal, etc.

Until I get up to speed on the details of that, I don't want to say anything more than what I've said. I also don't know the answer to the question at this point. I will try to find out what I can. I will try to communicate what I can to the public, to the member and to the media, if it's possible, but I don't want to harm ICBC's competitive position. I don't want to harm their ability to invest where they feel is necessary, as long as they're fitting within a responsible investment plan.

D. Jarvis: No, I don't think we should interfere with ICBC's investments if they're doing it properly and following the same rules that everyone else does. At the same time, someone contacted me and was concerned about the fact of the purchase of the Telus building, which you just brought up — that they had purchased it for about 15 percent above market value at the time. Would the minister look into that for me, as well, and just give me a rough idea of whether that information is available or whether it's true or not true? You don't have to answer that question right now. You probably haven't got the information, I assume.

Hon. G. Collins: I heard the same comments from people who I have a great deal of respect for: that it was a range of the cost of the building. I don't know the answer, whether or not it's true. I do know I have asked the Chairman to look at all of this in his review, and he knows what he needs to do in reviewing ICBC. He is certainly an eminently qualified person, with great experience in the business sector, to be undertaking that review.

My initial conversations with him were such that he had similar concerns. This was our first meeting within a week or so of him becoming the Chairman. He had heard similar things and was asking for more information. That will all be part of his review. Certainly, if he feels there is a need for ICBC to adjust its investment plans and its purchase of buildings or to change the asset base of that investment portfolio, then I'm sure he will provide that direction. The board will make those decisions in setting up the scope, then the individual who manages their portfolio will take the appropriate action.

D. Jarvis: Going back to another question previously up that I had listed, ICBC, as you're aware, has been pulling out of the claims reserves over the last five or six years to the total of about $900 million. It has been using these moneys pulled out of reserves to help them balance the books and all the rest of it, to show that they're making a profit. When I was the critic, I

was very critical of this. Now that I'm not the critic, I want to rest assured that you have directed Mr. Geer to look into this aspect. In order to pull stuff out of the reserve, they should have been having not a forensic audit but an audit of every claim filed, which is a big, big job.

I've been informed by claims managers in ICBC that they were doing spot pullings of claim files to do audits on. That is not a true picture across the board. It could put the company into a prejudicial position sometime, if there were ever a run. Would the minister answer me as to whether or not he has requested that a full audit be done on that?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, that review is being done presently. That is a concern I know the member had, and I know others had it. The new Chairman had that concern as well and has asked for review. As well, my understanding is that he is bringing in some outside people to engage in that review. I expect in the near future to have a much clearer picture of ICBC's financial position looking forward, as well, perhaps, as a somewhat revised perspective of ICBC's financial position looking backwards.

D. Jarvis: I wanted to ask another question about the fact that we have recently heard that there's going to be a large reduction in FTEs in ICBC. I think it's only fair that the public be aware and get the minister's opinion as to just how this is coming about and what the mixture is of the reductions. I'll just leave that point to him, then.

Hon. G. Collins: The Chairman has announced a reduction of employees at ICBC over the near future of about 700 to 800 people. I expect some of that might be contract workers, but I expect the larger portion of that will be FTEs. Just to give the member a sense, that sounds like a huge number of people, and it is. For each individual, it's a significant change for them to find that they no longer work where they are presently. There's no question that it's a pretty significant impact to those individuals.

But ICBC has grown by about that many staff in the last two years. There's been a significant ramp-up in the numbers of FTEs and the size of the employment level at ICBC. I think the Chairman is actually acting on some changes that were proposed by the previous administration, if I'm correct, to start to correct that upturning, to get it under control. Some of the cost containment, looking forward for ICBC…. The current Chairman is pursuing that, and I expect we'll start to see that unfold in the weeks and months ahead.

D. Jarvis: Basically, minister, going over something like this and reviewing it again…. I am just wondering, on that basis, if I could leave it with you and supply those questions to you, and you can either have me briefed on them or give me some information in writing in the future. I've got it down that questions 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have not been asked. If those are long and detailed sorts of questions, then I appreciate that you probably wouldn't be able to give me the full extent that is necessary on those, the full amount of information. I will leave it at that. I have no further questions.

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to assure the member and all members, both from the government side and the opposition side, that I am prepared to provide briefings on whatever information I could possibly make available to them, on an ongoing basis, as long as it fits within the ability of us to deliver and the ministry's time to be able to do that. It's always a priority for me. So if the member or other members have specific issues they'd like more detail on, I'm glad to try and set up those briefings so that members are informed.

You are here because several tens of thousands of people put you here — in fact, in the member's case probably more than that, knowing the riding. It's one of the higher voter results. Those people have as much right to this information as we can possibly give them, and I am prepared and desire to do that. I will undertake to answer, in as much detail as is proper, the questions that the member has put forward today and get back to him with those answers. As I said, if any other members have other issues as time goes by that they'd like addressed, I'd be prepared to provide answers as much as possible, in as timely a fashion as possible, to those questions.

Hon. G. Collins: When you're reading these, sometimes you have to figure out how many zeros there are. I hope to get the zeros down on that last one over time.

Vote 50: contingencies (all ministries) and new programs, $360,000,000 — approved.

Hon. G. Collins: I'm going to try and get this right. Perhaps the Clerk can give me some guidance. We're not actually going to move that the committee rise. I think what we're going to do now is call the estimates for the Ministry of Education.

Hon. C. Clark: This is my first time on the government side of the estimates debate, so I'm looking forward to the discussions that we have. I just very briefly want to start by talking a little bit about what we are envisioning for the Ministry of Education. The government said during the election that this was going to be a new era for education in British Columbia, and we're serious about carrying out that commitment.

We are going to bring in some changes in this ministry that we think are going to improve it dramatically. For ten years there was little political direction to the Ministry of Education. For ten years the government said the status quo was good enough in education in British Columbia. Well, this government doesn't believe that's good enough. We think we need to be constantly improving every aspect of our education system for every student in British Columbia, no matter where they live. That's what we're committed to doing. During the election we said that we were going to introduce flexibility, autonomy and choice to our school system, and we intend to do that.

The very first focus for this ministry, though, is going to be student achievement. We want to make sure that students everywhere are improving every year in every district. That's what we want to focus on. For too long the Ministry of Education has been focused on how school districts deliver education services instead of asking what they're delivering at the end of the day. After all, school districts are supposed to be autonomous. They're supposed to be able to make these decisions about how they deliver their education services in ways that meet the needs of their local community. We're saying we trust school districts to make the right decisions. We trust that they know their communities best.

What we will be interested in finding out is how well they are meeting their goals. We want to know if their student achievement is improving. We want to know where they need help. We want to know what's going well and what's not going well. Most of all, we want to be able to make those kinds of results public so that everyone knows how well his or her school district and his or her children's schools are doing.

The key method of doing that is going to be introducing accountability contracts for schools. We're going to sit down with every school district in British Columbia and draw up a list of goals for that school district. Those goals might include improving their aboriginal graduation rate. It might include improving their biology results. It might include reducing the amount of violence in their schools and making schools safer places. There can be a whole host of different things that would be in their accountability contracts.

The point is that this government is committed to sitting down with school districts, setting out goals and then helping them achieve them. If we do not have goals for school districts, we will never, ever be able to measure whether we are improving the quality of children's education in British Columbia. That, after all, is what this ministry is all about — making sure that children learn better every year, making sure that the graduates of our system are the best in the world. That is ultimately the goal of this government — nothing less than ensuring that British Columbia has the best public education system in the world and that we are turning out students and graduates who can compete on an even footing with students who come from any other system anywhere across the globe. That is our goal as a government. I will be looking forward very much to the debate today with members sitting across the floor.

Before we go on with the debate, I would like to take a minute to introduce some of the staff that have joined me today to assist us in this. First, I'd like to introduce Emery Dosdall, the new Deputy Minister of Education. I'd like to introduce Jacquie Kendall. Jacquie is with the finance division. Keith Miller is with the capital projects division. Let me know if I get that wrong. Tom Vincent is our ADM of management services in the ministry.

I. Chong: I wish to thank the minister for her opening comments. I'd like to canvass the minister on one area of importance in the area that I represent, Oak Bay–Gordon Head, in regards to school district 61. I know she has received numerous letters from a variety of parents, as has the new deputy minister, in particular from a group that was formed to deal with this particular issue. They are called the FAIR Group, Families Against Imposed Reconfiguration. The thrust of their concern is that the reconfiguration being imposed has not been done in as open a way as possible. However, I'm not going to dispute that at this time, because I know that hundreds of consultations have taken place. It's just a question of whether or not everything was available, and people will just have to agree to disagree in that area.

What has come about as a result of this is the concern about the potential for school closures. With the reconfiguration happening in this area, which is being phased in over a number of years, a number of schools can be closed. We know that with declining enrolment, that's a real possibility, and we have to accept that to keep our financial house in order. There was a time not long ago that schools were being contemplated for closure in this area. There was, in fact, a movement to stop that, and indeed it was stopped. But with reconfiguration, the prospect of closure is very real, because more students will be housed in fewer schools on purpose.

I know that at this time, the Ministry of Education has final approval and final authority over school

closures. My question to the minister is simply this: if a school is contemplated for closure and it comes before the ministry, will that decision be made immediately — whether it is in three or six months — or will the ministry have an evaluation or assessment process that could extend beyond the three- or six-month term to a year, perhaps?

Things can change in terms of enrolment as well. Part of the reason for declining enrolment, as we have acknowledged in the past, is that we had a bad economy. People and families were moving, and people weren't starting up here. But if we do the wonderful job of restoring our economy and families return to this area and bring their young children with them, the enrolment could increase. If we close those schools, we know that they will be forever lost.

If the minister could give me some assurance that there is a process or that they may consider a process, at least I can return to those parents in this area and give them some methods to understand where they should be placing their concerns.

Hon. C. Clark: What does the member mean by "if we get the economy going"? When we get the economy going again in British Columbia, declining enrolment won't be a problem. The member is dead on. That is going to be the key not just to fixing people's lives and getting them back to work but to fixing our education system. It's going to be the key to our health care system. A healthy economy underlies healthy social services across the board.

Now, with respect to the Victoria school district, this government's very firm direction is to give local school districts more autonomy as opposed to less. I do not contemplate interfering any further in local decision-making than we are today. Should the school district decide — well, they have decided — to go to middle schools, that's not a decision that the ministry will be interfering in.

On the issue of school closure, no request for school closure related to the middle school debate has been submitted to the ministry. There are rules that are clearly set out in the School Act that govern the minister's decision about allowing a closure to occur. Among those is ensuring that adequate consultation has occurred. If — and this is very hypothetical, obviously — the school district were to submit a proposal for closure of schools in the Victoria school district, they would have to demonstrate that there had been adequate consultation conducted with respect to that school closure before the minister would approve closure of the school.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for her correction about the economy, because we absolutely agree that the economy will be improving. But on the note of the school closure — and again, I appreciate her response, because I think there was a concern that the schools closed would be forever lost in this area — there is some indication that enrolments are not going to be on the downward decline that had been predicted.

Before I leave this area and move on to another question that I have, I want to also state for the record that I do agree that local autonomy is important for our school boards. People were elected to make decisions. While there is sometimes disagreement with those decisions, I believe trustees run on the same premise we do: they want to do the best for their community, their students and the parents in those areas, to have a viable and quality community.

The minister spoke of accountability that would be set out with each school district, if I understand this. I'm curious as to whether these accountability measures would be designed for every school district or whether there would be a set of standards or criteria used and also whether those accountability measures would have a time limit, as opposed to strictly outcomes. As you can appreciate, local school boards are elected every three years. So if the accountability is set so that something is achieved within five years and then there's a total change in a school board, which could easily happen, and a change in direction for that community, what then would happen with those accountability measures? Would an incoming school board be required to accept or adapt, or would they be allowed to modify those accountability measures? Can the minister give us a little idea about how this accountability framework would work, given that we have 57 school districts?

I do apologize if we're still looking at that area. I know it's a new concept. If it requires more detail, I'd be more than happy to sit down with staff at a future time for the benefit of the area I represent, school district 61, so that I have a better understanding so that I can better serve my constituency.

Hon. C. Clark: That's a good question. Thank you very much. There will be a standard set of criteria that we can use for accountability contracts. But each of the accountability contracts will be able to accommodate local needs and the diversity of the province. Some school districts, for example, have a very high English-as-a-second-language population. That is something that we'll want to recognize in the accountability contracts. Some have very small ESL populations. Some, on the other hand, have a large aboriginal population, and some have a very small aboriginal population. Those are different things that we'll want to recognize within the contracts.

But for the question of whether the accountability contracts will be something that we can rejig, the answer is yes, we're going to be looking at them every year. We'll be going in and setting goals every year for school districts and looking at how far they've come. Have they met their goals? Do they need help meeting their goals, for the ones that they haven't met? How do we ensure that the contract is always reflective of the community? The member's quite right: the community will change and the school board will change. The important thing with accountability contracts, though, is that they aren't going to primarily reflect the views of the school board, hopefully; they will reflect the views of the population. We have to assume that in most

cases the school board will reflect the views and the needs of the community. But that's who we are targeting with this. We're targeting parents and students, because those are the people that we need to be accountable to, ultimately. That's the purpose of these contracts.

I. Chong: On that note, then, when these accountability goals and measurements are established with school districts — and what I'm hearing is that every school district probably will have the opportunity to be flexible — will there be a requirement to fund the accountability goals and measurements? Or will the school districts be required, when they're discussing this with the ministry and ministry staff, to work within whatever allocation they currently have? Basically, is this going to cost the school boards any extra money in administration?

As we know, they're always concerned that their budgets are being eaten up by administrative dollars. They're looking, and they're trying to be lean. I know that school district 61 has done the best they can to be lean. But if these new measures require additional costs, in terms of administration, to get things up and running, will those be funded by the ministry? I know there's a commitment not to reduce the Education budget, which I think everybody appreciates, and moving to this new concept is rare and exciting. But we have to take a look at those financial costs, if there are any. So if the minister could just share that with me, I would appreciate that.

Hon. C. Clark: I'm not sure there will be huge extra costs for school districts. We provide school districts a budget, and we ask them to make sure that they provide an excellent public education system for their students. We ask them to ensure that, with that money, they are building every year on what they have done the year before, and every year they excel, and every year students do better. That's what they get their budgets for. All we are talking about doing now is measuring those results and holding them accountable for those results.

So I'm not sure it's going to cost a whole lot extra for school districts. In fact, I think it will focus school districts more closely on their priorities. I think that ultimately it will help them spend money more efficiently. So I am quite hopeful that it won't cost them a whole lot more money. My deputy is going to be travelling British Columbia in August, September and perhaps October, meeting with every superintendent across the province to set up these accountability contracts and to have those kinds of discussions. But I don't anticipate that there will be added cost.

The other thing I should point out to the member is that the Ministry of Education collects a lot of data about how well our students are doing. We can tell you how well any class of students is doing in any year in any district in any part of the province in any school. That's a pretty fine level of detail of information. Every student in British Columbia has an education number. We're the only province in Canada that has that. We also conduct parent surveys, so we know how highly parents regard their children's education.

The point is, though, that the ministry doesn't make much use of this information. The direction the government's taking with this is to say: "Look, we collect this information now; let's make some use of it. Let's make it public so that parents and taxpayers can understand how well our school system is doing. Let's use that information we already have without incurring a whole lot of extra cost to hold school boards and schools accountable for the money they spend, our money, trying to make sure that students get a great education."

I. Chong: Before I yield the floor to my colleague from Delta North, I have one final question. I didn't have this until the minister started speaking about the data that's being collected. The one area I had heard from when I went into my constituency talking to all the principals and vice-principals in the area, especially in the elementary schools, was about the FSA — the foundation skills assessment that's happening with students. It is certainly data-collecting as well, but I understand it was problematic because it measured students at certain grades. I think it was four or five and then seven and then ten. But going to grade ten, it stopped and didn't follow the student right through to graduation. It seemed to make sense that either 11 or 12 should have been the assessment year — even though they go beyond that — to find out whether they had accomplished that. Can the minister advise whether there is any proposed change to that FSA testing? If that's future policy, then I'll defer until she releases that information. But if there is anything anticipated, I certainly would appreciate knowing, before I go back into the schools this September and start speaking with the principals and vice-principals again and before this issue may potentially arise.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite correct. We do conduct the foundation skills assessment in grades four, seven and ten. But at grade 12 the ministry does conduct a whole bunch of other tests in order for students to achieve their Dogwood at the end of the year. So it's a different process, but nonetheless that testing does occur before any child graduates from our school system and gets their Dogwood.

I. Chong: What I'm hearing is that at this time, there's no contemplated change to the way and the years that are being reviewed for the foundation skills assessment. I see the minister nodding, so I will take that as a yes.

With that, I thank the minister for her answers, and I'll yield the floor to my colleague.

R. Masi: First of all, I'd like to welcome the deputy minister back to beautiful British Columbia. I might

I have a couple of questions here basically on the independent school system. I notice that there's been an increase in the allowable amount for independent schools, and I was wondering if, in fact, there have been any changes in the funding for independent schools, any basic change to the formula.

Hon. C. Clark: The member is quite correct. There has been no change to the way the ministry funds independent schools.

I just want to say at the outset that this government is a strong supporter of the independent school movement. As minister I recognize how much the independent school movement has contributed to our education system in British Columbia. I am a tireless advocate of the public education system, and I will tell anyone who will listen that the reason we want to inject more choice and more accountability and more parental involvement into our public system is so that we can compete with private schools and independent schools better. Nonetheless, I recognize that independent schools play an absolutely critical role in our system, and we will continue to advocate for them and to support their role, which I think is a substantial change from the environment that independent schools had to struggle in with the government over the last decade.

The increase in the budget is attributable to two things. There is a $5.2 million increase, which is a reversal of the previous government's decision to cut funding for independent schools. The second increase is $2.043 million, which is just the annual increase that would have occurred based on the formula. So that gives us a total increase of $7.243 million, and that's the source of the increase for independent schools.

R. Masi: I have a question on the actual distribution of the funds. You can correct me if I'm wrong. I understand that the distribution is connected to the district which the independent school is in. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: The answer to the question of whether it varies by district is: yes, it does, because the per-pupil amount varies by district. The funding that we provide for independent schools is based on the per-pupil amount that's provided in the public school system.

The difference for some independent schools is that some get 35 percent of the funding level per pupil that's provided in the public school system, and some get 50 percent. That differentiation is based on whether those independent schools are providing services at a cost that is higher than it would be in the public school system. Those that are providing a much more expensive service than is provided in the public school system will tend to get 35 percent, as opposed to 50 percent.

I think the member probably has another question that he's getting to, so I'll let him get to that.

R. Masi: I guess my concern here is that in the case of the independent school system, where there is consistent funding for all the schools of that nature…. It was my understanding that the school that would, say, exist in Delta would have a different amount of funding than a school that exists in Vancouver because of the per-capita difference between Delta and Vancouver. Is that correct?

R. Masi: So in fact, then, the funding is based on the public school per-capita basis rather than on a blanket amount to the independent schools shared out equally.

Hon. C. Clark: That's quite right. The independent schools are funded per student based on…. If you're in the 50 percent range — if you're one of the schools in that category — your independent school will get 50 percent of the funding provided in that district per pupil. I want to make sure I'm getting this. You'll get 50 percent of the funding that's provided for each pupil in the public school system for every child you have in your independent school if you're a group 1 school, which is the group that is 50 percent funded.

R. Masi: I think perhaps I may be getting into the realm of what's going to happen in the future on this. I have a question of whether or not this is an equitable method of distributing funds for the independent school system, but I think I'll leave it at that point. I got the answer to the question that I wanted to get there.

I would just like to comment on the minister's comments. To begin with, it certainly is refreshing to hear that the ministry is looking towards achievement of students as a main goal. Believe me, this will be much appreciated by professional educators as the year goes by. I think the focus has been too long on things in the system other than student achievement. When you get right down to it, that's what the average classroom teacher is concerned with. That's what the teacher wants to do. So I wish you well.

Hon. C. Clark: Well, that's high praise coming from a former educator and a real advocate on behalf of independent schools as well.

I'll just finish perhaps on this subject by saying that I have met with the Federation of Independent Schools Associations. I think they are encouraged by the direction that we're taking with respect to independent schools. I think they are encouraged by the fact that the government's attitude towards independent schools has changed. We've told them that the days of government trying to sneak around and find ways to fund the public education system while denying the

same money that's allowed for under our legislation to the independent school system are over. This government's attitude is different.

We are going to promote public education to the end of the day. There's no question about it. But at the same time, we also recognize how important independent schools are in our system and how much they contribute to the quality of education in British Columbia.

B. Lekstrom: Certainly, the issue of education is very near and dear to all British Columbians' hearts, regardless of political stripe. In the north there are challenges not just with our roads and our infrastructure but in education. What we've seen take place over the last year, in particular, with the high increase in natural gas prices is a huge concern over what's taking place in our schools. Our schools have had to cancel programs in order to find the money to heat the schools so kids can stay warm. My question to the minister is: has the minister developed a plan, or is the minister looking at ways that can help offset these problems that we face in the north?

Last winter, although we saw a doubling in the price of natural gas — and sometimes higher — it was a very mild winter for us in the north. We didn't see 35 below; we didn't see 40 below. On a yearly average, we're going to see that for a few weeks through the winter months. If that happens, I'm certainly very concerned about what our schools are going to do. I don't think it's reasonable to expect our schools to cancel programs in order to provide enough money to heat the schools for the kids.

Hon. C. Clark: We have provided special grants in the past to cover the increasing costs, because the ministry has recognized that it is an enormous struggle, particularly up north, to try and cope with the unbelievable increases we've seen in gas prices. We will monitor the situation as it goes on, and if need be, we'll devise a strategy to deal with it. It's difficult to predict at this stage what we might do, given that we haven't been faced with the situation yet.

I'd also add this: the ministry is pursuing an agenda of autonomy and flexibility for school boards. One of the big problems that school boards have had over the last few years, as the political direction in the ministry has so carefully begun to refine what it is school districts are allowed to spend their money on…. As the ministry has gotten more and more prescriptive about spending, school districts have ended up with less and less ability to decide where they are going to spend their budgets. So when unexpected events occur, like increases in natural gas prices or other things, school districts aren't really able to say: "Well, I'm going to take a little money from here and spend it over here." Instead, they face big deficits.

This isn't just an issue with natural gas; it's an issue with all kinds of other unexpected budget pressures that arise for school districts. I really believe that when we are able to give school boards more autonomy and more flexibility in their spending, these crises will become a lot less acute.

B. Lekstrom: I want to thank the minister for her answer, because I believe flexibility, not only in the education system but in everything we look at, is the key to moving our province ahead.

I just want to thank the minister for the understanding she has of the challenges we face in the north. I know every district faces their own challenges, but certainly there is some uniqueness to the north.

R. Lee: In the past few years, almost ten years, the funding for school districts has decreased most of the time. The funding for students is still below the ten-year level — I mean, ten years before. Is that correct?

Hon. C. Clark: Actually, that's not correct. The funding for students, on a per-pupil basis in British Columbia, has gone up. This year we are at $6,346 per pupil in the block. In '91 we were at $5,456. So the number per pupil has actually gone up.

What the member may be seeing in his local community — and, I know, in Burnaby — as he watches his school district cut back on services, is the effect of ten years of government where we've said to school districts: "We are going to tell you exactly how you have to spend every single penny." That's meant that they have far too little flexibility. They have far too little autonomy. They don't have much discretion about where they're able to spend their money. What happens as a result of that, when all of these constraints are put on their spending, is that school districts are forced to make cuts to services that are needed and are wanted in their community. That's the only place, in many cases, that they can find left to cut.

This is the challenge that I've been struggling with since my appointment as minister: how is it that in British Columbia every year we can spend more per student on education, to the state where we are spending almost as much per student as Ontario is, which is number one in the country? Why is it that we keep spending more on education, but every year we keep seeing school districts having to cut, cut, cut? That doesn't make any sense to me. That tells me it's not just a question of money; it's a question of how school districts are constrained in the way that they are able to decide how they're going to spend their money.

R. Lee: If you take into account inflation, probably the increase is not that much. I also agree with the minister that the budget should depend on the society — how to reflect the society. In Burnaby and Vancouver there is a lot of demand for ESL services, and of course a lot of immigrant families settle in the Burnaby, Vancouver and Richmond areas.

However, for example, in Burnaby they are going to cut all the multicultural workers in the district. They just cut all six multicultural workers. I know that in Vancouver there are no cuts in those areas. My

question is: if the schools' actions or policies or programs don't reflect society's needs in terms of accountability, how can the ministry handle this kind of situation? After the cut, it won't be reflected in the record of the students or the achievement of the students a number of years down the road. How can you implement that accountability in the program?

Hon. C. Clark: I do want to be clear about Burnaby in particular. Actually, this year it's gone down by 0.2 percent in the preliminary budget. But every year we're still well over where we were ten years ago per student. For English-as-a-second-language funding, it's gone up about 81.5 percent in Burnaby, so it's been a really substantial increase.

Again, though, the question is: why do we see increases in the Ministry of Education's budget? Why do we see increases in local school districts' budgets? We see them having to implement these incredibly unpopular cuts. I would argue, again, that it's because school districts have so little flexibility, because the ministry has become, over the last decade, so prescriptive about how school districts are able to spend their money.

On the question, though, of how we're going to implement accountability contracts, the deputy is going to be travelling a lot over the next several months, sitting down with superintendents in every district and agreeing with them about their goals for the year. We'll set those goals down on paper. We'll make those goals public so that people in the school district will know how well their district is doing, and then we will hold them accountable for those at the end of the year. If they have met their objectives, they will be, I'm sure, celebrated by the people that live in their community. If they fail to meet their objectives, I would think that there will be substantial public pressure on them to start pulling up their socks and doing their jobs.

I want to add, because there has been some speculation about whether the ministry would follow the example of other jurisdictions and withdraw funding for districts that aren't doing well, that I don't think that if someone's limping along, you kick them in the other leg and hope that they start to walk better. What we need to do is go to school districts and say: "Okay, look, if you're not doing well, we will come in and help you. We will encourage you." We won't go in and try and make it more difficult for them by cutting funding. Taking that route really just punishes the students, who are clearly already suffering in a district that maybe isn't doing as well at meeting its goals as it could be.

R. Lee: I think my final question is: suppose, for example, those multicultural programs were cut. The programs disappear. Then will the ministry have some kind of a program to help a district to get other funding?

Hon. C. Clark: Not specifically, no. This is a decision that the local school board in Burnaby, in particular, made. They didn't have to make it; they chose to make it. As I said earlier, this government is pursuing an agenda of autonomy for school boards, not the opposite. That's a decision that the Burnaby school board made, and it's a decision that they will be accountable for to the people of Burnaby.

I will add, though, that in terms of the accountability contracts we are pursuing with school districts, we will be…. Superintendents, once they agree with the deputy about what those will look like, will take those to their school boards. In the process of doing that, those will become public. That will be an opportunity for public input into the contents of the accountability contract. When that accountability contract comes before a public school board meeting, I would encourage parents who are interested to attend that board meeting and make sure that their priorities are reflected in that accountability contract.

We'll have a general set of criteria that we use across the province, but every school district, as I said, is different. So in Burnaby multicultural issues may not be adequately reflected in the first draft of the document before it goes to the board. That will be a real opportunity for public participation and for parents to ensure that their views and their priorities are reflected in these accountability contracts.

Hon. C. Clark: That concludes the Ministry of Education estimates for this year. I'd like to thank all the members who made their interests known and thank everyone for their questions and advise the House that we will be moving on to the estimates for the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise.

Hon. R. Thorpe: It's an honour for me to be here as the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise. I'd like to have just a few opening remarks with respect to our vote, vote 23. Let me begin by first thanking the staff of my ministry for their hard work in pulling this estimates book together in a very short period of time. Their commitment to working as professional public servants is appreciated by myself and by the Minister of State for Deregulation. Together we are all working to develop a stronger private sector economy that provides high-paying jobs and opportunities for all British Columbians.

Our goal is to make British Columbia the nation's economic leader, and my ministry is at the forefront of that effort. To achieve the goal, we will focus on three key elements. Firstly, we're building a competitive business environment that has lower taxes and less regulation, which promotes economic growth. Secondly, we are encouraging growth in key industrial sectors that can bring new strength to our economic future. Thirdly, we're making British Columbia a competitive and attractive location for investment from within Canada and British Columbia, and restoring overseas investors' confidence in British Columbia.

We must have a competitive business climate. A strong private sector business community is critical to the province's economic future. It's critical to a strong and sustainable health care system, and it's very important so that we can have the best education system in British Columbia.

British Columbia can be Canada's best place to do business. We have the location, the infrastructure and the qualified and very skilled workers to meet the needs of today's business communities and the competitiveness of today's fast-changing marketplace.

In an increasingly competitive global marketplace, British Columbia businesses have found that their greatest challenge has been right here at home over the past ten years with the previous administration. That needs to change, and in fact, it is changing. Tax cuts for individuals have been announced. Tax reduction for businesses has been announced. Our government is committed to reducing red tape by one-third. The Minister of State for Deregulation is leading that on behalf of the government. And we're going through a very detailed core review of our government, our Crowns and our ministries.

Our ministry will work together with other ministries to build a strong economy in British Columbia. To begin, we will level the playing field in the province by eliminating government subsidies that give some businesses an unfair advantage. We will act to initiate the elimination of those subsidies later this fall, as promised in our New Era document. We're also launching a determined effort to reduce the regulatory burden across all businesses in British Columbia.

The amount of red tape and the number of unnecessary regulations are a serious obstacle to business and economic success in our province. As I said earlier, the Minister of State for Deregulation and ministry staff are already working very hard to achieve this goal and to fulfil yet another commitment of the New Era document. The benefits of this reduction will extend to businesses large and small, in every sector and every part of British Columbia. Key resource sectors like forestry and mining will benefit significantly, but so will small businesses across all regions of our great province.

With respect to small business, small businesses account for 98 percent of all business in the province and employ 52 percent of our workforce. In British Columbia, small businesses support a higher proportion of the provincial GDP than in any other province in Canada. Clearly, that demonstrates there are an awful lot of enterprising small business owners across the province. Cutting red tape and regulations that have weighed them down will free them so that they can pursue their ambitions to the fullest.

We will also continue to promote small business development and success through projects like the Canada–British Columbia Business Service Centres and one-stop business registration programs. Initiatives like these fulfil the role government should pursue to advance business. Rather than try to tell businesses what to do, they should serve as a support and a resource to assist businesses in achieving their goals.

We must encourage growth in the key sectors of our economy. We have committed to eliminating unfair subsidies to businesses, but that doesn't mean we won't work closely with industries to help them develop to their full potential. Ministry staff are experienced and have established relationships with leaders in key sectors such as aerospace, telecommunications, biotechnology, new media, tourism, film and others. We will continue to work with these sectors to help them achieve their maximum success. Staff in our British Columbia Trade and Investment Office will work aggressively to help these key sectors access market and investment opportunities locally and internationally.

Film and tourism are very successful industries in British Columbia. My ministry also has the responsibility to work with these two key sectors of our economy. Film and television production generated spending of $1.2 billion in 2000, with nearly 50,000 British Columbians employed by the industry. We will work with the industry to maintain British Columbia's place as a premier film location. We will also act to strengthen and expand related sectors of the new economy, such as a new media and other cultural industries. We'll also work to increase British Columbia's share of federal film dollars. We are committed to reaching out and building better relationships with Ottawa.

Tourism is a leading success story in British Columbia in all regions in large and small communities across our province. Total spending in the year 2000 amounted to $9.5 billion. The ministry is committed to working with tourism operators and Tourism British Columbia to develop strategies that continue to build this critical provincewide success story. Over the coming months we are committed to working with Tourism B.C. to ensure that they have the resources and the support of our ministry to achieve their goals.

The question of an expanded Vancouver convention centre is an important issue for tourism. As the minister responsible, I have committed to carefully consider the proposal and to work with the federal government. I might add that I've already met with Minister Anderson and others on this issue to pursue an agreement on how we can work together to make this proposal a reality. It is a very complex issue that demands we balance the government's fiscal priorities

with our commitment to pursuing new economic opportunities that benefit all regions of our province.

Recently our government was successful in achieving a three-month extension from Marathon Developments on the site that has been designated as a potential location for the convention centre. I would like to acknowledge and thank Marathon Developments for their cooperation in this matter.

I have also identified to industry some key issues to which I've asked them to come forward with solutions. I have been pleased with the cooperation of the industry in working on a solution for this very important issue.

Science and Enterprise, my ministry, has the privilege of being responsible for and promoting the development of science and technology in British Columbia. There is no question that being a technology leader is now integral to being an economic leader. Our government has committed to making British Columbia the home of Canada's fastest-growing technology sector. Our ministry will take the lead in working with our technology sectors to make that happen. We will play a key role in supporting the Premier's Technology Council as it charts a path for renewed success for high-tech. We will also work with the Premier's office in coordinating annual international marketing missions to promote British Columbia's technology and investment.

From the technology industry to new media and from telecommunications to biotechnology, our province has the expertise and innovation to be Canada's leader. Every one of our technology sectors has my commitment that this ministry will work to advance their success. Yes, a new era in British Columbia.

We must always work with our partners. While business is a key generator of economic activity, we recognize that we must work with many other parties to maximize economic benefits to the province. Along with the federal government and municipalities, we will work to improve infrastructure programs. We will also work with other ministries, other governments and industry stakeholders to make sure policies and structures are in place that support industries and help them adapt to rapid changes in the marketplace.

In the spirit of partnership in this new era, it is critical that our province's businesses succeed in the new global economy. You know, as we look, we see British Columbia on the global stage. From our forest industry to technology, British Columbia's economy is dependent upon our relations with partners around the world. Building and maintaining those relationships is a key element of our industry's mandate.

I've already talked about our work to promote the province and key industry sectors through vehicles like international trade missions and conferences. Our staff will also work closely with international representatives to welcome delegations from around the world and introduce them to trade and investment opportunities around the entire province.

In addition, my ministry staff play an active role in shaping British Columbia's trade policy. Access to foreign markets is critical to all of British Columbia's major industries, and we will work with companies and the federal government to ensure that our exporters enjoy the best possible opportunities.

We will also ensure that British Columbia is in full compliance with its obligations under the agreement on international trade and is in the forefront of efforts to open up markets and jobs across Canada on an equitable basis. Fair and free trade within Canada and around the world is good for our workforce, good for our communities and good for our province. And yes, British Columbia can be competitive and will be very successful.

Promoting business immigration to British Columbia is another key activity in our ministry. Last year British Columbia attracted 29 percent of all business immigrants to Canada, and we can do better. With our recent tax changes British Columbia is once again very attractive for such investors. Our investment promotion staff can, once again, take pride in promoting British Columbia as a strong and competitive investment location. Building a more positive business climate is already beginning to raise renewed business and investor interest in our province.

It is now our job to let the world know that British Columbia is open for business and ready for international investors to share in our growth and our success. Activities will focus on promoting British Columbia as an attractive location for new business, a competitive jurisdiction for investment dollars and a home to innovative companies that are leading the world in a range of dynamic sectors. The government's commitment to competitive taxation, regulatory reduction and reform and letting business do business will make British Columbia competitive once again. I know that I, along with my ministry staff, look forward to meeting the challenges. We bring a renewed energy to promoting British Columbia as a place to live and do business.

In conclusion, those are the priorities of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise:

1. Make British Columbia competitive again by working to cut red tape so businesses can chart their own path to success without undue government interference.

2. Work with key industries, including film, tourism and technology, to grow and to take their place in a more dynamic British Columbia.

3. Renew British Columbia's international reputation as a competitive location for business, investment and innovation.

In short, our job is to build a strong, competitive, dynamic private sector economy in British Columbia, and the economic health of the province depends on our success. It is an ambitious program, but I have every confidence that we will succeed and help build a stronger, more prosperous home for all British Columbians. Yes, a new era for British Columbia.

Finally, I would like to say that I have been very pleased at the reception I personally have received, being the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise, from the staff at the ministry. They have welcomed me with open minds and a willingness to work, and I know that when we give our employees in the public service the opportunity to grow, to put forward their ideas, we all are going to prosper.

I. Chong: I would like to thank the minister for his opening comments. I recognize that this is indeed a new ministry, and I think some of us, as members, are still finding our way around to ensure that we are in the right ministry asking the appropriate questions. I don't disagree with the minister at all about the need to restore our economy and to protect health care and education. I think that was fundamental for all of us who decided to seek public office. So over the next few years, I will be watching this ministry closely to ensure that economic restoration is at the forefront and that small businesses, which, as he has acknowledged, is the engine of our economy, will be in the forefront and will be an integral part of restoring our economy.

I do want to pose a number of questions. I was also very pleased to hear the minister speak of the elimination of the government subsidies that will occur later this fall, because I think there are questions out there as to how soon this will happen and how many businesses will be affected. So as that is eventually rolled out, I will wait for that. I don't need the answer at this time.

I want to ask for some clarification, for the record, so that people who may be reviewing these Hansard transcripts at some time in the future understand, I guess, where we're coming from when we talk about the elimination of government subsidies. In the area of film, for example, we've advocated that it's an industry that required a little bit of a boost. When we were in opposition, we encouraged and supported the incentive given in the area of the film industry. Some people — constituents of mine and, I'm sure, of the minister — have been saying: "Is that not a business subsidy?" Perhaps by way of clarification, if the minister would like to put that forward, just for the record, it would certainly help all of us, as we review the transcripts, to know what elimination of government subsidies really means, so that we can relay that back to our constituents.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd like to thank the member for her questions. I'd also like to recognize the member for her contributions, when she was in opposition, to small business, tourism, film and culture. She represented those sectors of the economy of British Columbia very well, and she should be recognized for that.

Let me talk about subsidies, if I could, and the overall elimination of subsidies. In our New Era document and our pledge to British Columbians we committed, within the first 90 days of government, to initiating a process to identify subsidies and how they would be eliminated. We are moving forward on that commitment. We will fulfil that commitment. We are right now in the process of defining what a subsidy is and what the parameters are, because we think it's important to establish those principles first, before we get into the individual programs. We're working through that process right now, and we would expect to share some details of that with the public in the coming weeks.

With respect to the film industry, which this member is very familiar with, I know she has worked very hard in the community of Victoria to help them develop their film industry. The film industry has not been built on subsidies but on a very competitive tax policy. I think it's important to know that in my estimation and as I move forward, I believe that tax policy decisions are outside the realm of subsidies.

I believe that this position will be clarified in the weeks ahead, but let me assure the member as we move forward that it is the commitment of our government to ensure that we have competitive tax policies throughout our entire economy. The only way we're going to build British Columbia, restore health care and protect education is by having a strong competitive environment. One of the cornerstones of that is having a competitive tax policy. That's my commitment to the member.

Still on the topic of the film industry, as the minister is aware, both he and I were, at some point, critics for this ministry, so it's rather interesting. We both have a lot of background, but at the same time, we both have those issues continually raised, because people still know that he and I have been advocates in the small business and enterprise area.

In the area of film in particular, recently I've heard about and have been reading the news clippings about a concern about some of the film industry moving back down south because of…. I'm not sure if I'm correct, but I know the minister will correct me. There are some labour issues that are evolving as we speak. In particular, in Vancouver I think there are concerns that people are trying to wrap up their productions very quickly. I am wondering if the minister — I'm sure he's on top of it — can share with us what avenues he's pursuing to ensure that we don't have a sudden loss. Again, we all want to see our economy boom, and film is certainly one of those sectors that has great potential.

There has been so much in the way of infrastructure put into building the film industry in this province, in particular in Vancouver and here in Victoria, that I would hate to see that something was happening in this area that we should certainly be involved in to prevent any kind of a loss in this industry.

So if the minister is able, without divulging any confidential issues, to offer some assurance that his

ministry is certainly working in this area, I would appreciate that for the record.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thank you to the member for her question. First of all, let me clearly establish here that our government believes in the free collective bargaining process. Of course, what I believe the member is talking about is agreements that flow from the United States up into Canada. I know there were concerns earlier in the year on different sectors, and those were resolved. It's my understanding that the parties are continuing to work through their negotiating process, and we would be hopeful that they would reach a conclusion, as other sectors have, in this industry. We're not going to interfere in that area.

I think we should all take great comfort in the fact that over the past several years British Columbians have been able to establish a world-class film industry right here in British Columbia. We have the best crews in the world, very competitive crews. We have very competitive infrastructure. We are starting to work, and our plan is to work with the industry to attempt to diversify the number of films that are done in the lower mainland to other regions of the province. I personally have had some experience with that in the Okanagan, and I know the member has had some experience here in the greater Victoria area in that field.

Over the coming months we are going to meet and develop a film strategy for British Columbia. As I mentioned earlier, at this point in time we are not getting our fair share of federal film dollars coming into the province that can help us enhance our world position. That is a goal of our ministry. We are bringing the Film Commission and the B.C. Film Society together to see how we can work together and get some synergies out of this, so that together we can build a much stronger industry.

I'm also pleased to advise that members of the British Columbia film community recently travelled to Germany and participated in a film festival there in an effort to attract even more foreign production to British Columbia. The information I have is that it was a very, very successful trip, that they've got some very promising leads.

One of the things that the B.C. industry is trying to do itself is diversify its dependence on one market. Our friends to the south, the United States, are making progress, but one of the things we're committed to doing is working together, looking forward ten or 15 years and seeing what kind of strategies and infrastructures we need. We're going to work with the industry to make that happen.

I. Chong: Before I leave this area on the film industry, I want to also thank the minister. I'm sure he was instrumental in ensuring that the funding levels, the spending priorities, for film that I note in the Estimates blue book didn't decrease. I think the film industry has always been concerned about the funding levels there, and I'm sure the minister was a strong advocate in that area.

One last concern in the film industry was a situation that arose last year — and I know the minister is aware of this — that had to do with Ottawa, actually. The federal government, when they were considering the imposition of the foreign actors withholding-tax situation…. As opposition members at that time, we certainly, together, collaborated to reach our federal counterparts that this was not the way to go in this sector.

I'm wondering if the minister can provide an update at this time as to whether the federal government has finally seen the light and has recognized that it should not be tampering with this area, whether that is still an area of concern, and if it is, whether the minister has a strategy in place to ensure that we will not be threatened once again with this happening this fall.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Let me be very, very clear to the member that at this point in time, in the first 64 days or so, I have not had the opportunity to get into the detail of that issue. But I do understand from past years the sensitivity of that issue. I will be undertaking this issue with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

As I mentioned in my previous answer, it's really important that we start to rebuild the relationships with Ottawa in all areas of our government — with the Heritage minister, with Minister Anderson here in Victoria, who I must say has been very supportive and cooperative with us starting to rebuild those relations.

I think it's important that we build those relationships so that when these types of difficulties do appear on the radar screen, we can actually get access. So my commitment to the member is to meet with the Finance minister, to meet with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and to make sure that this is on our intergovernmental affairs agenda. I know how important it is. As the member said, I was involved with her when the industry faced this crisis a few years ago. So we're cognizant of it, and my officials and I are committed to working on it.

Now I'd like to move on to the area of tourism. I don't have a lot of questions in this area. We all know that it's a growing industry, and I think every small community is touched by tourism and the potential it offers, especially communities that were at one time a one-resource town. People have learned to diversify, and I know this ministry will work very hard with those communities to see that that does occur.

One area that came up when the minister and I were in opposition was when Tourism B.C. was set up, first as a special operating agency and then as a Crown corporation. We both had expressed concern about the legislation. I think it was Bill 9 that was brought in at the time, in 1997-98. Those concerns have never faded. Those concerns are still there, and I still hear those concerns.

I'm wondering now whether or not the minister can provide any input or answers to the concerns raised by people in the tourism industry — that is, the makeup of the Tourism B.C. board, the appointments to the 15-member board. I realize our core services review is being undertaken. I realize agencies, boards and commissions are also being reviewed, but I think this had a very thorough review when the bill was first introduced to make it a Crown corporation. Of particular concern to the industry stakeholders was, in fact, the makeup of the board, with the representation being five appointees from government. For the record, I would like to know where this ministry is headed on that, whether there is consideration to altering those positions for the Tourism B.C. board.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member knows, that was Bill 9, a few years back. She spoke and pursued it very aggressively. I was in there speaking, and if my memory serves me correctly, we both shared the same concerns.

Although that's future policy, let me tell you what my thinking is and where I want to see us head directionally. I think it's important if organizations…. If we're talking about being at arm's length and talking about being independent, then we truly have to walk that talk through our actions. Therefore it would be my intention to work with Tourism B.C., with my ministry officials, to see how we can increase the private sector participation in that board but at the same time ensure that taxpayers have some representation on the board. As the member knows, the revenue flows from the province to Tourism B.C. So I think we have a responsibility there in that regard, but it would be my intention to work with my officials and Tourism B.C. to increase the private sector participation in Tourism B.C.'s board.

I. Chong: Again, I thank the minister for that. I know he has a great understanding of this issue, and I think that by providing that response, it assures those who will review Hansard at a future time that the commitments made while in opposition will be kept. Private sector involvement is critical if we want our tourism industry to grow. So I appreciate that.

The other area is that their financial resources will be funded. I know a commitment was made that we would see that Tourism B.C. has the funds necessary to market the products of this province. However, knowing Tourism B.C., there is never enough money. More money is always better, and they will always want more. But maybe the minister could just, for the record, perhaps repeat that so I could also relay to the industry stakeholders in this area what that commitment means in terms of funding. I know that as the economy grows, there will be greater benefit to them, but if the minister would care to elaborate…. If it's future policy I respect that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Actually, I don't want an out. I think it's important for us to realize the things that we said in opposition. We said it was important for a tourism industry to be able to compete. That's not only for tourism but for all of our industries. In discussions with the tourism industry over the past months they have expressed their need for increased dollars. I have been very clear with them. We understand that it's important to be competitive in the international marketplaces and to have the programs to support local tourism operators by attracting people to British Columbia. But I also was very clear: we have an obligation to rebuild our health care system, we have an obligation to rebuild our education system, and we have a commitment to balance the financial house in the province of British Columbia.

When we have achieved those goals, we will be prepared to work with the tourism industry to ensure that the funding that flows from government helps them in meeting the competitive challenges that they face around the world. But we have to make sure that we have our priorities of health care and education and our financial house back in some degree of order before we can pursue that.

I. Chong: I do respect that. We will find out in due course just what kind of assistance Tourism B.C. will be provided. I think the stakeholders know they, too, have an obligation to grow that particular sector.

I would like to move on to a few other areas. I apologize to the minister: I hadn't thought about canvassing those areas until I realized all the changes in the blue books. Just so that he is aware what staff he needs for this, I want to ask some very quick questions about the industrial development incentive fund; the Infrastructure Works program; and if time permits, perhaps an update on the Working Opportunity Fund.

Right now the one question I would like to ask relates to tourism, but it has to do with the Royal British Columbia Museum, which I know all members of this House have had the opportunity to visit in the short while we've been in session. My question to the minister is this. Last year I canvassed the former administration and the minister about legislation that was being drafted to make the Royal B.C. Museum an official Crown corporation so that they might be able to lever private interest dollars so that they could do more with what they have and therefore be less reliant on government.

The minister at that time had indicated he was drafting legislation. When I pursued him at length, he admitted finally that the legislation had been in draft form and that it would be presented. But when I posed the question again of just when that would be, he indicated that it would be in the fall. That led me to believe that the legislation was essentially completed and that he was just waiting for an opportune time to present it to the public. So I am surmising that it is

either still in draft form or that it may still be available for this new minister to present. Would it be possible at this time? I do also recognize that it's future legislation. But because I had canvassed this quite thoroughly last year, can this minister advise us at this time whether they are still even looking at that legislation, whether new legislation is being proposed and whether the concept of the Royal B.C. Museum being a Crown corporation will, in fact, occur?

The Chair: Minister, it's my understanding that you can't discuss the legislation announced here today.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'll try to provide the member some assistance on this matter, because I know it's very, very important to her and has been for a number of years. It's very important to the community that she represents.

First of all, I'd like to tell the member that it's not in my ministry. It falls under vote 22, which is the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. But I'd be very pleased to pass your question along to the minister responsible, and I'm sure that he'll be prepared to answer you at that time. Thank you for that question.

I. Chong: As I was wrapping that up, I realized that it had been moved. I apologize for that. But at least it gets this minister prepared for those kinds of things. In case the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services wishes to speak with him, I'm sure he could provide some advice on that.

A further area I would like to ask the minister about is trade. I note that the B.C. Trade and Investment Office is within his area of responsibility. For this particular area, I would just like to ask the minister about the trade missions that this government and this new ministry may be engaging in. I believe this used to be in the Ministry of Employment and Investment. So it is new.

I hear the division bells, I believe, and I will allow the Chair to recess for a short while.

I. Chong: Before the recess I began to ask the minister questions about the B.C. Trade and Investment Office, not insomuch as the operations of the office but, I guess, the concept of what's being done here. It is now under his ministry, as I indicated. I know this was previously under the Ministry of Employment and Investment, which no longer exists.

I guess my question was in relation to trade missions and what kinds of trade missions we might be looking forward to. I'm not sure if there was a commitment by the previous administration as to how many trade missions, whether they be to China, to South America, to India…. I know the previous ministry had been fond of building those relationships. Of course, we know that those are our trading partners and that we have great economic opportunities with them. Could the minister advise whether there are a number of trade missions that were committed to by the previous administration and whether those will be continuing? Perhaps he can just give me a very brief outline as to what we might expect this fiscal year, what's remaining of it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, let me say that within B.C. Trade it's my sense that there's a renewed sense of purpose and excitement about a government that is actually going to pursue trade and investment. So I've been very, very pleased with the enthusiasm and the professionalism that the staff have brought forward.

With respect to trade missions, we are working at the present time on a Team Canada mission, which the Premier will accompany the Prime Minister on, to Dallas and Los Angeles in November. We are also looking at other possible initiatives in key strategic industrial sectors for the province. Of course, we are going to focus those trips on markets where we believe the government of British Columbia can assist industry in helping make contacts and work with our industries here to not only maintain markets but build new markets. So at this point in time, we are just working through a number of options and establishing our priorities.

I also want to say that the Premier of British Columbia has made a personal commitment to the people of the province in leading international trade missions to promote our key industries, to promote technology and to show the way. By doing that, I believe it will show British Columbians how committed our entire government is to developing new markets and protecting old markets. That's our thrust.

I. Chong: I thank you for your response. So as I understand it, at this time there is only one trade mission that has been agreed to. I was trying to find out whether there were several that had been committed to and whether we would be following through on that. If the minister could just confirm that.

Hon. R. Thorpe: At this point in time, there is one confirmed commitment: the Premier travelling with the Prime Minister of Canada to Dallas and Los Angeles. We are now working through a number of options, and I want to be very clear with the member that, as we identify those opportunities in key strategic markets for key strategic industries, our ministry will be prepared to act and move fast to secure those opportunities.

I. Chong: I would like to now just move on in another direction: the Infrastructure Works program, which is a program that has been around for a number of years and for which this ministry has partial responsibility. I know the non-green initiatives are through this ministry, and I believe the green initiatives are through the Ministry of Community,

Aboriginal and Women's Services. I am wondering if the minister can provide for me, so I can relay this to constituents who have some concerns about where we are with the IWP, whether there are a number of applications that are forward at this time and whether or not the minister is able to make decisions on some of these before the fall. What is the timeline of these applications? I know in this area, in particular, some have gone in, and I have heard from community representatives that they are waiting to hear back from the provincial government, being one of the key partners in the Infrastructure Works program. If the minister can at least provide some outline as to what is happening in this area for the record, then it would make it easier for those of us in Greater Victoria, anyway, to relay that to our constituents.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I appreciate the question from the member, but I would like to assure the member that it's not just the residents in Victoria that are wondering what's going on. Actually, Fernie and Telkwa and many other communities throughout British Columbia are also wondering.

Let me put things in perspective. At this point in time, we have received over two billion dollars' worth of applications, and we have a commitment of just under $300 million for the province. We do this program in cooperation and coordination with my colleague in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We are taking into account that staff are moving through the assessment process. It would be my hope that I will be able to provide all members of this House with a list of projects that have been submitted. What we've found out, in a review I had only last week on this area, is that many programs have been submitted but not all of the documentation is completed.

Therefore, what I'm undertaking from my ministry is to make sure every member of this House knows what's been submitted and at what status point it is in the procedures. I realize that each member, just like this member for Okanagan-Westside, will get questioned on that. So we want to make sure all the documentation is…. We're moving through the assessment process.

We also have to keep this in the context of the recently announced fiscal situation, the economic and fiscal update that the Minister of Finance gave us on July 30. We believe, over time, that the entire commitment to the project will be met. It's around $900 million, I think, in total.

I've also met with my federal counterpart on this, Minister Anderson. He understands some of the issues we're working through. We're working through it in a methodical way. I can assure you that all members of this House will be kept advised on how the programs in their particular areas are moving through the process. We expect to have that out to members next week.

I. Chong: I do want to thank the minister for making that commitment to make all members aware of what is happening. As he knows, every member — certainly all 77 of us on the government side — has been canvassed by one or two or three or ten groups in our communities about the status of this, which had been put on hold as a result of the recent election. I know he can appreciate that we are all trying to get answers back to our communities. So that information forthcoming will certainly be of benefit to us.

In addition, to have for the record, now that he's put the magnitude of the applications that have come forth…. Sometimes we don't recognize the dollars and the volume that his ministry is having to look at and work with. I know his staff is doing a wonderful job in trying to get through all these things, and I do appreciate that.

The last area I just wanted to quickly canvass was, as I indicated to him, the industrial incentive fund. I'm not sure if the working opportunity fund is still within this ministry. If it is, maybe an update in that particular area…. But in the area of the industrial incentive fund, I note that for the amount allocated in the estimates for the year 2001-02, this fiscal year, there is no change. I'm just wondering why that may be. Have there been no applications? Obviously, there appear to be some receipts. But I'm wondering if this fund is now becoming one that people or communities are not accessing. If so, what are the future plans, if the minister can share that with us, for this particular fund? As I say, it doesn't appear that there are going to be any disbursements, but there still continue to be receipts that go into this particular fund.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, this is one of the funds, one of the items, that many people have said has been an area of subsidies to individual businesses. As we have committed and as I talked of earlier, we are now in that process of going through that. We have taken the decision that while we are going through that process as a government, we have removed any disbursements in that area for the remainder of this fiscal year. Until we have defined what subsidies are and we have agreement on what subsidies are, we thought it was prudent, as we moved forward, not to make any disbursements in this area until we concluded that review.

I. Chong: The final area I'd like to canvass the minister on is the working opportunity fund, the WOF. I know, as the minister knows, that this is venture capital.

I. Chong: Before the recess for the division bells I had started to ask the minister where we were in the area of the WOF, the Working Opportunity Fund. I

realize this is a venture capital program, a fund that provides a tax credit. Some would argue that because it provides a tax credit, it is, in its own form, a subsidy. Because of the nature of this fund, its long-term effects for businesses which receive moneys from this fund, and a requirement to continue funding it for a number of years once an application is received and approved, there may be some difficulty if there were changes made to this.

Would the minister be able to give us an idea of whether this ministry is planning on making any changes to venture capital programs or whether this is future policy? In that case I respect that, and I'll have to wait for that when that evolves.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, that is future policy, but let me just tell you a couple of things about the Working Opportunity Fund. We have, in the budget for 2001-02, provided for tax credits in the amount of $12 million. That is up from $9 million last year, as I understand it. I understand that since 1992 the fund has raised in excess of $350 million and has invested some $200 million in 70 British Columbia companies.

With respect to the balance of your question, let me say that all programs in our ministry will be going through a core review, and that will be taking place over the coming months. If there are any changes, all members of this House will be advised of those changes.

I. Chong: I do appreciate the minister's response to the fact that it is future policy. I also appreciate his understanding of the sensitivity of this fund, as well, because it does relate to small businesses, which have a reliance for continuation based on the application. I'm comforted knowing that there will be a proper review to ensure that small businesses will not be adversely affected should there be any changes. We both are on the same side when it comes to restoring our economy and small businesses.

With that, those are the only questions I have for this minister. If time permits, I may have a question for the minister of state, but I know I have a colleague who wishes to pose a question.

I. Chong: Well, my colleague wishes to pose a question to the minister as well, and I would rather defer to her at this time.

I do want to thank the minister for his answers this afternoon. I certainly appreciate it and know that he's very passionate in the area of small businesses and that he has a full understanding of the areas for which he has responsibility. I look forward to working with him over the next number of months and years to ensure that our small businesses, tourism businesses and film industry will be viable and sustained.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I just want to thank the member for all of her questions and for her commitment not only to the community that she represents but also to all small business, tourism and film operators throughout the province. As we have said, our offices are open. I know this member is very knowledgable in the areas that she's canvassed. Any thoughts and ideas that she has, along with other members of this House…. I ask them to come forward to me, and we will work together to rebuild the economy of British Columbia.

E. Brenzinger: I am standing here representing Surrey-Whalley, and I would like to know if you could give us the status on the movement of the PNE to the Whalley area. There is great anticipation and expectation in my riding for this movement. I know it's future policy, but I'd like to know if you can give us an update.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I appreciate the member asking that question on behalf of her constituents. In fact, that is your responsibility.

The PNE was running out of time with respect to moving, so I will say that PNE management has requested and is working with the city of Vancouver on a three-year extension on their current operating lease. With respect to the more detailed future of the PNE and what that may involve as we move forward, it is all part of our core review program, which we are undertaking in the months ahead. As those programs and reviews take place and unfold, I will be very pleased to keep the member advised of what's happening with respect to the PNE and Surrey.

I. Chong: Just one final question to the Minister of State for Deregulation. I didn't want him to feel that he spent this valuable afternoon in this chamber without having a question posed to him. I do have a question. For the record, I think it would be appropriate for those who may review the transcripts at a future time perhaps…. What in particular will his ministry be looking at in terms of deregulation? I think there is some confusion as to what will be deregulated. Are they all in the areas of business, or will it entail other areas? What kind of public input may be provided to the minister? If he could just give me an idea so that when I go back into my constituency, once the House rises and questions come forward to me, I may be able to provide those answers to my constituents. Over the course of the next few months, I hope to be able to have a briefing with the ministry as it unfolds, but at this point, if the minister could just give an update as to how this will unfold, I would appreciate that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the question from the member. I know that with your advocacy for small business, this will be an important issue for you, as it is for me. As you know, our new-era commitment as a government was very clear. We made a clear commitment to British Columbians that we would reduce the regulatory red-tape burden by one-third within three years of being elected. I can tell you that

Let me say that right now I am working very hard with the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise to ensure that the process we put together is going to be a process that does involve participation from members of the small business community in particular, but certainly all the business sectors. We are going to, of course, be soliciting a lot of input from our own private members, many of whom come from small business backgrounds and understand the very unique regulatory stranglehold that is currently taking place in this province. We will also be encouraging public input.

One of my hon. colleagues, Minister Santori, introduced the waste-buster website at a recent open cabinet meeting. My understanding is this will be active as of August 15. This will be a tremendous opportunity for members of the public to bring forward their own suggestions, not only regarding government waste that they may be aware of but also specifically with respect to the deregulation initiative.

Our effort in this area will be as sweeping and broad and bold as our commitment has been. I will be working very closely with the member, of course, and with all the members from government — and, of course, opposition, if they have suggestions — to make sure that we do implement this. It will be a very important step forward for British Columbia, because we all recognize that regulations are in fact a hidden tax on British Columbians. Therefore, it is very important that we come forward with a regulatory environment that focuses on outcomes and on results and moves away from focusing on the prescriptive process-driven agenda which really highlighted the previous ten years, and even beyond that, in government. I am looking forward to working with the member on that. I hope that addressed the question.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for providing some clarification. However, in his response…. I still want to be clear. I know in our New Era document there was the commitment to reduce regulation and red tape by one-third. I am wondering if the minister is able at this time to provide us with how that criteria will be measured. Is the one-third regulation based on the number of dollars that it costs? Will it be determined by the number of statutes in the legislation or sections of legislation, or are there specific regulations that we're looking at? Has that yet been determined? If it hasn't been determined, then I will wait to see when the minister does announce that, but if there is any way the minister can provide clarification on that at this time, it could be very helpful for some of us.

Hon. K. Falcon: Unfortunately, some of that is future policy that is still in the process of being articulated, but what I can say is that we will undertake a very open and transparent measurement. We will also establish time lines and benchmarks so that the member and, of course, all British Columbians can see exactly where we started on our road to regulatory reform and where, in fact, we're going to end up when we're finished. I'm certain that when the announcement is made, which will hopefully happen even before the end of the summer, that will further edify you on that situation.

I. Chong: I think that with that clarification, it also helps to know where we started from, to know where we're going to. Even then, if we establish the goalposts, and we can be measured by that outcome…. I do appreciate that.

With that, hon. Chair, I do want to thank both ministers, the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise and the Minister of State for Deregulation, for their efforts in answering the questions I posed to them this afternoon. I hope I didn't catch them off guard on anything. I also want to thank the staff who've been able to provide information this afternoon. I know that over the course of the next few months and years, there will be opportunities for us to canvass other areas as they progress. With that, I will yield the floor to other members.

R. Lee: I have just one simple question, actually. You know that Canada, in terms of G-8 countries, stands…on research and development. I know that the federal government has some commitment to increase that kind of funding. When I see this estimate, I see the science and technology fund, which is supposed to be a fund to encourage research and development. Now I see a reduction in the funding. Can the minister provide some information on how that can be done?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Thanks to that member for that question. I know that this member not only has a great passion for the science and technology sector but, in fact, he's one of British Columbia's experts in this field, so I appreciate the question.

The very minor downward adjustment, just under $1 million, is the result of an $804,000 reduction, basically because the Science Council of B.C. had been deemed by Treasury Board to have a larger going-forward surplus. Therefore the funding was cut for this fiscal year.

More than the funding, let me tell you what is important as our government moves forward. Some would measure support in funding. I would suggest that the science and technology sector of British Columbia will want to consider measuring it by commitment and leadership of this government. In fact, the Premier will very shortly be announcing his technology advisory committee to advise him. They will report directly to the Premier. I will be working, along with my staff, with the Premier's office on that initiative.

We have a strong, strong belief that the science and technology fields of British Columbia have done very well to date but are positioned to grow at a very rapid rate as we go forward. That is why, on the second day of our government, we made a substantial cut in

personal income taxes, an average of 25 percent across the board. We were told by the industry and the sector that it was very important to do that to make sure that we not only were able to attract the brightest and best but were able to keep them here in British Columbia.

Secondly, we have reduced business taxes. We have also heard from the science and technology community and have reduced corporate capital tax, which they had told us was a severe penalty placed not only on their sector but on all sectors of British Columbia and which inhibited their growth.

As we move forward, we believe that with the cut in personal taxes and the cut in business taxes, along with the commitment from the Premier and my ministry, the industry is going to find our government very, very supportive. We will continue to increase our work and our commitment to work with the federal government of Canada on R and D policy. It is our goal to be the leading science and technology province in Canada.

R. Lee: I think that my concern is…. For example, I talked to the Health Planning ministry. They don't have any idea on how to increase research into medical equipment. In one area, for example, the positron emission tomography technology, we used to be at the top, you know, among the world. But now we are falling behind in terms of research and development and in terms of building new machines. So I think that with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise we have a perfect opportunity. If we can develop in science and applied technology, transfer the technology into the private sector and increase our competitive edge in the world, then enterprise can be developed.

I think this is a perfect ministry to do scientific research and then apply it in the real world. I would like to see some of the research reflected in your ministry — for example, building the information highway that will lead into a new era.

R. Lee: For example, the information technology could be reflected in your ministry. I know that the Premier is obviously looking into the high-tech sector. But I don't understand how the responsibilities are going to be allocated in terms of the ministry and the Premier's office. Can the minister provide some information on that?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I understand the member's question. We have the technology side; we have the science side. We're going through a core review. There's no question that we have fallen behind in British Columbia, as the member has pointed out. We are committed to regrouping, consolidating and moving forward. We think it's important to work very closely with the private sector in this field. In that regard I would welcome the member's input, based on his background, in working with our ministry, to ensure that we capture his expertise as we move forward.

I want to just reassure not only the member but British Columbians that the Premier and the government are committed to science and technology going forward. We're committed to being the leader. We're committed to creating a private sector business environment in British Columbia so that our best and brightest can stay here, can grow here and build businesses here. I look forward to the assistance of the member in this area.

Also, I've been remiss, and I just wanted to acknowledge the support of staff here with me: my deputy minister, Don Leitch, and our assistant deputy minister, Doug Callbeck. They are with me today. Their support through this process has been greatly appreciated. As important are all the people from the ministry who have worked so hard in putting all of our information together. Through Doug and Don I wanted to thank all the members of our ministry staff.

R. Lee: It's just come to my mind that there's another question. I think the B.C. Trade and Investment Office also handles the office overseas. Is that correct?

R. Lee: Is there any accountability process for the performance of the overseas offices?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I can't talk about the past. But let me tell you that the information I've received from the private sector of British Columbia that has travelled abroad into our various offices…. They have made a point of getting in touch with me to tell me that our staff — albeit a very small staff in overseas locations — have been most helpful in not only arranging meetings and contacts but also helping develop business. In particular, our forest industry has told me that our offices have been very supportive. Our tourism industry has told me that our offices have been very supportive. Our wine industry has told me that our offices have been very supportive.

What we will be doing as we go through our core review of our ministry in the next few months is to ensure that we have our strategic assets aligned properly to complement our strategic goals. We are committed to building trade for British Columbia abroad, obviously. Therefore, that means that in those key strategic markets, as we look forward, we have to ensure that we have the proper deployment of both human and financial resources to accomplish those goals. As I say, that will be unfolding over the next few months.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I move that the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.