Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 14 -- Thursday August 9, 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		1405

Tabling Documents		1410
	Auditor general, 2001-02 report, Transportation in Greater Vancouver: A Review of Agreements Between the Province and TransLink and of TransLink's Governance Structure

Oral Questions
	Applications by nurses to work in B.C.	1410
	J. MacPhail
	Health care funding and growth of B.C. economy	1415
	J. Kwan
	Access to public schools	1415
	H. Bloy
	Settlement of nurses' and health professionals' disputes	1420
	J. Kwan
	Malahat highway safety review	1420
	B. Kerr

Tabling Documents		1425
	Science Council of British Columbia, annual report
	British Columbia Wine Institute, annual report
	Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority, annual report
	British Columbia Buildings Corporation, annual report
	Agriculture, Food and Fisheries ministry, annual performance report
	British Columbia Heritage Trust, annual report
	Fisheries Renewal B.C., annual report
	Tourism British Columbia, annual report
	Public Accounts of province of British Columbia for fiscal year ended March 31, 2001

Motions on Notice
	Appointment of special committee to review the police complaint process. Hon. R. Coleman	1425

Proceedings in Section B


Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act (Bill 15). Hon. G. Bruce
	Committee stage	1430
	J. MacPhail
	Third reading	1550

Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 5)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Collins	1600
	J. MacPhail	1610
	Hon. G. Collins	1650

Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 2). Hon. G. Collins
	Committee stage	1720
	Third reading	1725

Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 3). Hon. G. Collins
	Committee stage	1725
	Third reading	1725

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 11).
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Plant	1730
	Hon. G. Collins	1740
	J. MacPhail	1740

Royal assent to bills		1750
	School (Protection of Parent Volunteers) Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 8)
	Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act (Bill 15)

Proceedings in Section A

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Advanced Education estimates. Hon. S. Bond
	Vote 10: Ministry operations	1430
	J. Kwan
	Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations estimates. Hon. G. Plant
	Vote 15: Ministry operations	1510
	Hon. G. Plant
	Vote 16: Treaty negotiations office	1535
	J. Kwan
	Vote 17: Statutory services	1615
	Vote 18: Judiciary	1615
	Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries estimates. Hon. J. van Dongen
	Vote 11: Ministry operations	1620
	Hon. J. van Dongen
	I. Chong
	B. Penner
	R. Masi
	Vote 12: Fisheries Renewal B.C.	1705
	Vote 13: British Columbia Marketing Board	1705
	Vote 14: Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority	1705
	Ministry of Transportation estimates. Hon. J. Reid
	Vote 45: Ministry operations	1710
	Hon. J. Reid
	D. Jarvis
	B. Penner
	Vote 46: Public transit	1740

Hon. T. Nebbeling: We have in the gallery Mr. Abram, who is the president of the UBCM. He is very much involved with the work we are doing to create a community charter that will be a new relationship between provincial and local government. I would like the House to make him welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: I am very pleased to say that the managing director of the government caucus, Sarah Bonner, is with us today. Equally important, or maybe more important than Sarah, she is joined her husband, Patrick, and her mother, Sidney. But more important than that still, she is joined by her one-month-old baby, Annika Elizabeth.

I just want to say that I think this is emblematic of the kind of advance work that our staff do. I know that Ms. Bonner has been spending time with Ms. Clark today to make sure that she's prepared for the days ahead.

Hon. L. Stephens: In the gallery today, visiting from Langley with his family, is a young fellow who both the member for Fort Langley–Aldergrove and I have come to know, respect and enjoy. He is the newspaper reporter for the Langley Advance. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. C. Clark: With little Annika here, I'm thinking that perhaps in 15 years or so our kids could be dating. You never know. Uh-oh, Sarah looks worried.

I'd like to make another introduction, and that is the indispensable assistant in my office named Vicki Yeats. She is joined today by her mother-in-law, June Yeats, her daughter Emily and her son Curtis. I hope the House will please make them all welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my pleasure today to introduce two folks from the East Kootenay who are sitting up here. Faye Street is a longtime rancher in the East Kootenay and has done more for ranching in the East Kootenay than anybody else alive. She's a woman in a man's business, and when she talks, they listen. I guarantee it.

The other person I want to introduce is Carmen Purdy, a dear friend of mine, born and raised in the Kootenays, who has done more for wildlife management in the Kootenays than any other person alive.

Hon. R. Coleman: I join my colleague from Langley in welcoming Jordan Bateman from the Langley Advance. We decided we should get his name into Hansard, because he's such an aficionado, following Hansard while we're sitting in this House. So I'd also like to make Jordan welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm very pleased today to introduce to the House two friends visiting from Langley: Dr. Paul Pearce and his son Jonathan. Would the House please make them welcome today.

D. Hayer: It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Mr. Mohan Kang, president of the B.C. Taxi Association, and his family members visiting from England: Mr. Avtar Hundal, Mrs. Maninder Hundal, their son Amit Hundal and their twin daughters, Kavi Hundal and Navi Hundal. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

Hon. R. Neufeld: It's my pleasure today to introduce in the House my son-in-law Tim Poitras. With him are his sister Cindy MacKenzie and her son Ryle and daughter Teesha from Saskatchewan. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry that this news has leaked out already, and for that I do apologize. But it is with great pleasure today that I wish my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, in her forthcoming wedding on Sunday and her subsequent attempt at a honeymoon…. [Laughter.] I mean logistically. I mean logistically. [Laughter.] I think she has performed adequately today.

K. Krueger: Pretty hard to top that last announcement, but I would like to introduce Al and June Bush, salt-of-the-earth people from the beautiful community of Barrière in my constituency. Would the House please make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the auditor general's 2001-02 report No. 2, Transportation in Greater Vancouver: A Review of Agreements Between the Province and TransLink and of TransLink's Governance Structure.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health Services told the House that since the offer the nurses overwhelmingly rejected was put on the table, the number of nurses applying to work here in British Columbia was significantly up over the same period last year. Will the minister today please table the source he used to make this claim — the specific number of nurses that have applied and the time period in which he has seen the increase in applications?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I am so surprised that this member is asking the question, when we know that in 1996 we had 703 graduates in B.C. and under the NDP, in 1999, we had 567. It's absolutely amazing that she's talking about nurses when we know that they cut training programs and they cut places for nurses around the province.

The RNABC has reported that the applications for nurses from out-of-country are up 101 percent overall. There have been 285 applications from other provinces, 180 of which so far this year are from Alberta and Ontario. So in fact nurses from around the world and across the country are interested in coming to B.C. Guess what. We're also giving them the best benefit and compensation package in Canada on top of tax cuts that were announced.

J. MacPhail: Those statistics were actually published a few weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun in a letter to the editor. The specific claim that the Minister for Health Services made was that since the offer had been rejected by the nurses…. In fact, no. I'm sorry. "Since the legislation was tabled," was exactly what the Minister of Health Services specifically said. So the statistics being offered have already been reported. We're seeking new information.

Let me just give you some new information, if I may. I want to read a statement that was just made today for the benefit…. This is actually useful for the government. It's made by Kathleen Connors, the president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions, and she writes to nurses around the country: "The health care services agreement is a slap in the face to British Columbia nurses. Imposing a settlement rejected by.…"

J. MacPhail: Yes, you know what? It is a body that represents working people. It isn't someone who sits on the progress report or in a board room. You're quite right. That's absolutely right.

"Imposing a settlement rejected by 96 percent of British Columbia Nurses Unions members will do nothing to create an atmosphere of respect for nurses. Such a draconian measure will not recruit nurses from elsewhere in Canada or the world to relocate to British Columbia."

J. MacPhail: One more paragraph, Mr. Speaker: "The Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions continues to stand in unity with BCNU. We will encourage our members to think twice about working in a province which will not negotiate or listen to nurses." Again, to the Minister of Health Services. He said that nurse applications to this province are significantly up as a result of his government actions yesterday. Where is his evidence, and will he table it today?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is not quoting me accurately. That is not what I said yesterday, and she can go back and check the Hansard on that. The bottom line is that the offer that the nurses rejected by 96 percent was the offer that her government put on the table during the middle of an election campaign, including the so-called concessions that were put on the table by her government. What is being legislated, what is being put in this collective agreement is the best wage and benefit package of any province in Canada in terms of what nurses will be earning. We think that's a very fair offer.

Nurses in British Columbia will be earning the best wage and benefit package in all of Canada.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Health Services must have selective amnesia, because during the election campaign he actually signed the petition agreeing to take the concessions off the table, which he has refused to do to date. This government has frozen health care spending and is tying the future of health care spending to economic growth. No one will accept the Minister of Finance's 3.8 percent growth forecast for next year, not even his own forecast council. Maybe the Minister of Finance is consulting an astrologer; I don't know.

The minister is playing a high-stakes poker game with health care spending, betting its future on the growth that no one believes is actually achievable. Will the minister fold his cards, walk away from the table and commit to increasing funding for health care next year, even if it doesn't hit a growth target?

Hon. G. Collins: The forecast that is in the minibudget that we introduced on Monday is for GDP growth of 3.8 percent next year. Prior to any of those tax cuts being made public, prior to any of that being out there in the public, the forecast of the independent group was 3.2 percent. So a 0.6 percent increase is not astronomical nor astrological, according to the member opposite. In fact, it's a reasonable forecast. We expect to be able to deliver on that, and if it sounds so outrageous, even in the terrible economic and investment climate that the members opposite created in the province, last year our economy grew by an astonishing, astrological figure of 3.8 percent. I think we can manage that, Mr. Speaker.

I know that we'll do just fine in British Columbia. We are on track for record economic growth in the years ahead. British Columbia is doing very well. As the economy grows, we'll be able to put more money into health care and more money into education in a sustainable way not the way this government has done it in the past.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant with a supplemental question.

J. Kwan: If the minister is so confident with his number, why doesn't he just say: "Yes, I'll commit to ensuring that the growth forecast will be added to the Health budget for next year"? If the minister won't commit to increasing the funding for health care, will he at least commit to forgoing 20 percent of his salary, as he has asked other ministers to do, if he does not hit the 3.8 percent growth target?

Hon. G. Collins: The legislation that's before the House — which I know the members opposite don't like — that has to do with individual ministerial accountability will have measures that individual members are required to meet, both on spending side and other measures that will be set by Treasury Board. Although I'm not sure they have, I'm sure they're capable of reading the legislation, and when they get around to reading the legislation, they'll see the most progressive accountability legislation in Canada that will make sure this province continues to do great in the years ahead.

H. Bloy: My question is to the Minister of Education. In outlining her plans for the public school system, the minister spoke of the concept of establishing magnet schools that offer specialized programs to students with different needs and interests. However, many of my constituents who have children in the public school system are concerned that this could result in school boards eliminating local catchment areas. Can the minister please tell the concerned citizens in my constituency if magnet schools will result in students no longer being able to attend their local neighbourhood school?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I think in British Columbia we should learn from what's worked in other jurisdictions, where they've ensured that children who are attending neighbourhood schools always have first crack at being able to enrol in those neighbourhood schools We do not want to create a system in British Columbia where a child who lives next door to a school can no longer attend that school. That's the first thing.

The second thing is: let's remember what we're trying to do here. When we're creating choice in the public school system, we're ensuring that parents and children can access the kind of education that suits their needs. Every single child is different; every child learns differently. Therefore, schools should be different. That's the way we'll meet their needs. That's what choice is about: putting children back at the centre of our educational agenda.

H. Bloy: Another concern among my constituents is that magnet schools will pull students away from their local schools. The situation could result in further aggravating hardships that many students face in underprivileged communities. Can the minister tell my constituents how she intends to support schools in underprivileged areas from losing students and suffering further hardships?

Hon. C. Clark: The member is absolutely right: schools that are underperforming should be doing better. The children that attend those schools deserve to have those schools do better. For the first time in ten years we have a government that is finally interested in seeing how well schools and school districts perform. That's why during the election we said we would bring in measures of accountability, we would bring in standards, and we would start demanding success of our schools and our school districts. That's why we will be going out and signing accountability contracts with every school district.

We will know how well schools are doing. When schools aren't doing well, when they are underperforming, we will make those results public. We will make sure that school boards address the needs of those schools. There is no reason that a parent anywhere in British Columbia should be forced to send their…school that is less able to educate their children than a parent who just happens to be lucky enough to live in a different neighbourhood.

J. Kwan: Yesterday we asked this government about its secret plan, the secret contingency plan to keep the health care system from descending into chaos as a result of the forced settlement that this government is bringing for nurses and health care professionals. The people of British Columbia did not get an answer yesterday. Perhaps the question was too broad.

To the Minister of Labour: will the Minister of Labour inform this House specifically what contingency plan he has in place to ensure that health care services are provided to the people of the Kootenays if nurses there resign as a result of the forced settlement?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I think it's incumbent on all of us to encourage all health care professionals in British Columbia to start looking at putting patient care first, which overwhelmingly they are. If you start looking around the province, there are some examples of nurses who are on information picket lines today. They are not interrupting patient care. It is a legitimate form of protest for them to provide information to people coming and going from our health care facilities. But overwhelmingly, in British Columbia the vast, vast majority of nurses are on the job providing care.

I am confident that once we get through this stage, we can get back to providing a good health care system. But if there are problems that develop, we do have those contingency plans to make sure that British Columbians can get the care that they need.

B. Kerr: The Malahat corridor of the Trans-Canada Highway is a very dangerous section of highway. It has been the cause of many serious accidents over the past few years. I understand that the ministry has now completed a review of that section of the highway, so my question is to the Minister of Transportation: will the minister please inform my constituents, and indeed all the travellers of that highway, what actions the ministry will be taking to improve safety in that section of the highway?

Hon. J. Reid: That section of the Malahat has been identified for many years as being very dangerous. Over the last two years there were four tragic fatalities in that area. Yes, it has been reviewed, and we are taking action on that. There are 1.5 kilometres that we're going to be addressing. The whole 1.5 kilometres will be widened, and about half of that will have a cement median barrier put in to protect people from head-on collisions that have caused these fatalities. That work is going to be starting immediately, and we ask people to be patient while that work is in progress.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the annual reports for the year 2000-01 for the Science Council of B.C., the B.C. Wine Institute, the Okanagan Valley Tree Fruit Authority and the B.C. Buildings Corporation; the annual performance report for the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries; the B.C. Heritage Trust annual report; the Fisheries Renewal B.C. annual report; and the annual report for Tourism British Columbia.

I have the honour to present the Public Accounts of the province of British Columbia for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001.

By leave I move that the Public Accounts for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2001, be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the motion standing in my name in orders of the day.

The motion would appoint a special committee to review and make recommendations respecting the police complaint process in part 9 of the Police Act. The appointment of this committee is in accordance with a provision of the Police Act which requires that a special committee be appointed to review part 9.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 15, and in Committee A, I call Committee of Supply.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, we'll be going through a series of questions — perhaps not quite as detailed as the questions under section 2, but certainly we require some substantial information around the paramedical bargaining association. On section 3(1)(a), the collective agreement that expired on March 31, 2001, encompassed…. Could the minister repeat the unions that are affected by that bargaining association, just for my benefit, please?

Hon. G. Bruce: That would be the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union, B.C. Nurses Union, Canadian Union of Public Employees, Hospital Employees Union, Health Sciences Association, Professional Employees Association and United Food and Commercial Workers Union.

J. MacPhail: When the minister met by teleconference, I think it was…. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there was a teleconference the minister held with the paramedical bargaining association. I think that was on August 6; he could probably confirm that for me as well. Did the paramedical bargaining association choose who attended that teleconference, or was it by invitation of the minister?

Hon. G. Bruce: We did that through the mediator — that was Stephen Kelleher — to arrange that conference call.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister — I don't know the answers to these questions; it's not one of these things where you only ask the questions you know the answers to — tell us, to the best of his knowledge, who was on that conference call in terms of unions represented?

Hon. G. Bruce: Along with Mr. Kelleher, who was part of that conversation, were Cindy Stewart, who is

J. MacPhail: I'm actually going to slip into 3(1)(b), just for edification, where it says that the provisions that have been negotiated and agreed upon now form part of the collective agreement. What role, if any, did the special mediator, Mr. Kelleher, play in determining the package that would be legislated under 3(1)(b)? That's part A of that question. Part B is: again, how does one in that set of bargaining determine what has been agreed upon and signed off, for lack of a better term?

Hon. G. Bruce: First of all, to be certain, the mediator didn't play any role in the determination of this final piece of legislation here.

Hon. G. Bruce: I say that the mediator didn't actually play any role in the final determination of this legislation. But in regards to the issues that had been resolved, the mediator had been part of that process. There were also issues agreed to between the HSA and the employer. Those particular issues are also embodied in this legislation; they've been agreed to.

J. MacPhail: I think Mr. Kelleher was appointed as a special mediator pursuant to the Labour Relations Code. What authority did Mr. Kelleher exercise during this round of bargaining? Did he actually conduct bargaining since his appointment? Did he also conduct bargaining since the imposition of Bill 2, the cooling-off legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just so that there is no confusion, prior to the cooling-off he was a private mediator, asked by both parties. Once we invoked the cooling-off, he was then appointed through the ministry with the power to try and bring the parties together to come up with a negotiated settlement.

J. MacPhail: Did the special mediator, in his capacity as a special mediator pursuant to the Labour Relations Code, make either a verbal or a written report to the minister?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, as a special mediator he made a report, on my request, on the issues outstanding and the distance that they were apart. I believe the Health Sciences Association has published that on its web page.

J. MacPhail: Did the Minister of Labour rely on that report in determining to impose the last employer offer on the paramedical professional bargaining association?

Hon. G. Bruce: As part of my determination as to where the parties were in this negotiation, I used that as a basis for some of the required information. It was clear from what Mr. Kelleher reported that the parties were very far apart.

J. MacPhail: Did Mr. Kelleher's advice to you have costing of the two proposals included in it?

J. MacPhail: The special mediator's involvement: was it ever discussed at any time about the special mediator making binding recommendations — that both parties would agree that the special mediator could make binding recommendations?

J. MacPhail: On the matters that are outstanding, the minister has referred that the parties were very far apart. We spent quite a bit of time this morning talking about the distance between the parties in the nurses bargaining association and the Health Employers Association. I'm sure both the minister and I learned a great deal from each other's comments this morning, so we can probably short-circuit the discussion now. Let me just ask a series of questions, and the staff may be able to do it while he and I talk about other issues.

What is the total wage bill — benefits and wages, or whatever number you're using for the total compensation bill — for the paramedical professionals' bargaining unit? What is the employer's proposal cost? And what is the union's wage package cost of the last compensation proposal that they made? This morning he and I were talking about it in terms of cumulative and incremental, and I'd appreciate that information as well.

Hon. G. Bruce: The total compensation base for this group, prior to this settlement, is $571.09 million. Call it $572 million. The total cumulative cost of this three-year agreement is $135.2 million. The latest union three-year demand came in at $417 million. So the difference between the two parties — the cumulative difference between the employer's offer and the paramedicals' — was $282 million. What this legislation does is put into place an increase — a cumulative total of three years — of $135 million. What the other party was looking for was an additional $282 million on top of that.

J. MacPhail: Maybe we can just agree that even though it was a teleconference, it was a meeting, because that's 2001 — right? At the meeting that the minister had with the paramedical bargaining association, was there any discussion about different, perhaps opposing, views between the employer's costing and the bargaining association's costing — on the same matters, not on different matters?

Hon. G. Bruce: To the best of my ability, yes, there was, mostly on non-wage matters — things like LTD, the splits of the fact of 5.5 and the 14.5. Yes, I believe there was.

J. MacPhail: Was there any discussion between the bargaining association and the minister about trying to provide information both ways to resolve those differences? And what was the time line for delivering on that commitment, both ways?

Hon. G. Bruce: Prior to that conversation there had been some discussion around cost differences, and we'd had a member doing some costing for us to try and make sure that we were all talking apples and apples and not apples to oranges. Prior to the conversation that information had been provided to the HSA.

J. MacPhail: Again, I think this is for the public record. It may be from the website of the HSA, actually. But it was my understanding that the paramedical bargaining association assumed that work was ongoing with the minister — not with the employer but with the minister — in trying to work out the differences and reach a common understanding of the costing of the two proposals.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, in fact we did find some discrepancies, differences. That's why we were doing this. It came down to the simple fact that even though there were discrepancies in which numbers you wanted to choose, the amount of money still outstanding — if you went with one set of numbers versus the other — was still a cumulative of $151 million. There wasn't anything definitive as to which one was absolutely correct. What we were trying to do was make sure that in what had been proposed, we weren't missing an opportunity here to get a negotiated settlement. But a cumulative total of difference on the bottom end of $151 million was still far, far apart in regards to where the parties were at.

J. MacPhail: Again, this legislation addresses two separate sets of negotiations, and both sets of negotiations have very distinct aspects to them. I think it's important, as the minister is doing, to treat them with respect as separate sets of negotiations. I appreciate the fact that he's doing that. That's why I'm exploring in detail this separate conversation that the minister had.

Part of the frustration that's being expressed out there, particularly by the paramedical bargaining association, who have taken a different approach…. They've had a very distinct approach to their bargaining as well. They took the unprecedented action of withdrawing their labour during the cooling-off period. They've never, ever, done that before. In fact, in their whole bargaining history they've only withdrawn their labour any time for five days in total. But they took the unprecedented action of withdrawing their labour in what the courts…. It got to the extent that the employer was actually saying it was illegal and had taken them to court.

Their members are expressing, I think, even more frustration about what they had hoped would continue on in the form of negotiations in the course of the last two or three days, and part of that hope, which they would now claim is dashed, was because of the useful meeting they had with the Minister of Labour.

On July 27 the chief negotiator for the Health Sciences Association representing the paramedical bargaining association wrote to the special mediator. I'm sure the Minister of Labour has a copy of this, and if he doesn't, I can give him a copy of the document I'm referring to. In that document the elements of the costing become very key. Honestly, I don't mind providing a copy if the minister doesn't have it available. If I had some help…. Just kidding. The issue of costing is very key. It almost sounds as if there would be hope, even today, that those elements of the dispute could be worked out.

I'm just wondering if the minister can give any comfort. I guess the comfort could come first and foremost by standing down this particular section, but I expect that won't be the answer, although that would be very good news. This particular bargaining unit has shown a willingness to work these issues through, and now those hopes have been dashed. Is there anything we can hold out for the members that perhaps we could get back on track, short of having the employer proposal — with which they disagree — imposed?

Hon. G. Bruce: The paramedicals…. As you well know, negotiation has the ebb and flow of everything that goes on. I think it was the third week of July — I haven't got the date exactly; the third or fourth week of July — that they made another proposal. I think that resulted in coming from a 24 percent to a 20 percent reduction, and then I think there was an add-in of another 2 percent. I think the bottom line was about 22 percent, so they'd moved about two points. You read all of those tea leaves, if you like, as to whether or not there's really serious movement, particularly when one has started so high in their initial bargaining position.

With that and then combined with the mediator's report and the conversation on the telephone — the meeting we had — it was really clear to me that there wasn't really an appetite to go any further. What I was really hoping was that I could find some way in this arrangement, this negotiation, to fashion a deal which would fly. But when parties are that far apart and you start trying to do that, you can almost be a detriment to moving the whole issue along. There clearly wasn't any, as I think I termed it, light in the tunnel to put that together.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps we can find some way by communicating through this discussion about why it works for health sciences professionals to accept the employer proposal. Just to take a moment to talk about the health sciences professionals…. It's a group of

health care professionals with whom I've virtually not had much experience in terms of health care delivery. But I have come to know the services they provide as key in almost every area as the nursing professionals, and in some areas even more key, to maintaining smooth delivery of health care. It's also important to not pit the one bargaining unit against the other. By any stretch of the imagination, one can only say that both are incredibly invaluable to the health care delivery system.

Having said that, historically nurses have taken a much higher profile in asserting their employment conditions in a public fashion. I think patients themselves may not know in some circumstances whether the person arriving at their bedside is a health sciences professional or a nurse. The Health Sciences Association has all of a sudden come into the fore by virtue of the dispute that they now find themselves in. On one level, that's excellent news because I know all sorts of young women and men who are now saying "Wow, that's an interesting job, and I want to get into it." That's good news for us as a province.

But because they are playing catch-up in terms of public perception of the value that they contribute, it's been difficult for the Health Sciences Association to make their case about how valuable they are. No one inside the system disputes how valuable they are, but the public is saying: "What is that job title you have? How does that contribute to the health care system?" Perhaps part of the frustration that the health sciences professionals are feeling right now is an explanation of the true value of the contribution they make to the system.

We need to examine carefully why the employer proposal being unilaterally selected made sense in terms of the health care delivery system. It is my understanding, from information received from labour market surveys, that in certain areas the shortages for health sciences professionals and the ability to retain health sciences professionals exceed those of nurses. I assume that's the justification for the employer to give some people 14 percent and some people 5.5 percent. However, it's also my understanding that each and every category of the health sciences professionals is either now in a shortage or very shortly will be in a shortage and that the competition across the country is the same for their categories as well. That's background for the following questions.

How does the acceptance of the Health Employers Association proposal around, let's say, long-term disability…? Again, this is a situation of almost double negatives. By accepting the Health Employers Association proposal on long-term disability, a very important item for the health sciences proposal, the government is virtually saying no to the health sciences union. So an employer proposal on long-term disability is that the union gives up its proposal. That's how I read it.

That was an area where employees across the board could be valued equitably and treated equitably. The employer had already created a tension in the bargaining unit by giving some people 5.5 percent and some people 14 percent, and that really created a huge tension — justifiably so, if you ask me. But the long-term disability proposal being accepted could have gone a long way to smoothing that over. As I understand it, that proposal is now completely lost by the forcing of the employer's proposal on them.

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it is very important that through the discussion that takes place here today we get some understanding of who paramedicals are. It's got this name, paramedicals, and what does it mean to the general public? I'm going to take a chance here. I have a little bit of a lisp, and when I start trying to get around what some of these are, I'm not sure I'll make it through here.

The physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, profusionists, medical technologists, medical radiation technologists, nuclear medicine technologists, diagnostic neurophysiology technicians, a diagnostic medical sonographer: that's one grouping of paramedicals. Dietitians, health records admin-istrators, orthotists, prosthetists, psychologists, resp-iratory therapists, social workers, speech/language pathologists, audiologists, electronystagmography technicians, diagnostic technicians, neuromuscular technicians, electrocardiogram technologists, cytotechnologists, electromyography technicians, visual function assessment unit technicians: that was the second body.

Now, in spite of all these names and in the aspect of a little bit of humour, I'm sure they all have two arms, two legs and are great human beings in the province of British Columbia. But those names and what they actually do in each one of their fields…. I wouldn't be able to answer that to you. However, I think, moving from there, those two bodies…. The first group that I mentioned are considered as a group — the physiotherapists to the sonographer. That particular body represents about 60 percent of the paramedical employees. The other group represents about 40 percent of the paramedical employees.

It's that first group that we are talking about, which would receive up to a 14.5 percent increase over the course of the collective agreement, where the other group would be a 5.5 percent increase over the course of the collective agreement.

Now, let's keep in mind what all of that means. It's already accepted that the paramedicals in British Columbia are the highest paid. Their total compensation package is, I think, indisputably the highest pay package in Canada. Again, they receive the highest mileage rates in Canada and the highest on-call premiums in the country. There's increased funding for professional development. They're among the national leaders in shift and weekend premiums. They have the highest-paid leave and health and welfare benefits in Canada. They also have the maintenance of the highest vacation entitlements in Canada, with which, if my memory serves me correctly, a first-year person would receive four weeks of vacation time. This entire

package, to be clear, has a cumulative cost over the three years of $135 million.

With respect to the LTD which was moved off the table — this is the long-term disability plan — that was a $30 million request. The long-term disability plan had been an employee-run LTD. It was and is in difficulty. They were the ones that were running it and, I think, ought to be responsible for cleaning that up. That's why that was left with them.

All in all, although these names are tongue twisters to some, it's a very diverse group of people, extremely important to the health care system in the province. The legislated settlement will give them and keep them in the role of having the highest-paid compensation package in Canada. If we're looking again at the issue of retention and training or bringing more here, certainly British Columbia has a very attractive package relative to anywhere else in Canada.

We've spoken about the U.S. call or train that people look at. There's that whole different lifestyle and marketplace in the medical profession, if you like, that you would find yourself in, in the U.S. if you were to move there. I think we're in good stead there. I think it comes down, again, to the fact that if we can get past this part of the issue, understand the frustration that people have had throughout this negotiating process and move on to really rebuild the health care system, in both instances — but this one specifically, as we're dealing with it — we're on good ground to keep and attract others to British Columbia once they fully appreciate and understand what's in the package.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's a very useful and laudable goal. The only problem is that we differ on how to reach that, and that's what we're discussing here today.

In this particular set of bargaining for the paramedical bargaining association, they are expressing a great deal of frustration that's very unique to them for this reason. Correct me if I'm wrong. I could be wrong on this, but I don't think I am. There were literally six very minor items that had been agreed upon before the government forced this settlement on them. Those items are of a fairly minor nature: parental leave, shift posting, housekeeping items, temporary assignments, provision of the wage schedule to move it to two decimal places as opposed to one, and shift premium. Even at that, there were some outstanding items around shift premiums. Virtually everything else was outstanding.

On that basis, by virtue of setting aside the use of the special mediator, by virtue of not implementing legislation that, while it certainly would be less than satisfactory, did not include a third-party mechanism for settlement, the paramedical bargaining association is left with virtually every proposal but six being given to the employer. And I use that language advisedly — "given" — because it was. It was merely that the employer's proposal was taken and legislated.

Here's the particular danger in this situation, if I could. What is the future of bargaining in this province? If indeed it simply means that an employer says: "I'm going to hold out; I'm not going to move. I'm not going to make any changes or compromise or reach consensus, because I'm pretty much guaranteed that my side will be imposed." That, in fact, is what has really happened to the Health Sciences Association.

I would put it to the minister that all of the concerns around tensions building up by the government choosing a winner and imposing a loser are exacerbated in the paramedical bargaining association by virtue of the incredible imbalance in meeting the needs of the workers over the employer.

Hon. G. Bruce: A couple of points. First of all, if I can, there were a number of agreed-upon proposals from both the employer — the HEABC, that is — and the paramedicals. The provisions of the wage schedule that you mentioned were agreed upon. Housekeeping, temporary assignments, effective termination dates, levelling, shift posting, transportation allowance and travel expense, callback, workers compensation, entitlement to leave, night and weekend shift premium, parental leave, Healthcare Labour Adjustment Agency funding and letter of understanding were agreed to as well.

The outstanding issues, I think it's important to note, were virtually all dollars-and-cents, cost allowance, issues. We were right starting in this negotiation from the standpoint that this particular bargaining unit, this group, was already the highest-paid in Canada. Their initial offer, their initial proposal as they held to it, really put them in a position where they were looking for far more than what was reasonable at this point.

The other thing that it's important to note, too, as we talk about this is that just prior to the cooling-off period, the paramedicals had at that point decided, for whatever reason, that they were going to start to undertake some job action. That caused me great consternation. They were talking about job action taking place on, I think, the Monday, ramping up and escalating to pretty much a full shutdown by the Friday. This would be 50-some-odd days ago.

That was very much a major factor in our determining to bring in a cooling-off. Then unfortunately, they took it upon themselves to actually defy the law. They were breaking the law of the province. I think that's very serious when one looks at how our democracy works, albeit that people may not like certain things. Breaking the law is not something that British Columbians or Canadians accept or take lightly. It was unfortunate that they took that step.

The fact of the matter, when you still come back to the long and short of it, is the 5.5 percent that one group of that negotiating body is going to receive, up to the 14.5 percent. We're talking multimillion dollars. We've maintained and sustained them in the ranking as the highest-paid in their field in Canada.

I appreciate that there may be frustrations with how the negotiations took place. At the end of the day, though, as I mentioned, it's my responsibility at the Ministry of Labour to draw a conclusion. It was clear

that we weren't going…. I mean, what was on the table was already a very, very generous offer — cumulative dollars. So that's what is reflected in the legislation.

J. MacPhail: It is very troubling to note that this bargaining unit has taken action that's been unprecedented within their own contemplation. One of the unions involved in this bargaining association had a constitution that until just a mere decade and a half ago didn't permit them to withdraw their labour at all. It wasn't government legislation; it was their own constitution. They were such dedicated professionals that their own union constitution forbade them to withdraw their labour.

But they also appreciated the complexities of the health care system, the value of free collective bargaining, the value of making points on behalf of patient care, and they changed the constitution. Frankly, it took a huge amount of provocation to have this bargaining unit exercise their ability to withdraw their labour. In the course of them doing that, the government declared that illegal, not by virtue of anything other than fiat from the government. It was a fiat by the government that turned that legitimate withdrawal of labour into an illegal action.

It's with a great deal of sadness that I say that, a great deal of sadness to see how circumstances since June 19 have provoked this bargaining unit into unprecedented action that they hadn't taken in decades. I think it's incumbent upon me, then, to ask the minister to put on the record why he saw fit with this particular paramedical bargaining association…. Why he felt it necessary to advise his cabinet colleagues…. I assume this was his recommendation to the Premier. Why did he advise in this particular situation that further special mediation or further arbitration or third-party resolution wasn't the right avenue to go in this particular circumstance?

Hon. G. Bruce: It was very, very clear that the demands and the offers were…. The difference that we're talking about was huge — multimillions of dollars. There was already an offer of a multimillion dollars on the floor. What is it — $135 million?

Again, this particular negotiation started on January 29 of this year, I think. The party started the whole process. We went all the way through and up to an election. It's very unfortunate in the way these types of negotiations get into the political arena in that respect, but indeed they were there. Expectations built, and at the end of the day we're faced, as a new government, with having to step into a negotiation and try to come up with a resolution to it.

There was just not in this instance — much like the other one, either — the room, the ability to bring the two parties together and say: "Look, I think we can fashion a deal here — multimillions of dollars." So you come back to the…. Although you want to separate — I don't mean you yourself, the member opposite, but as one would look at these things that you have two negotiations taking place…. You have them both in the health sector. The combined total of what we're talking about here, which the taxpayer has to come up with, is what in a cumulative way is approximately $750 million over and above what's already being paid out — a tremendous amount of money. That's what's on the table. It isn't just a little bit more.

Indeed, had there been any sign in the conversation that just a little bit more, in one form or another, was there — there was some way of tweaking — I might have had some way of taking that and trying to fashion a deal. But it was very clear by this party, and certainly by the nurses, that there wasn't anything there to play with. Everybody had their positions. They were locked; it was there. We have a health care system that we need to get on to rebuilding, and what was on the table wasn't something that was second-rate. What was on the table made all of the parties the highest-paid in Canada. It's somewhat ironic that we're here in the House doing this.

J. MacPhail: Was it the minister's belief, after his meeting with the bargaining association on August 6, that there was no more room to move on the part of the bargaining association? Was it the minister's view, after the meeting he had with the bargaining association on August 6, that there was no more room to move on behalf of the union?

Hon. G. Bruce: Just as a point of clarification and a slip of my tongue, I've been talking about 14.5. It's 14.25 — just to have that read into the record.

It was my assessment of the conversations I had had that there was clearly no further room to move. The questions that were asked and the discussion that we had….We were there. It was a situation where the parties were all locked up.

Keep in mind, again, that through this whole cooling-off period I had been very clear, as I mentioned earlier on in this debate, that I was not looking to extend the cooling-off. We were running to the end of the 50 days, and one ought to get on with it if they thought there was a way to negotiate a settlement. We weren't going to go on and on with additional days of cooling off and extending cooling-off periods to facilitate this, unless there was demonstrable movement — real negotiation — happening. It was clear the parties were locked.

J. MacPhail: Why didn't the minister just tell that to the paramedical bargaining association on August 6, then?

Hon. G. Bruce: My point was to have conversations with people, as I did. I didn't just run off at that point after I'd had those conversations; I reflected on what people had to say. In the other instance, I reworked some numbers, wanted to make sure that I had heard…. This was not done in haste; it was done with a tremendous amount of consideration.

J. MacPhail: I was quizzing the minister earlier in the day about how one determines what has been agreed upon under 2(1)(b). As I recall the discussion, it was that most — I'm not sure whether he said all or most — matters have been agreed upon in writing. The reason I was asking that was because I was really trying to figure out how section 4 is going to work.

As I recall from days way gone by — others in the room may recall those same days gone by — sometimes there was what was called package bargaining. You would have a situation where you would have coloured sheets. I'm sure technology has moved on, and no longer are there coloured sheets. If there still are, then we're in big trouble. You would have a package. Green sheets would be the sheets that said "agreed upon," blue sheets for employer proposals and yellow sheets for union proposals. But there would be package bargaining. Sometimes package bargaining would say that we agree to this or this is signed off if that is agreed upon. Very frequently bargaining never concluded until the final, final day on every matter because everything became linked.

I raise this because — I don't want to get into the complexities of bargaining — this clause will be absolutely determining in how the relationship proceeds at the workplace. If this section becomes a section of dispute where everything blows up again, then the tensions increase, and even with the imposition of the employer proposal, there's not resolution.

Hon. G. Bruce: What this does is allow that if there are items, as we're trying to put this thing into final form, that the parties have some dispute over, then we've provided for a process in which there can be clarification and, in the end, determination as to what happens in that instance. There is a listing, as I was reading some of them out to you, of agreed-upon issues that both parties have agreed to which are included in the basis of this contract. This is a mechanism, and you'll notice that subs (1) and (2) apply to each of the respective contracts that we're putting through in legislation here. It's a process to make sure there is a way of determining if there is a dispute.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister, or perhaps the staff that is advising him, have any sense about the clarity of the agreed-upon items under 2(1)(b) and 3(1)(b)? This legislation's been in the public domain for two days. I have no idea whether there's any discussions going on or whether all communication is broken down. Have either of the three parties — the paramedical bargaining association, the Health Employers Association and the nurses bargaining association — come forward and said: "What do you mean? What is the package that's included under 2(1)(b) or 3(1)(b) that would then be subject to 4?"

Hon. G. Bruce: We don't believe there is a situation here that is one that's going to cause the friction that I know you're concerned about and that we all would be concerned about. For the most part, the big issues are very clear. On the small ones that have been agreed to, what this is an attempt to do is if there's an interpretation — you and I both agree on something, and you thought I agreed to something differently than what I thought I agreed to…. So that's the role that either Mr. Ready or Mr. Kelleher would play in determining that interpretation. No, I don't think there's a lot left on the table that would cause a huge dispute in this respect.

J. MacPhail: Well, I need some clarification on subsection 4(3), then. The industrial inquiry commissioner — in this case, Mr. Ready — or the special mediator, Mr. Kelleher, is there to provide clarification. It also seems to me that Mr. Ready and/or Mr. Kelleher have the ability to rule on a dispute, but it doesn't actually say that. They can provide clarification.

Now, that also is qualified. The special mediators and the IIC's ability to rule, to impose clarity, is also qualified by the language in subsection 2(3), which says that despite whatever…. Or is it? Maybe it isn't. Maybe the special mediator and the industrial inquiry commissioner aren't limited by subsection 2(3) — that they have to get sign-off for that clarification by the Minister of Finance. Maybe it isn't.

Hon. G. Bruce: So in reference to subsection 4(3), the role here, as it applies back to subsection 4(1) and subsection 4(2), is that once this is put into place, the parties have got 30 days to come forward with those issues that they are in dispute over. The mediator or the industrial inquiry commissioner, either Mr. Kelleher or Mr. Ready, would then take those disputes. They would take a look at them with both parties and make sure that they could provide the proper clarification and interpretation. But if there had been no clear agreement, then it would just revert to the way the contract had read before.

What that allows for, then, in subsection 2(3) — and I hate to go back — is if the two parties together were HEABC with the nurses or HEABC with the paramedicals, the two parties together who wanted to negotiate something else would be able to do that as long as it didn't have financial implications. If that was the instance, it would have to first be agreed upon by the Minister of Finance. So they are split in duty.

J. MacPhail: Under subsection 4(3) the rulings of the industrial inquiry commissioner or the special mediator become final and binding and are written into the collective agreement, as I understand it. So it's final and binding.

Hon. G. Bruce: Either of the gentlemen, Mr. Ready or Mr. Kelleher, has in this act the power to clarify. That's what they have. That's what's been vested in them here. It's the power to clarify.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's interesting, and actually that is what the language says. When something is in dispute — and clearly the matters that will be referred to them are matters that someone had thought were agreed upon and that now someone says are in dispute…. You've got a bit of a conflict there just by invoking the clause. One party gets to decide whether it's in dispute or not. Fair enough. That's what a dispute is about.

But if a matter that had been in the agreed-upon section now gets referred to the special mediator, the IIC, because one party says it's in dispute, doesn't that open up a whole can of worms? Why would this clause even be needed? This is again why I worry about the haste and the unilateral enforcement of this. Why is this clause even needed? Either a matter is agreed upon or it isn't.

Here's what I see happening. The employer may be feeling pretty cocky these days, because frankly, this is their proposal. They got everything that they wanted. They woke up on August 7, and it was a great day for health employers in this province and a very sad day for the people who deliver the services in the province, because the employer proposal was imposed and forced on the workers.

Why couldn't you take time to actually get clarity on what was agreed upon? Why is it up in the air?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't think that I would ever categorize seven months of negotiation as something being done in haste. We had 50 days of cooling off, and we'd come to the point where, as I mentioned earlier, it was clear the parties had locked up. Nothing was going anywhere.

Now, what this section does…. We don't believe there's a lot of dispute out there in respect to what's being put in place here. It would absolutely be wonderful if both you and I could know that what we've agreed to, we've agreed to, when we're in a negotiation. We think that it's very clear. What we're allowing for is the provision where you think you heard me say something that I thought was different. What we have is a third party there — in this instance, either Mr. Kelleher or Mr. Ready — to simply say: "No, that was not agreed upon," or "Yes, that was agreed upon, and this is the interpretation."

Now, I don't expect that there's a flood of issues out there. I really don't. This is really dealing more with the interpretation of what one group thought they had agreed to with the other. This is not moving into a whole process of negotiation and arbitration.

J. MacPhail: Let me just put on the record, then, my concerns. Perhaps the government can take my concerns under advisement as this process continues on what will be a very rocky road.

I am concerned about this clause. I am concerned that this clause will be used as a tool to further provoke a tense situation or further provoke the enforcement of one side's interests over another. I hope that's not the case. I certainly have the greatest, greatest of faith in Mr. Kelleher and Mr. Ready. However, let me just say that I regret the fact that it is a piece of legislation that has been hastily brought forward in a way that many interpret as unbalanced and unfair. This clause may be used as either a shield or a weapon — either one — and both would be unfortunate.

I also wonder why, if the IIC and the special mediator are given this responsibility, their responsibilities couldn't have just been expanded to arbitrate on the entire matter or settle it. But I've made that point over and over again. So I put it to the government that it will be their responsibility to see that the parties invoke this clause fairly and that it not be used in an aggressive way.

What I mean by that is that employees who are already in despair over the lack of consideration of their proposals will be terribly, terribly concerned if indeed the employer decides that there are items that others thought were agreed upon and that are now not agreed upon. By the same token, it would be terribly, terribly unfair if items that had been part of a package — and that package wasn't included in here — then became a single, agreed-upon item to the detriment of the employees.

Hon. G. Bruce: I can assure you that this will not be used in a provocative manner. In our estimation, it's very clear. It's a mechanism so that…. The items you're talking about are really non-monetary items of

interpretation. I think it is prudent to have a clause like that in there so that if there is some misinterpretation that one has from the other, there's a process for that to be cleared up with.

Let's keep in mind that this is a piece of legislation that for all intents and purposes provides for both parties to have the highest-paid total compensation package in Canada. What we're doing here is trying to bring some finality to what has been a very long, protracted and frustrating negotiation. No one would hope more than I that we would find a way from here to start rebuilding the health care process — keeping in mind, albeit, that this is not the way we wish to end disputes. But in fact it does give both of the parties a compensation package that makes them the highest paid in Canada. This particular clause, as I mentioned, is just that: a tool for clarification. The bigger issues were settled.

J. MacPhail: Was the proposal from the nurses bargaining association, as I recall, for a two-year proposal?

Hon. G. Bruce: Originally it had been two, but in their last days they were talking three.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, you did note, on section 5, nay on division. Thank you.

I referred to this earlier, about when this becomes law. It could be just that I forget how one does this, but how does this become law? When is it the law of the land? When is the collective agreement imposed?

Hon. G. Bruce: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 15, Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, reported complete without amendments.

Bill 15, Health Care Services Collective Agreements Act, read a third time and passed on the following division:

	YEAS — 68

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
J. Reid	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Roddick
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Bell	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Trumper	Johnston
R. Stewart	Hayer	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 2

MacPhail		Kwan

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading of Bill 5.Perhaps I can give members a minute who have to go to the other committee.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, now be read a second time.

Bill 5 makes several amendments to the existing act. These amendments are to fulfil our commitment to truth in budgeting and increased accountability. The amendments require the appointment of an accounting advisory board to provide government with advice on the implementation of generally accepted accounting principles. This advice and the work of the committee are to be completed over the next two and a half years, after which time government will be required to adopt these principles in all of its accounting policies.

This bill also fixes the budget date each year as the third Tuesday in February. In keeping with this change, the time frame for the prebudget consultation process by a committee of the Legislature is being advanced by one and a half months.

Ministerial accountability is being enhanced by the requirement that ministry service plans and service plan reports make it clear, by a signed statement by the minister, that it's the minister who is accountable for the objectives in the plan and the results in the report.

Budget transparency is being enhanced by the requirement that all of the material assumptions and policy decisions underlying the three-year fiscal projections be included as part of the government's strategic plan.

Government fiscal accountability is being enhanced by curtailing the use of any special warrants to natural disasters and to the period surrounding an election.

Finally, these amendments also repeal the Environment and Sustainability Statutes Amendment Act, which was passed fairly quickly days prior to the calling of the last election. The government believes that the auditor general is in a very good position to undertake environmental auditing without the need for a commissioner and has given additional resources for this purpose.

There are a couple of issues with regard to this bill that I know are of interest to the public in general. Generally accepted accounting principles are something that our party, in opposition, spoke strongly in favour of. It's something the auditor general has been pushing for, for a number of years, as well as the auditor general who preceded him. It is something that I know governments across the country are grappling with. It is not an easy task to take the entity, which is probably an interesting choice of words, that is or isn't government — and there's a big debate about that — and try to put it into these generally accepted accounting principles.

I know there are challenges there; there are difficulties. I think those that have to make it work raise legitimate questions as to how we might do that and what the process might be. That's why the government has decided to draw from outside expertise in the accounting profession — people outside of government who would have something to contribute — to bring them together to help, along with the auditor general, the comptroller general, the Ministry of Finance and other government officials, to try and figure out how we decide, first of all, what the entity is that is government and then put it into these accounting principles.

I don't underestimate the challenge that we face in doing that. It will be difficult; there's no question of that. We've given ourselves two and a half years to get there. It's not something that one can just do overnight. There are questions around quarterly reports and the exchange of data between schools and hospitals on a regular basis throughout the fiscal year, whereas right now there isn't a lot of exchange of financial information between those entities in government at all. So it's going to require a change in culture; it's going to require a change in the amount of communication back and forth. I don't expect that's going to be an easy thing to change.

As well, it will require greater communication between Crown corporations and agencies and the central part of core government. I often questioned in opposition why it seemed that government ministries and Crown corporations didn't seem to talk very well, and I'm finding that it just seems to happen that way. We're trying to improve that dialogue. We've found the new boards of the Crown corporations that we have put in place to be very cooperative in trying to do that, but again, that's a change that's going to take some time to implement.

I'm excited about this; I'm looking forward to it. I don't underestimate for a minute the challenges that we're going to face in trying to achieve it. But if we can do it and do it in the time frame that we're setting out for ourselves as a target — we're pretty intent on hitting our targets, in case people hadn't noticed — then it will be a challenge, and we're looking forward to doing that. If we do that, I think we'll be a leader, certainly in Canada and North America, for the clarity and transparency and openness and the standards by which we hold our entity of government to account. So I'm looking forward to doing that.

As well, one of the issues that appears towards the end of this legislation — an amendment — is the amendment to repeal the act which I mentioned earlier: the Environment and Sustainability Statutes and Amendment Act, 2001, which was passed earlier this year. It set up this — I don't know how to put it — unusual accountability structure within the ministry or within the auditor general's office. It was designed to have an environmental commissioner who would be hired by the auditor general and who would report to the Legislature but not be accountable directly to the Legislature.

It was something that the previous government put together in a fairly expedited way, I might say, in an attempt to…. After ten years in government, in the last

week or so they decided this was something they were going to proceed on. There was a number of pieces of legislation that appeared almost out of nowhere at that point in time. This was one that I felt was different. The accountability structure was different. I raised that at the time in the Public Accounts with the auditor general and my colleagues there. I raised it on the floor of the House at the time as well.

Government has decided that there is nothing within the current Auditor General Act or office that precludes the auditor general from auditing anything in the environment that he chooses. In fact, he's very much at arm's length. Although he reports to the Legislature, he has traditionally been given great latitude in the elements of government that he chooses to audit.

In fact, one of the more time-consuming reports for Public Accounts to deal with over the last number of years was a very comprehensive audit of drinking water in British Columbia and the quality of drinking water, which is something that I know members from right across the province face as an issue in their communities. Because of the geography of our province there are almost countless types, varieties and sizes of systems to deliver water to the people of this province. Some of them work very well, some of them require maintenance and upgrading, and others are pretty unreliable at the best of times.

This, I might add just to highlight the significance of this report, was done well before the Walkerton tragedy, which has become an issue of some national importance and discussion over the last couple of years. This audit was being instigated and undertaken and reported upon by the auditor general well before that happened. So it gives an idea of some of the types of auditing that that office has done. Certainly the auditor general is able to do others in the future, if he and his office so choose.

In fact, to put that out there, people can notice, if they look at the vote this year for the office of the auditor general, that the money that was allocated to his office remains there. Obviously, as we go through and build next year's budget, we'll be looking at everybody's budgets. As I've told the auditor general, we would like to change a bit of the way that works — the way the officers of the Legislature are accountable for their budgets. Right now it seems that it's done through Treasury Board, and I think it would be more appropriate for there to be a recommendation to come from a committee of the Legislature around those budgets first to Treasury Board. I don't like the idea of having an officer of the Legislature accountable exclusively for their funding to Treasury Board. It's sort of contrary to what it is that we're trying to do and contrary to the philosophy of independence.

We're going to be looking at ways that officers of the Legislature can report to committees of the Legislature. Those committees can ask the tough questions and can question the officers on their business plans, their performance plans, what their goals are, how they're going to measure that, how they're going to achieve that and also on the funding that they need to do that. Then those committees can make recommendations to Treasury Board. So we're going to try and do something a little different there.

The auditor general's budget was increased fairly significantly — about $800,000 — in order to accommodate this environmental commissioner that was put forward in the last legislation. That money remains with that vote, and at some time through this year we'd like to be able to provide the opportunity for the auditor to come back to the Legislature with an idea of what he wants to do with his funding, what he wants to do with his budget. Should it be higher? Should it be lower? What are the projects that he's looking to undertake?

I think that will be a fairly significant move forward, and as I said, the auditor general has never hesitated in the past to audit those areas that he thinks necessary and to comment pretty strongly on them from time to time. I expect that he and his office will continue to do that as it pertains to the auditing of environmental issues. I expect he will be able to do that job as competently as he has done the other jobs that he does.

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for Vancouver-Hastings has comments she'd like to make as well. With that, I will sit down and let her take her place in the debate.

J. MacPhail: I reply at second reading of Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act. The government is quite right in predicting that my comments will be restricted to the repealing of the commissioner for environment and sustainability in an act that was introduced on March 29, 2001, but had been announced and put into place much sooner than that. The public announcement of it was done at the beginning of the year 2001 after much consultation amongst a wide variety of people who care about preserving B.C.'s natural history. Because this is a bill that repeals an act, it's important for British Columbians to understand what the act that is being repealed contained and what its goals were and why the act was brought into place on their behalf.

When the then Premier announced the commissioner for environment and sustainability, people around the country applauded the government. Not only people whose sole passion or major passion was protecting the environment, but very smart and progressive business people applauded the appointment of the commissioner for environment and sustainability. Indeed, the auditor general applauded the appointment, welcomed the appointment and worked very vigorously to make sure that the appointment proceeded.

The environment and sustainability commissioner reported to the Legislative Assembly as an independent officer, and he or she would be an independent officer. Let's be clear: there hasn't been one selected yet — or there wasn't one selected. The commissioner would be an independent officer of the Legislature. That means that it would be the MLAs to

whom the commissioner would report and through us to the public. With a hugely skewed Legislative Assembly, I expect that takes on less import. Nevertheless, that was the intent of the commissioner being an independent officer of the Legislature.

Today we see the Liberal government removing that independent officer and somehow saying: "Oh well, don't worry; be happy. We'll make sure that the intent of the officer of the Legislature prevails." Well, just yesterday we saw what they did with another independent officer of the Legislature. We saw legislation introduced where the child advocate role would now be completely under the jurisdiction, for up to two years, of the government and the government alone. No one else but the government will have any control over who that child advocate is — an independent officer of the Legislature.

Again, this repealing of the independence of the commissioner on environment and sustainability is a trend by this government. I would say that it's a trend that shows the real unannounced agenda of the Liberal government because, indeed, when the legislation was introduced, the then critic, the minister from Saanich North and the Islands — who didn't actually get the role of minister of environment; actually, there isn't a minister of environment; anyway, he was then the Environment critic — said: "Mr. Speaker, the opposition will be supporting this bill in principlel." And they did; they voted in favour. So it wasn't as if this was one where, like others, the then-opposition, now-government said that this was one where they may repeal. They did indicate very clearly other pieces of legislation where they would certainly go into review. This one was never on the list. This was never on the list, because the Liberals knew that if they had somehow taken a piece of world-class legislation, which actually was acknowledged internationally, and had said, "Sorry, we don't agree with having an independent commissioner on the environment," that would have been an issue that they would have had to account for during the election. We all know that British Columbians consider amongst their highest priorities protection of B.C.'s natural heritage and having a sustainable economy.

Sometimes we engage in jargon and in words that we're very comfortable with. But maybe the ordinary public who are busy maintaining the needs of their family, who feel the values that we do, don't express their values in the same way. A sustainable economy — the definition of that is clearly outlined in the legislation that's being repealed. It basically incorporates a fundamental ethic that must inform the policies and actions of all government ministries and Crown corporations. It requires that the entire provincial government, all Crown corporations — which will be interesting as we engage in this discussion further — and government ministries have to meet the test of sustainability.

The government of the day had already met the international goal of protecting 12 percent of the land base. They had been enforcing a very aggressive Forest Practices Code, and they had been supporting locally developed land use plans across the province. Just in case anyone wants to attack me for using the third person, let it be clear that I was part of the government that enforced this legislation and had as a value a sustainable economy that protects the environment. So that took place.

How were we going to bring about the commissioner for environment and sustainability? It was going to be administratively within the office of the auditor general. The auditor general of the day worked with us to establish that. It was very supportive. There was going to be an all-party legislative committee that would be established for referring sustainability matters to the commissioner for investigation. The commissioner then would take those matters of referral and would issue a report. The reports were to be on the state of the province's ecological health issued every two years, annual reports on government, ministry and Crown corporation performance against publicly stated sustainability commissions and then specific reports on sustainability issues at the commissioner's discretion.

Indeed, British Columbians would have been able to submit complaints to the commissioner for referral to the appropriate ministries or Crown corporations. The commissioner could enter into protocols with other related government agencies — for instance the ombudsman or the Forest Practices Board — to eliminate any potential duplication. Every single aspect of openness, accountability, administrative clarity and efficiency was contained in the mandate of the sustainability commissioner in the legislation that's now being repealed.

The auditor general was going to be responsible for hiring B.C.'s first environment and sustainability commissioner. The auditor general would have selected and led a search committee. There was going to be balanced representation by government and opposition members. There would be representatives from environmental organizations, the business community, labour unions and first nations communities — much different, I might add, from the Progress Board appointed by this government, which is of a single description. It was going to be very balanced and include all interests. That's all gone now. With the stroke of a legislative pen, this Liberal government has repealed, done away with, discarded the environment commissioner.

David Boyd, the environmental lawyer at University of Victoria's eco-research chair, said: "This announcement is a positive step towards a sustainable future for British Columbia. Concerned citizens now have a new tool to hold the government accountable for its environmental commitments." And that tool is now gone. It's now gone.

Now, why do we need an environment commissioner? There are those who now sit in the chamber that rue the day that there would be any environmental protection or requirement to have a sustainable economy. I'm surrounded by them, with

the exception of one — surrounded by them, except for the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. Actually, after ten years it's a little bit…. I must say the points of view that are now represented by some in this Legislature do come as a surprise to me. It does come as a surprise to me how unable some members are of understanding the needs of the future of the province and the absolute necessity for the government to have a sustainable economy.

Let's look at why we would need an environment commissioner. There's a lot of rhetoric and a lot of good, hard, principled commitment, as well, by some members towards their responsibility to the taxpayers. We hear about it a lot in this chamber — our obligation to the taxpayers. Well, there are many, many hundreds of thousands of taxpayers that expect the government to actually make a commitment on their behalf to not destroy the environment as the economy does its work. Many, many British Columbians hold that as their highest value, as a matter of fact. That's what the environment and sustainability commissioner would have done. It just would have represented the taxpayers in making sure that their tax dollars are being spent in a way that invests in a sustainable economy and doesn't destroy it.

The federal government's had a similar position for many years, and it's been a very effective tool to enhance accountability. The United Kingdom recently announced plans to proceed with an environment commissioner as well.

There was a financial commitment that I understand will remain — for this year anyway. I hold out great hope that the $5 million that's committed this year to enforcement and…. Well, actually, no. I'm sorry. At the same time that the environment and sustainability commissioner was announced, the government of the day also increased the then-Environment ministry's budget by $4.9 million for enforcement and conservation initiatives, and that budget has been slashed. That budget was eliminated. So the first shoe to drop is the elimination of any programs that are conservation initiatives or conservation enforcement initiatives. That's gone. And now the commissioner on environment is gone as well. I guess that makes sense, because if you're going to cut programs that enforce a sustainable economy, you wouldn't want anybody actually examining your actions on how you're achieving that sustainable economy. It was going to be a very efficient office. The commissioner was supposed to have a very small staff, and it was to be integrated with the office of the auditor general to make sure that the structure was cost-effective and wasn't another layer of bureaucracy.

In their zeal to rid themselves of the environmental commissioner, the Liberal government is somehow saying that this was done in haste, at the last moment. Well, the public knows that's not true. There was wide consultation on what model would be used for an environmental commissioner. It went on for months, absolutely months. Maybe even the then Liberal opposition had a say in that. They were invited to have a say in that. I don't know whether they actually responded, but consultation occurred with the business community, resource industries, environmental organizations, first nations communities, local governments. There was a broad consensus that there should be a commissioner, and the commissioner was going to be able to issue a comprehensive report on the ecological health of British Columbia every two years. Then there was a rather groundbreaking initiative as well, which is that individuals would be able to make direct appeal through written submissions to the commissioner. All of that is gone now.

I regret that. I regret it deeply because I think it represents a chilling trend in this province — a chilling trend that perhaps is espoused by the member for Chilliwack-Sumas, who thinks environmental protection is socialism and therefore thinks it's a terrible idea. Well, you know, young people today think that environmental protection is the way our economic development must go, because if our environment isn't protected, there is nothing left to grow the economy in a sustainable way. And this legislation was very clear about the factors that had to be taken into account as the commissioner examined the achievement of a sustainable economy. It wasn't just about whether people wanted to make sure their old-growth forests were in place. Their values would be incorporated, but they weren't dominant over other values. The values of people who cared about social programs had to be incorporated. People who cared about the economic growth of our province — their concerns had to be incorporated. It was a very, very balanced approach. And all of that is gone because, regardless of what the Minister of Finance says about making sure that the auditor general…. I'm sorry; I shouldn't put words into the Minister of Finance's mouth, because I didn't hear him. But I have a sense that he was trying to reassure us: "Don't worry; even though we're repealing this legislation, we'll take care of the principles incorporated in that legislation."

Well, there is nothing, no mandate, that the auditor general has on which to judge the outcome of a sustainable economy — nothing. There's no definition of what a sustainable economy is or principles by which one judges a sustainable economy. That's all been repealed today. So I don't know under which the auditor general…. And this, of course, is nothing to denigrate the auditor general himself, because he must be guided by legislation. He can only be guided by legislation. Now that legislation which would have guided him toward examining the government's record on sustainability is discarded, abandoned, thrown in the garbage heap.

It is a sad day for British Columbia, but I expect British Columbians are getting used to this government's dangerous and risky trend toward eliminating all environmental protection and environmental protection enforcement. It's a dangerous trend, a risky trend, and I would suggest it's an extreme agenda on which we find the government

Let's just review it very briefly. This legislation repealing the environmental commissioner is one piece. We had, through budget cuts, the elimination of the endangered species protection officers from the now Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. That was done in the very early days. Then we had the elimination of the moratorium on grizzly bear hunting a few days later. Then we had budget cuts announced on July 30. Actually, I'm sorry. The budget cuts weren't announced; they were just done. They weren't announced, and we had to dig through the records to find that there were millions of dollars cut, gone, out of green economy initiatives. So I can understand why you wouldn't want an environmental commissioner, because there's nothing the government is doing to promote a green economy.

Then we had the government eliminate all programs to deal with climate change to perhaps meet the goals of the Kyoto protocol that are due early in this decade. Those are gone. We had the government announce that oh, my gosh, they couldn't wait around until next year to have a consultation on offshore oil and gas drilling. They were going to get going now. They were going to drill that oil, get that…. It wasn't "if" they were going to do offshore oil and gas drilling. Really, the Minister of Energy and Mines said: "We're gonna do it." Of course, you probably can understand their haste. I don't accept it or agree with it, but you can understand it, because they've made such massive tax cuts for the corporations. They now need that offshore oil and gas revenue to make up for the deep, deep hole they've dug themselves with their massive tax cuts.

Also, just in looking at the structure of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air and the structure of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, the government basically shifted all of the responsibilities out of the then Ministry of Environment and put it into the Ministry of Sustainable Resources, which is basically to deliver cutting permits and mining permits. All of the enforcement mechanisms on environmental protection were shifted over to the ministry of cutting permits and mining permits, and there's no protection initiatives left in the Ministry of Water, Land and Air. It has basically been gutted of that responsibility.

We could have relied on the sustainable commissioner to do this work as an independent officer of the Legislature, given that there were massive cuts in government operations. The public could have relied on the environmental commissioner to protect the interests of the public. Now that's gone as well.

So where do we go from here, and why do we need to be concerned? Why do we need to be concerned about this legislation? Of course, again, the then-critic, the member for Saanich North and the Islands, said in the debate: "We're not opposing this bill or the concept or the principle of the bill in any way, shape or form." That's what he said. He did have a concern about the accountability loop and the structure of the appointment process. He did raise a process question — not the legislation but a process question.

In fact, I'll quote directly: "We're not opposing the bill or the concept or the principle of the bill in any way, shape or form. What I am saying, though, is that we are very uncomfortable with the accountability loop and the structure of the appointment process. I think the minister probably understands that." But he says: "He may not agree with it, but that's fine. I just wanted to express that. I don't think that by disagreeing with the way the individual is appointed, you're gutting the bill in any way, shape or form." It will be very interesting to see how the Minister of Finance somehow now says that it does, that the bill needs to be gutted completely. It will be interesting to see how he reconciles that.

I expect that this action today in Bill 5 is a continuation of a trend toward delivering for the corporate CEOs that financed the election of this government. That was demonstrated by an announcement today where we have the former transition officer of the Liberal government now appointed as the head of B.C. Hydro.

Now, B.C. Hydro is a key to having a sustainable economy — an absolute key. In fact, B.C. Hydro has done a great deal of good work in terms of triple-line accounting. For those who are new to this discussion, triple-line accounting is where a corporation is required to report on its profitability, its surpluses or its deficits in three ways: one, financial; one, environmental; and one, social. B.C. Hydro adopted that. That's one of the underlying premises on which an environmental commissioner would operate as well.

But I think that today we see, with the change at the top of B.C. Hydro, another plank along the route to dismantling any requirement for a sustainable economy, with the appointment of Larry Bell as not only the chairman but the CEO of B.C. Hydro, all wrapped up in one nice cosy package. The reason Mr. Bell can be appointed as the chair of B.C. Hydro is because the government, just days ago, removed the prohibition of directors of B.C. Hydro from holding shares in a private energy company. So it all fits. It's a nice little jigsaw puzzle that's all falling into place now. Today was another little piece in the puzzle.

So we have Larry Bell, who won't have to give up any of his private energy company responsibilities or ownership — none. He's now the fox in charge of the henhouse. He's now able to operate B.C. Hydro theoretically in the interests of the shareholders, the taxpayers of British Columbia — to have a publicly owned energy company that works on behalf of all British Columbians. He's now got a conflict of interest, I would say.

J. MacPhail: He's got…. I'm sorry. The member's making comments that are surprising me, Mr. Speaker. That's all.

We have the chair of B.C. Hydro, the CEO of B.C. Hydro — interesting, he's chair and CEO — and he holds shares in other…. Unless maybe he has shed himself of those shares, but then why would the government have amended the legislation to make it very comfortable and very easy for Mr. Bell to now become chair of B.C. Hydro when, just days ago, he wouldn't have been eligible because he owned shares in a private energy company? He was actually a director of TransAlta Utilities Corp., a private energy company that wants to take over…. No, I guess he is still a director of TransAlta Corporation, a company that has expressed an interest in making sure that they have their share of the rights to hydro sources for their own profit in this province.

It turns out now that he's in charge. He's in charge of B.C. Hydro. Of course that makes sense, because TransAlta Utilities Corp. donated $10,000 to the B.C. Liberals in 1999. So it's all a full circle, and it's all come together not only with this piece of legislation. Larry Bell's work will be much easier to do now. He won't have to make sure that there's a sustainable economy. He won't have to make sure that B.C. Hydro operates in the best interests of the British Columbia shareholders. Nobody will be watching him as he does that, because the environmental commissioner is gone — absolutely gone.

I just wonder whether this is the road down to greater deregulation and privatization of B.C. Hydro, because of course Mr. Bell was the one who privatized the then Crown corporation, B.C. Gas. It used to be a Crown corporation in British Columbia, and British Columbians got the benefit of their own resource and got to pay a British Columbia price for B.C. gas, just the same way that they now get to pay for their hydro. That's because it's a Crown corporation. It was a Crown corporation where directors had to have as their sole interest, with no conflict, the interests of the shareholders only — B.C. taxpayers.

Mr. Bell, when he was the former chair and CEO of B.C. Gas, decided to privatize B.C. Gas, carve it off and turn it over to private interests that are now making unparalleled profits on the backs of British Columbians. B.C. Gas is now in a record position of profit, as are the transmission lines that supply TransAlta Corp., for instance. Mr. Bell's a director of that, and now he's a director of B.C. Hydro, so because of the privatization of B.C. Gas, ordinary B.C. families are now paying double and triple the price for natural gas.

The members of the government sit there and mock. I can understand that, because they don't have any interest in the needs of working families — none. They somehow claim that their tax cut is the best news that British Columbians could ever have. That's what they claim, Mr. Speaker. But you know what? My constituents…

J. MacPhail: …have had their annual tax cut eaten up by one B.C. Gas bill — one B.C. Gas bill. For anybody to doubt that, I'll provide the information for that.

Today it's all unfolded. The strategy of the government is all there. It isn't a conspiracy. It's very direct. It's absolutely there. Every single concept of the hidden agenda has now been revealed: do away with the sustainability commissioner. Do away with the commissioner that would monitor our environmental protection as it relates to the economy. Do away with any need for Hydro directors to have only their responsibility to the shareholder in their interests. Turn B.C. Hydro over to the man who was responsible for privatizing natural gas and responsible for natural gas prices to skyrocket, and now allow him to perhaps do the same thing to Hydro in terms of deregulation and privatization.

I wonder why, just as recently as March of this year, Mr. Bell said that he wouldn't take over any official government position. Probably because he knew he would have had to divest himself of the shares in TransAlta, amongst other shares. If Mr. Bell has divested himself of those TransAlta shares and is no longer a director of TransAlta, then I will acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker. But certainly that wasn't part of the announcement today. In fact, I predict that's why the legislation was introduced: to permit him to do that. That's why he's now reversed his position from March, when he said he wouldn't take any government position.

We have a piece of legislation here that joins with Bill 4, the balanced budget and ministerial accountability legislation, which now puts British Columbians in a greatly weakened position from what they were just weeks ago. Not only are British Columbians more at risk, but our environment is more at risk as well. The people will understand that and will be dismayed by that, because it's not what they were promised. It's not what the Premier promised them during the election. It's not what he said. He said that he would do everything to not only protect but enhance the environment in British Columbia today. This shows exactly the opposite. He said one thing then, and he does another thing now by this legislation.

I hope those that lauded the legislating of the environmental commissioner and those that demanded B.C. Hydro work for only the interests of the public and not the private energy company interests will call their MLAs. I hope they'll call the Premier and say: "What exactly did you mean when you said you would have a sustainable environment in British Columbia? What exactly did you mean when you said you wanted a sustainable economy? What exactly did your then-critic mean when he supported this piece of legislation and said it didn't need to be gutted?"

But there's so much action going on. There's so much going on in haste, and with this extreme agenda it is very hard for British Columbians to feel anything other than numb. I'm sure that's what they do today.

I do hope the fact that there will be absolutely no one monitoring and holding the government accountable won't mean the province slips away from its world-class record on the environment. With Mr. Bell now being in charge of B.C. Hydro and no one holding him accountable, I do hope it doesn't mean that Hydro rates will now skyrocket as natural gas rates did because of his actions around privatization.

Hon. G. Collins: That was interesting. I'm going to just take a few minutes, if I can, to close debate on Bill 5. There's actually a whole bunch of Bill 5 that the member didn't say anything about, so I'm assuming that she's fine with that and agrees with us about some of the accountability measures that we're putting in place — moving to generally accepted accounting principles.

I can understand why she wouldn't want to talk about that, because it was her government that had a bit of a problem around 1995-96 with talking about a balanced budget during an election campaign and then, shortly afterwards, it coming out that in fact there was a hidden agenda. In fact, the auditor general, that independent guy — you remember him — the member was talking about, actually said that the government was less than…. I can't remember the exact terminology. I could probably go and find the report, but it certainly left no doubt that the government had misled British Columbians about the true state of the finances as they went into an election campaign. They campaigned on two balanced budgets when, in fact, they were both in deficit. They knew they were in deficit. They got elected by a very tiny majority. I think the public kept that in the back of their minds for the last six years and actually revisited their votes, in some cases, in 2002 as opposed to what they'd done in 2001.

The member opposite encouraged the people of British Columbia to phone their MLAs and to phone the Premier and tell them what they think. Well, I've got some news for the member opposite. The people of British Columbia are phoning their MLAs, they are phoning the Premier, they are phoning the ministers, and they're telling us how good it feels to finally have a government that's doing what it said it was going to do.

Once again today the member opposite is complaining about the pace of change in British Columbia. I am amazed how she can do both. She can say that there's this incredible pace of change…. I must say that there is a great pace of change, and we're all working very, very hard to undo the damage of the last ten years. We figure the harder we work now, the sooner we'll start to see the benefits. So we're not taking any time in waiting for other people — the member opposite, one of the members who helped create the problem — to catch up as we start to solve the problem. We're not waiting for her to catch up; we're never going to wait for her to catch up. We're going to continue to do what we told the people of British Columbia we were going to do during the election. We're going to continue to deliver on that day after day after day.

Then the member talks about the hidden agenda. Well, our agenda was in our New Era campaign document that was there for everybody during the campaign. Most of it was out for two years prior to the election. It's on the website. People can go there now — www.bcliberals.com. Hit it and you'll find the New Era. You'll find our commitments, our 90-day commitments, and tick them off as we achieve them. We are moving at a very quick pace. I'll agree with the member opposite. In fact, we're working at a feverish pace to deliver upon the things that we said. We don't have time for a secret agenda. We're spending all our time delivering on our public agenda.

I would hope that the member opposite would just calm down that rhetoric a little bit, maybe go on the website and find out what it is that we're actually doing and realize what the rest of British Columbia realizes, which is that we're doing what we campaigned on. We're doing what we said we were going to do, and the people of British Columbia are extremely happy with that.

I do want to spend a couple of minutes countering some of the comments by the member about Larry Bell. Larry Bell was a civil servant in this province for decades. He served under a number of governments; he served under a number of Premiers. He worked his way up through the system. He was Deputy Minister of Finance, and then he was deputy minister to the Premier. Then, prior to being appointed as the chair of B.C. Hydro now, he actually was the chairman once before at B.C. Hydro and in fact was a great chairman of B.C. Hydro. I can think of no one more qualified in the province of British Columbia; I can think of no one with more integrity in the province. I can think of no one with more talent in the province to take on the role of chairman and CEO of B.C. Hydro. We are so lucky that he said yes.

Heaven forbid that we should actually have a chairman of B.C. Hydro who knows something about energy. We've had different chairmen of B.C. Hydro over the years, and I seem to remember someone by the name of…. Was it John Laxton, one of the big fundraisers for the NDP? He ran as a candidate for the NDP. He was a good buddy of Mike Harcourt, and he put him in as the chairman of B.C. Hydro. And what happened? Well, the member raised the issue about private interests, public interests, conflicts and different competing interests. John Laxton went out and started a company of which he owned a big chunk of the shares, wasn't clear about disclosing that and didn't come clean when the issue was found out. He embarked upon a private business interest which included the assets, talent and resources of the people at B.C. Hydro while he was the chairman.

I know that Mr. Laxton now feels that he did nothing wrong. He's entitled to that opinion. I think that the record out there is clear, and I think the people of British Columbia can make their judgments accordingly. But I can tell you, we are so lucky to have

somebody like Larry Bell take on this job — who actually understands energy, has been there before, understands what needs to be done and is going to restore B.C. Hydro to a professional company. He'll attract a professional board of directors who will be accountable. He will do the right thing for the people of this province; I have no doubt in my mind.

The member opposite says that there will be no accountability, that there'll be nobody watching over him. For a decade while I was in opposition minister after minister, House leader after House leader, Premier after Premier of the NDP would stand up here every year and talk about appointing a committee of the Legislature to oversee Crown corporations. Never did they do it.

We put in place that committee on the opening day. We'll be appointing the members of that committee in the very near future. B.C. Hydro and Larry Bell will have to come to members of this Legislature. The two members of the NDP opposite will be able to be there, and they'll actually be able to ask questions of the chairman of the Crown corporation. They will actually be able to question their business plan, what their agenda is, what they're doing, where they're going and whether they are hitting the measures that they've set as targets. That's something that's revolutionary in British Columbia.

If the member opposite has concerns about B.C. Hydro and whether or not they are doing what's in the interests of the province or behaving in an environmentally sensitive or professional manner, she will have for the first time as a member of the Legislature the opportunity to ask those questions and to grill Larry Bell and others at B.C. Hydro about where they're going and what they're doing. That's not a hidden agenda. That's the most public agenda and accountability that we've ever seen with Crown corporations in the province. I think it's a great innovation. I look forward to the member saying that when we finally get it in place.

One other thing about Larry Bell, because I'm a big fan of this gentleman…. I think he is a huge talent, and as I've said, we're very lucky to have him. I know that the previous government saw the wisdom of having him involved with them in the past as well. I was sort of joking previously as the member was talking. I was sort of joking with her that she had some impression that Larry Bell was taking over the world, that this was part of his hidden agenda to take over the world — first B.C. Hydro, tomorrow Berlin. I don't know. That was the agenda that she was putting forward.

It seems to me that as part of the previous administration's attempt to improve the quality of the food on B.C. Ferries, to improve the quality of service on B.C. Ferries…. Where did they go? They went to the private sector. They went to White Spot, which Shadow Holdings Inc. owns and of which Larry Bell is the chairman. The government seemed to be enamoured with his ability to provide help at B.C. Ferries, but somehow it's a big conspiracy now that he's bringing his expertise to B.C. Hydro. I just think the member should get off that rhetoric a little bit and recognize the talent of this individual that we have and what a privilege it is for the people of British Columbia to have a gentleman of this calibre heading up our largest and most significant Crown corporation.

I want to come back to the other comments that the member made, for just a minute, if I may. She talked about this environmental commissioner, about how committed the previous government was to doing it. It was a really big deal, and it was the best thing they'd ever done. Why did they wait to the very end of a ten-year mandate to do it? If they wanted to do it, why didn't they do it in '91 or '92 or '93 or '94 or '95 or '96 or '97 or '98 or '99 or 2000? They waited until literally weeks before the election was called for that bill to be introduced in this House and passed.

Now, I think there were ten, 12 legislative sessions — there may have been more; I'm not sure of the exact count — in the time that the member opposite sat in government and was able to bring forth her agenda on an environmental commissioner. But no, it came in at the very, very end — week 2 away from the call of the election campaign, something like that. After ten years of government they brought it in. You have to question the sincerity of that effort at the time and whether or not they really took the time to think through the process.

The member read into the House some of the comments of the previous critic from the opposition. I want to put into context the debate that took place and how we got there. Certainly if the member wants to, she can go back and look at the Public Accounts Committee. When this issue came up with the auditor general, there was some discussion about the structure. I raised some very significant concerns about it at that time, about the way it was being done, if it was the right way to do it, why the auditor general couldn't do this work. I'm not sure if it was around the debate or the discussion about his business plan or not, but certainly the issue came up before Public Accounts. That provided context for our initial impression of what the government was now moving on doing.

As well, when the bill was debated in the House, the quotes that the member read from the former critic from the opposition at the time indicated his concern. This was our first real opportunity to look at the bill. The bill came in….

Hon. G. Collins: The member has already read the quotes, and they're there. I don't dispute what he said. I want to provide for people a sense of what he was saying and why he was saying it. The member opposite recalls that at the time the government of the day was on its deathbed, languishing around 12 percent, 14 percent, 16 percent, 17 percent in the polls, clamouring to hang on to a few seats to form official opposition. That was what the issue was about at the time. They were trying desperately to bring back some of their environmental supporters that had been with them traditionally, who had fled them because of some of

the things they had done. This was one of the pieces of legislation they introduced in that session.

At the beginning of the session the now-Premier, the then-Leader of the Opposition, stood up in the House and said: "We expect a flood of activity from the government over the next little while. We will do our best to review it in the short time available to us, but we reserve the right to review, to amend, to appeal anything that comes in, in this session based on the fact that we will take the time to look at it." That is what we have done.

If you look at the comments of the member that spoke, the critic, you can see what he was saying. He had concerns about the process of the appointment. I still have great concerns about it. I think it's a fundamental flaw with the legislation that was in place. Second of all, the accountability process, which I addressed prior to when the member attended this debate…. She'd understand the concerns that I have and that we have and that we've come to feel are significant enough that we need to get rid of this legislation.

Hon. G. Collins: The member says it's too bad we didn't tell people. It's too bad she didn't introduce this legislation a year before so the people of British Columbia and members of the Legislature could have had a real opportunity to look at it. She's the one who's now complaining that stuff is happening too fast, so there's a bit of hypocrisy there. There's a bit of hypocrisy there, and I understand the tenderness from the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

Let's look for a minute, if we can, at what it was that caused and motivated the previous government to do this legislation. At the time, as I said, they were bleeding votes to the Green Party as they got closer to an election. They were in danger of not winning any seats in the Legislature. Let's look at what it was….

Hon. G. Collins: The member says that British Columbians actually care about this issue. Let me put forward some of the issues that British Columbians care about and some actions that government took which resulted in them losing the support of British Columbians. Let's just look, for a moment, at the NDP's record. They were the party that decided to take Burns Bog and pave it and put up a parking lot. I'm sorry. Actually, it wasn't a parking lot; it was a theme park. They were going to take Burns Bog, cover it with asphalt and put up Ferris wheels and cotton-candy stands, and somehow that was environmental protection. And it went beyond just the intent. They actually guaranteed a $25 million loan to a private sector company so they could go out and plan how to pave it and put up Ferris wheels and cotton-candy stands.

I wonder what the environment commissioner might have said about that one. I wonder what the people of British Columbia might have said about that one. In fact, I know what they said about that one. They came out in droves; they were outraged. And I know that back then, they phoned their MLAs, and they phoned the Premier and told him what they thought of what the government was doing. You look at the record. You look at what the minister did when she was a minister, and you have to question what her motivation is for now draping herself in a green flag, dousing herself with olive branches and pretending to be Madam Environment for British Columbia. I think you have to look a little bit at what the actions were and take off the green-coloured glasses that perhaps the member opposite is wearing.

Let's just look at one other thing — SE2 — because this links right there with Hydro. We know there were discussions back and forth between Hydro about how they were going to get the power from SE2. For people who aren't familiar, this is a natural gas cogeneration facility that, of course, the government wouldn't want located across the border in Canada, because of the problem that it would put a whole bunch of new greenhouse gases into the air. It would put more particulate matter into the air. So it was put right across the border. You could almost stand on the border and wave at the guys that are going to build SE2 in the Fraser Valley, just on the other side of the border.

I know that the member from Chilliwack, the member from Abbotsford, the member from Matsqui and the new members who were elected as a result of expansion — the other member from Chilliwack, the member from Mission — and all of those members that are now members of the Legislature spoke up. They were the ones that came into this House and week after week, month after month, asked the then Environment minister from the NDP what their government was going to do. At the time they asked the minister who was responsible for B.C. Hydro what he was going to do to head off the additional tonnes of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the air as well as more particulate matter into the airshed in the lower mainland — one of the most challenging environmental things we need to deal with, as a government, that affects more people than just about any other environmental issue in the province.

Hon. G. Collins: The member says: "How would we know?" If you actually get up and go into the lower mainland and into the Fraser Valley on a day like today and look up or breathe in, you'll know it's a problem. You don't have to be a rocket scientist or an environmental scientist or an environment commissioner to know that's a problem.

If the member opposite is unsure about whether SE2 is going to have an impact on people's ability to breathe the air, she should just go out there and look at

it. And I know that members of the previous government were invited by the members from the Fraser Valley to go out and look at it. It took months — finally, as we got to the very end of the government's mandate — before they realized that those green voters just weren't going to be there for them. Then we heard from the member for Vancouver-Fraserview, who, I think, became the new Minister of Environment as well as the old…. I don't know if we finally ever did hear from the old Minister of Environment, Ms. Sawicki, from Burnaby-Willingdon.

Clearly, the government pushed it aside, pretended it didn't exist, never got involved. And so this government applied for intervener status. We said we would do it. We applied, got intervener status, and now we'll have something to say about it.

I could go on at length about the environmental record of the previous administration, but I don't need to. I don't need to because the people of British Columbia who feel strongly about the environment already gave their verdict on the record of the previous government and their verdict about that member opposite. She says they didn't vote for me. They sure as heck didn't vote for you, Ms. Minister. So I think the people of British Columbia have spoken on that.

I don't have much more to add to this bill. I think it's a very good bill. It helps us improve accountability to the budgetary process. It helps us improve transparency to the budgetary process, and as well, it removes what I think was a very politically motivated piece of legislation that won't do anything to improve the environment. The auditor general has that job, that role, and the funds and the resources to do it. He's done it in the past; he can do it in the future. I think this is a very good bill. It's headed in the right direction.

Bill 5, Budget Transparency and Accountability 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.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment in the hands of the Clerk to add section 27.1.

Hon. G. Collins: No, actually. I would like to speak, if that's okay with you, Mr. Chair.

Hon. G. Collins: That's okay. I don't mind. I just want to give people a bit of a sense of what this amendment is.

Apparently, there was some uncertainty about whether or not someone who purchased a vehicle…. This is the issue that dealt with the raising of the threshold for the vehicle surtax that was contained in the budget. There was some uncertainty last week and into the weekend apparently among some elements, a small group of people in the public and a couple of others, about whether or not someone — given that this tax change took effect July 31 or August 1, whichever — had purchased a vehicle just prior to that and paid the higher rate of tax, and whether or not they could return their vehicle and then buy it back and get the taxes back. That was clearly not the intent.

When government brings in tax changes, generally they do so in cases like this — social services taxes — and they are effective immediately. Unfortunately, those people — and I raised this in second reading yesterday — who purchased a vehicle immediately prior to the economic update will be required to pay the tax that was in place at that time. Those who purchased or leased a vehicle afterwards will pay the tax that applied after that date. This amendment is designed to ensure that that's clear to people and that

people aren't able to return the vehicle and buy it back again. This is just trying to clear up the concern that was raised there amongst the public and a few others, and I hope it does that.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Bill 2, Taxation Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete with amendment.

The House in committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 3, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete without amendment.

Bill 3, Corporation Capital Tax Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call second reading on Bill 11, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

I'm pleased to speak today about amendments that Bill 11 makes to several pieces of legislation. As I said yesterday, Bill 11 is not a housekeeping bill. It does in fact make some substantive changes to the law of British Columbia in a number of areas which I propose to outline now. I should also say though, before doing that, that the practice that I am aware of from five years in this House is that when we're dealing with miscellaneous statutes amendment acts, quite often the debate, in principle if you will, on the provisions of the act will happen in a committee stage where we're dealing with the different provisions as they arise. So what I propose to do now is provide a bit of an overview of what the bill achieves.

The bill includes amendments to remove sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Child Care BC Act to eliminate what we call restrictive sections. These amendments will give government the flexibility that it needs to implement a new direction for child care. These changes will not impact government's ability to provide child care grants which will be maintained under section 6 of the act. Existing child care grant programs will continue including the first phase of the funding assistance program which was introduced January 2, 2001. The child care subsidy program will continue to be provided under the authority of the BC Benefits (Child Care Subsidy) Act and is not affected by changes to the Child Care BC Act.

Amendment of section 14(2)(d) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act will allow the Legislature to appoint or extend the appointment of an acting advocate to a term not exceeding 12 months, renewable once. As an officer of the Legislature, the child, youth and family advocate is appointed for a six-year term. Due to the current vacancy, an acting advocate was appointed on May 19, 2001. But under the statute as it now reads, her term will expire after 20 sitting days of

the current Legislative Assembly. Extending the term of an acting advocate for a possible 12 to 24 months will provide stability and allow time to select and recruit a new child, youth and family advocate. The extended term would also provide government with the flexibility to implement any recommendations which may result from the core review currently underway.

May I say that it is the intent of that review in this context to ensure that we have the best possible system for protecting the interests of kids in care and ensuring that there are adequate and effective oversight mechanisms for child protection workers in the province. We want to make sure that we're doing a good job of protecting kids at risk, kids in care, and ensuring that there is proper accountability for those who have the statutory authority over those kids.

Bill 11 also amends the Motor Vehicle Act, the Offence Act and the Commercial Transport Act to eliminate legislative authority for photo radar speed-monitoring systems and enforcement procedures in this province. B.C.'s photo radar program was officially terminated by regulation on June 28, 2001, but these statutory amendments are a part of the process of ensuring that photo radar is no longer on the statute books of the province.

This bill's amendments regarding photo radar, once enacted, will complete the fulfilment of the government's election promise to scrap photo radar in British Columbia within 90 days of taking office. These legislative amendments repeal provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act and the supplement to the Motor Vehicle Act that made an owner liable for a speeding offence when evidence was gathered by a speed-monitoring device. It's important to be aware that this does not eliminate the use of intersection safety cameras for enforcement purposes. These amendments were developed and based on advice through consultation with my ministry and the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Bill 11 also repeals the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act. From 1955 to 1986 the government of British Columbia made grants under this act to non-profit societies to build affordable seniors housing. These grants covered up to one-third of the land and construction costs. The grant program, I think, came to an end in 1986.

In 1999 the act was amended to give legislative authority to restrict the use of these properties. It also required the societies to pay the government one-third of the current market value if there were a change in the property's use or if it were sold. These provisions have created unintended barriers to societies that wish to remortgage their properties to create more affordable housing. By repealing the act, we will be removing these barriers, giving these housing societies more control to identify their needs and act in a timely way to develop, redevelop or remortgage their properties.

This bill repeals the pay equity amendments to the Human Rights Code made last spring but not yet in force. I have already informed the House during first reading that the government has acted on its commitment to appoint an independent task force to review the options, models, costs and effectiveness of private sector pay equity legislation and to make recommendations to the Legislature. The repeal of the pay equity provisions passed last spring will ensure that the task force reviewing these issues can carry out its mandate with the independence such review requires.

Bill 11 also amends the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pension Act to provide for a salary of $6,000 for the chairs of the new government caucus committees. These committees will play a vital role in government's new decision-making process, which requires reaching out to British Columbians to involve them in the critical decisions and choices that affect their lives.

The caucus committees will hear public submissions, review policies, programs and legislation and make recommendations to cabinet. These committees will be very busy in the months and years ahead, and the people who are appointed to lead them will undertake many extra responsibilities. The salary will be the same as that provided to the chairs of legislative committees in recent years.

A private member's bill put forward by a member of the previous government was meant to permit expanding use of complementary therapies by physicians in British Columbia. While this government appreciates the intent of that bill, we also feel that certain elements of the bill are unnecessary and/or were far too broad in their scope. Chief among the concerns raised by the College of Physicians and Surgeons regarding the amendments in the former government's bill was interference with their duty — their important duty — to regulate the practice of medicine.

What takes the place of that in Bill 11 is the substitution of a new section of the existing bill that will maintain the thrust and intent of the original amendments — those proposed and introduced by Mr. Orcherton — while still permitting the college to continue its customary regulatory processes to protect the public. This is because we do believe there is room for non-traditional therapies amongst the list of treatments offered to British Columbians, and we believe that practitioners of those therapies should be able to continue in their ministrations without reprisal.

Finally, this bill repeals the Protection of Public Participation Act that was brought into force in April 2001. That act was created with the idea of intending to help persons deal with unmeritorious lawsuits brought against them. In fact, the act was too broad, and it has the potential to cause considerable delays in the court system in British Columbia if it is misused by persons who in turn want to cause delay and expense to plaintiffs who are entitled to bring legal proceedings in British Columbia.

In my view and the view of the government, the existing rules of the Supreme Court are sufficient to

protect parties from frivolous and vexatious lawsuits and also to provide for remedies in the form of costs, where appropriate, to be awarded in appropriate circumstances. This bill contains a transitional clause that will protect the rights of anyone who has made use of the Protection of Public Participation Act during the period that it was in force.

Hon. G. Collins: Just so the House is aware — I just want to speak to the bill for just a moment — it's the first miscellaneous statutes bill that this new House has had. There are many new members, and many of us have new roles. It is normally the practice, certainly in the ten years that I've been here, for second reading of miscellaneous statutes bills to be essentially what the Attorney General has just done.

When we move to committee stage, because each of these sections of the miscellaneous bill generally are separate topics, there is a wide-ranging debate in committee stage of each of those sections individually. That is normally where the second-reading type of debate takes place with the miscellaneous statutes bill. For members who wish to comment, opposition or otherwise, that is generally where the debate takes place, unless someone in the House has a huge problem with the particular part and decides that this is a bill that they're going to obstruct for the rest of the session, which I think happened once. Other than that, normally that debate will be wide-ranging in committee stage.

J. MacPhail: In addressing Bill 11, the first miscellaneous statutes amendment act of the new government, I accept the direction of the Government House Leader and will make very brief remarks, with the understanding of carrying on that debate during committee stage.

However, it is incumbent upon me to say that there are many parts of this bill that I will be debating vigorously and taking positions on. It would be folly for me to do anything other than to vote against this bill on division, but I will leave it at that and record my view simply on that matter at second reading.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm grateful for the comments of the other members who have spoken, and I look forward to pursuing the issues as they're raised in committee stage. I believe that leaves us with second reading.

Bill 11, Miscellaneous 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.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that the Administrator is in the precinct and ask that members please remain in their seats.

His Honour the Administrator entered the chamber and took his place in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I move the House do now adjourn. I wish everyone a safe weekend as well.

J. Kwan: Just prior to our lunch break, I was asking the minister if she would publicly disclose the correspondence and information she would receive upon the review of the tuition fee freeze. I did not actually receive an answer with respect to whether or not the minister would publicly disclose and make available all of that information.

Hon. S. Bond: I think I indicated prior to lunch that I will review all of the correspondence that I receive on the issue, as I do on every issue. Certainly, the matter of publishing private correspondence to the ministry would be something I think we would want to think about in terms of making private correspondence public.

J. Kwan: If the minister cannot provide the correspondence, would the minister commit to providing the numbers of correspondence that would be coming in, in support of or opposed to the tuition fee freeze?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to make it clear that this consultation process is not about volume or about who can write the most letters. Our government has a very clear mandate from British Columbians. We said we were going to consult on the hidden costs to students that occur related to the tuition freeze and also to institutions.

J. Kwan: While volume may not be the only measure in terms of response from the public, certainly the amount of interest expressed by the community in their opinions should be relevant in the public debate. Would the minister, once again, agree to providing that information to the community?

Hon. S. Bond: I will indicate one more time. The consultation process is not about volume. We clearly intend to read and analyze all the data we get. We are going to balance the information and take into consideration all of the views we receive in order to make the decision that will set the future direction for this government.

J. Kwan: Then I take it to mean that the minister would not publicly provide information to the community, to British Columbians, on the expressions of support or opposition to the tuition fee freeze. I think that's most unfortunate, because I do think that's an important piece of information. Perhaps there are other mechanisms to obtain that. The FOI process would be one of them.

I just want to make sure I have this correct. Prior to the break I asked the minister whether or not she has any reports within the ministry or has access to reports that conclude that the tuition fee freeze has caused the degree completion time to increase or that such times have increased during the period of the freeze. Prior to the break the minister said no, and I just want to confirm that that is the case.

Hon. S. Bond: We ourselves have not done any studies on that information, and that's the answer I gave you prior to the break.

J. Kwan: My question, then, is: has the minister, right now, existing reports of that nature?

J. Kwan: No, Mr. Chair. She answered the question whether or not she has commissioned any reports. I asked the question: are there any existing reports within the ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: I am not aware of any reports that exist. As I indicated to you previously, the information we have received has come anecdotally and in my discussions with stakeholders, including the university presidents.

J. Kwan: Would the minister please double-check with her staff to ensure that there are no existing reports, and if there are, would the minister ask the deputy to provide those reports to me?

J. Kwan: The Advanced Education Council, I understand, has made a decision to potentially disband. Could the minister tell us the current status of the Advanced Education Council?

Hon. S. Bond: I actually attended the weekend that decision was made. I was present following that decision, and they are currently exploring an alternative model of some way finding a way to work together. So we fully anticipate there will be some future work done by that group, and I have had discussions with them about that.

J. Kwan: As I understand the difficulties related to the differing visions of the university colleges and their role in B.C.'s education system, could the minister tell

us what she thinks about the mandate of these university colleges and what she thinks they should be?

Hon. S. Bond: Our government is absolutely committed to the fact that we have a model of post-secondary education that includes colleges, university colleges and universities. We think there is a vital and significant role for each of those institutions to play in post-secondary education, because we believe students have different needs and learn in quite different ways. We think they all have a very significant role to play.

J. Kwan: The minister recently fired the board of the Okanagan University College. Could the minister explain why?

Hon. S. Bond: The Okanagan University College board settled a collective agreement outside of the mandate that was determined by all institutions, including Okanagan University College. As a matter of fact, that decision has caused enormous stress and concern across the other institutions and has significant implications for the post-secondary sector. We made the decision. It was a difficult decision. It was necessary, and we made it based on that reason.

J. Kwan: There is a big group in Kelowna, I understand, that has shown tremendous support for an Okanagan university to replace the college. I understand that the board's actions reflected that movement in the agreement they signed with the faculty. Given the minister's action of firing the board, can the people of Kelowna assume that the minister is opposed to them having a full university?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the people of Kelowna can assume that we were looking at the best interests of students in the post-secondary sector as a whole. It in no way reflected a decision. As a matter of fact, in our discussions with the board, they indicated to us that, indeed, that contract did not reflect their concern or issue around a university status. As a matter of fact, there were other reasons given for the negotiating of that contract, so that certainly was not a factor in their removal.

J. Kwan: Does the minister support a full university development for the Kelowna region?

Hon. S. Bond: As I have said to the member, we believe there is a role for all three models of post-secondary institutions. We are currently looking at the mandate of those institutions. We also live within the fiscal realities that we face in this province, and we have to ensure that we're effectively funding the institutions we have in place before we consider other mandates. We are going to begin to have discussions about the roles that all those institutions play. We think there's a vital role for each one of those types of institutions in our sector.

J. Kwan: Then can we assume that the minister is not going to change the roles of those institutions, or is she going to do a review and then determine that?

Hon. S. Bond: Having answered that question, what I am going to do is ensure that the institutions that currently exist in this province are funded properly so we can continue to offer the kinds of opportunities that students in this province deserve.

J. Kwan: Further on the firing of the board of the OUC, I wonder if the minister can tell us what criteria she will be using to make the new appointments.

Hon. S. Bond: I am pleased to tell you that a new board has already been appointed for Okanagan University College. We've set up a process in government now that looks at the creation of those boards and the filling of those positions based on merit and skill, matching the needs of the institution. We have an extremely capable board in place, and that will be the pattern we use to fill all the board positions across post-secondary institutions in this province.

J. Kwan: Could the minister tell us what her desired distribution of community interests on these boards will be between, say, business community leaders, community activists, labourers, students, etc.? Also, does the ministry intend to maintain the goal of encouraging diversity in terms of ethnicity, gender, physical ability and so on?

Hon. S. Bond: Absolutely. What we intend to do is find the best people to do the job. We will actually look at merit and skill, match those up and put in place the best people we can find to operate on those boards.

J. Kwan: On the issue around gender parity and ethnicity and so on, would that also place as priority?

Hon. S. Bond: I think I answered that. I simply said the best people for the job will get it. We will obviously look at issues that look at skill, gender, geography — all those kinds of things. Ultimately, the best people to do the job, to deliver for us, will be the people appointed to our boards.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any targets or goals in terms of achieving equity numbers?

Hon. S. Bond: For the last time, we are simply going to appoint the best people, based on skill and merit. We will take a number of criteria into consideration as we make our board appointments across the sector.

J. Kwan: I take it, then, that there are no specific targets in terms of gender equity and the like. The minister, quite frankly, refuses to answer the questions directly, and it's hard for me to actually ascertain what her answer is. So I can only take the assumption, when the reply is such and is vague, that the answer is no.

In terms of the vision for the system, Ontario has recently made a decision to allow private universities to grant degrees. Given that the University of Phoenix is a major contributor to the Liberal party and is a proponent of private universities, I wonder if the minister can tell us if the Liberals have promised the University of Phoenix the same thing here in B.C.?

Hon. S. Bond: No, we haven't promised the University of Phoenix anything of the sort. Having said that, we already have a number — and they actually play an incredibly significant role in post-secondary instruction in this province — of private post-secondary training institutions that already exist, and we are looking at all of the options that would help us provide the best possible opportunities for students in this province.

J. Kwan: What process will the minister engage in before taking a decision on allowing private institutions to grant degrees in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: We have committed, as government, to be open and inclusive. Certainly, we are considering that particular issue, as we are all of the others. In my discussions with stakeholders, we have had discussions about the role that private institutions play in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Could the minister be more specific around the process? Earlier she talked about the tuition fee freeze review and said she will consult with stakeholders and the like. But could she be more specific around what that process will entail? Does she have to have a specific budget for that process? Does she intend to invite members of the public to be on a panel? What is the vision for this process?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sorry; I need clarification. Are we back to the tuition freeze consultation?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, to be candid, before we can even consider private universities, it would require a change of legislation, so there is a long process. At this point in time it's simply a possibility as we look ahead to the future and discuss those things. We're simply in the early days of those kinds of discussions. We've been here about 60-some days. Certainly, one of the things we're contemplating is how we might move ahead with that.

J. Kwan: Then I take it that there isn't a process in place yet, that the minister is uncertain in terms of how she would proceed.

Hon. S. Bond: To clarify that — and I think that's what I said — it is on our….

That's correct. At this point in time it is one issue of many in post-secondary education that we are going to discuss over the next number of years. There is an interest not only in British Columbia but across Canada in the role of private universities and private institutions. It is one of the discussion items I'm sure we will engage in, in the next number of years.

J. Kwan: Could the minister tell us the status of bargaining with the faculty and the support staff at B.C.'s colleges and universities? What institutions have completed agreements, and which ones have not? Were any agreements other than Kelowna's signed outside of the provincial guidelines?

Hon. S. Bond: We absolutely do have a list. I'd be happy to have it copied and sent to you. Otherwise, I can read the entire list of them. But I think the essence of your question was: did anyone else settle outside? Absolutely not.

J. Kwan: I would welcome the list. If the minister could forward that to us, that would be very good.

As the minister knows, B.C.'s student-age population is increasing, and it will create a significant capital demand on us over the next few years. In the past ten years significant construction has occurred, including the construction of a new university in the minister's hometown and a significant expansion of the college also in the minister's hometown. But the capital requirements continue.

Could the minister provide an institution-by-institution explanation of the capital plan for the coming year, and for subsequent years, if they're available? And could the minister also let us know where the plan is, either on an increase or a decrease, in the estimates presented on July 30, compared to the estimates approved earlier this year?

Hon. S. Bond: The capital envelope of the Ministry of Advanced Education is currently under review. We are looking at each of the projects that are underway and those that are on the planning block. We are reviewing all of them as we attempt to put together our capital program.

J. Kwan: Was there not a budget that was approved for the capital plan for this year's budget? If so, what is it, and what's on that list?

Hon. S. Bond: The total size of the capital envelope has not changed from last year's numbers.

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to provide you with the dollar amount of the envelope and the projects on the list that are currently being reviewed.

J. Kwan: Just for clarification: when the minister says "the current projects that are being reviewed," are the projects approved or not approved?

Hon. S. Bond: All of the projects on the capital plan are being reviewed at this point in time.

J. Kwan: So can I assume that the projects that were previously approved would remain approved? The ones that are reviewed, I assume, are new projects that have been presented.

J. Kwan: During the election and after the election, your government actually committed to agreements that had previously been signed. Is the minister saying that that commitment is now being reneged on and that the capital projects would be reviewed, even though they might have been approved earlier?

Hon. S. Bond: It's the same answer. That's not what we said, and the capital projects on my ministry's list are being reviewed.

J. Kwan: It's unclear, because there were projects on that capital list previously that had been approved by the previous government. This government — your government, minister — has said that you would honour those commitments, but now, actually, I'm getting a different signal. I just want to be absolutely clear that even though those projects have been approved, they're now being reviewed once again; therefore, the commitment that your government would honour the previous commitments is now being changed.

Hon. S. Bond: In actual fact what we said was that we would honour contracts that are in place. Projects that are currently with existing contracts are underway and will be completed. Other projects are being reviewed.

J. Kwan: So take as an example an agreement that has been made with a particular university for a capital project. While contracts may not be entered into, if the approval and the agreement have been made with a particular university, would that agreement be honoured in that instance?

Hon. S. Bond: All of the projects that currently are not underway but have existing contracts are going ahead. The other projects are being reviewed.

J. Kwan: I'll be very specific with one particular project: the Woodward's project. There was previously an agreement with SFU. Is the minister honouring that agreement with Simon Fraser University?

Hon. S. Bond: It is currently not underway. It does not have a contract. It is being reviewed, and the responsibility for that project, or at least the ownership of that project, falls under another ministry.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know that the construction of the Woodward's project falls under the ministry responsible for housing. However, there was an agreement made with SFU, and that falls under the Ministry of Advanced Education. So is the minister not honouring that agreement with SFU under this capital plan?

Hon. S. Bond: There are no contracts in place with regards to SFU and the Woodward's Building. That project, along with all of the other projects on our capital project list, is under review.

J. Kwan: What is the status, then, for capital projects that have been submitted by SFU? I understand that there are two. Maybe some of them have entered into a contract.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to answer it again. All of the projects that do not have existing contracts that are not underway are being reviewed by my ministry.

J. Kwan: I was asking specifically for SFU. All the minister has to do is look up on her list to see if SFU is on the list that's under review or not.

The Chair: And member, I think the question has been answered, and it's getting repetitious. So if you have a new question, I'd appreciate it.

J. Kwan: It would help me greatly if the minister would actually answer the question directly, without skating around it. Yes or no sometimes helps.

The revised budget in the estimates shows that there is an increase of approximately $13 million in grants to post-secondary institutions. Could the minister provide an institution-by-institution breakdown of where that $13 million will be distributed?

Hon. S. Bond: We'd be happy to get you the information in terms of the $13 million split, if you'd like to do that. But I do have with me the change in dollars, the increase or lifts, that each of the universities

J. Kwan: The list will suffice, if the minister would provide us with the list of how the $13 million is broken down, institution by institution and into what areas.

The other question relating to this is: were there any additional FTEs placed on the additional funding?

Hon. S. Bond: If the member is referring to the $13 million increase in core funding, there are no FTEs attached to that funding.

J. Kwan: Are there any operating dollars in terms of increases? If so, what are the breakdown and FTE attachments?

Hon. S. Bond: The FTE lifts over last year were: UBC, 530; SFU, 230; UVic, 192; UNBC, 48; Royal Roads, 285; and Tech B.C., 64; for a total of 1,349.

J. Kwan: The minister is also responsible for the training accord, an agreement whereby the government organizations spending training dollars and contracts are required to give public institutions first consideration when doing so. Could the minister tell us if she supports the training accord?

Hon. S. Bond: The training accord actually no longer exists. We've made that decision, so we no longer have the policy training accord.

J. Kwan: If the training accord is now eliminated, then could the minister tell us: are there dollars that she has set aside for training purposes within her ministry?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, the dollars are still obviously going to be provided for the training. What it simply means is that there will be open tendering, and we are very confident that institutions, having had the experience of the last number of years, will be absolutely competitive and able to garner their share of those dollars.

J. Kwan: Can the minister explain to us if there are any changes that have been made to the student aid system? That would be since May.

Hon. S. Bond: As a matter of fact, there have been. We will be implementing credit screening for students who are 22 years of age the first time they apply. This brings us into compliance with the federal regulation, which is the reason why we did that since May.

J. Kwan: Does the minister support B.C.'s method of participation in the Canada Millennium Scholarship program — that is, by providing third- and fourth-year grants?

Hon. S. Bond: We are currently looking at all of our programs, and there are certainly plusses and minuses to the Canada Millennium Scholarship program. We want to take a good look at that. Certainly, at this point we are looking at that, recognizing that there are certainly plusses to students, but there may also be some things we need to look at.

J. Kwan: In the 1998 federal budget, the federal government changed the Canada students loans program, requiring credit-worthiness checks on the students over 22 applying for student loans. At that time the B.C. government refused to implement this change and ensure that all students who were assessed to be in need of financial assistance were given access to the student loans program. Last week the B.C. Liberal government announced that it will be denying student loans to students over 22 who do not pass this credit check, therefore denying them access to post-secondary education in British Columbia.

Can the minister tell us why they're not standing up to the federal government to ensure that all British Columbians, including those who could not afford to, have access to post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: As I pointed out, the regulations by the federal government have changed. They used to allow the opportunity. They said: "You may." This is going to be changed to: "You should comply." We are now being called, and we must comply with that regulation. Having said that, there is a significant number of criteria on which a student can appeal the decision, if indeed they do have a credit check and their credit is found to be questionable. The list is lengthy, and our job is to make sure as few students as possible are impacted by that. We intend to do that. The list of criteria for appeal is quite significant. In addition to that, it is a very small percentage of students that we believe it will impact.

J. Kwan: Has the minister spoken with her counterpart on the federal side on this issue? If not, does she intend to? Even though it may not be a large number, it does still create an issue of access for many students. Early on, the minister said one of her values on the vision of post-secondary education is access, and this goes right to that point.

Hon. S. Bond: I can assure you we are concerned about student access, and students will be the focus of the decisions made in my ministry. Having said that, I have not spoken with my federal counterpart, but my staff has.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm sure opportunities will present themselves for that in the future. I want to reiterate the fact that my concern is that as many students as possible have access. I believe the appeal criteria are

broad enough that students who have a legitimate reason to appeal will be heard, and I am confident that the number of students impacted by this will be small.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have the numbers on how many students would be impacted?

Hon. S. Bond: Our analysis tells us that of the 40,000 student loan applications we receive, it may impact between 100 and 150 students.

J. Kwan: And the criteria for appeal…? The minister said there are many aspects which would be looked at. Does the minister have the list of criteria that would be used for evaluation?

Hon. S. Bond: I do not have the list of specific criteria with me. The best way to describe these criteria, in summary, is that they are circumstances beyond a student's control. They then go on to articulate what those might be, whether it's illness, marriage breakup, those kinds of things. There is a very long specific list of criteria, basically summarizing circumstances beyond their control.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. G. Plant: I am delighted to be able to present the estimates for the Ministry of the Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations. I should say, for the information of members present, that I'm joined here today…. On my right is the Deputy Attorney General, Gillian Wallace; on my left is the deputy minister for the treaty negotiations office, Philip Steenkamp; and behind me, sitting in a chair that I have seen her sit in before, is Thea Vakil, who is the executive financial officer for the ministry.

I will speak for a minute or two about some of the important challenges and opportunities that face me as the minister responsible for this newly reconstructed ministry in the new government of British Columbia. I can tell you that the ministry has a wide set of objectives and goals, but there is an overriding theme. The overriding theme is to reform and improve B.C.'s justice system and to help ensure that the principles of equality, justice and accountability guide us as we work to serve the all people of this province.

My ministry has already taken steps to honour some of the New Era commitments made by this government that apply to the work and responsibilities of this ministry. As promised, and in cooperation with my colleague the Solicitor General, photo radar has been eliminated, and the resources that had been employed in this failed experiment are being redirected to other more effective policing duties. The goal is to improve and enhance traffic safety in British Columbia. Photo radar was not succeeding as a project to achieve that goal. It's time to move on to new projects.

As well, my ministry has set up an independent task force to review private sector pay equity legislation. That task force is headed by Nitya Iyer, who is a distinguished lawyer and a former member of the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal. The task force will evaluate the options, models, costs and effectiveness of pay equity legislation. I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that in carrying out the work of the task force, the needs of both employees and employers will be taken in account.

As you know, under the directive of the Premier, my ministry and all the ministries of government are now conducting a core review of all their programs to assess clearly and logically and on a basis of principle what our business is, how we are going to do it and how we can do it better. We are also, from the direction of the Premier's Office, looking for ways to streamline our regulations to remove obstacles to productivity and public participation and to enhance access to justice in the province.

Toward that end, over the last few weeks this government has commenced what we call the administrative justice project — a detailed review of the more than 60 provincial agencies, boards and commissions that for many, many British Columbians constitute the front line of the justice system that they experience in their day-to-day lives. The review will include agencies like the B.C. Securities Commission, the manufactured home park dispute resolution committee, the Human Rights Tribunal, the Expropriation Compensation Board and many, many others.

In five years as an opposition MLA and since being appointed to the position I now hold, I have heard, as have my caucus colleagues, the voices of many people across British Columbia who say that based on their experience with these agencies, these tribunals, they have concerns about whether this part of our justice system is meeting and serving the public interest adequately — questions around delays, costs, fairness, the increasing complexity of administrative processes and other similar questions.

There's no doubt that the universe, if you will, of agencies, boards and commissions across government is populated by people who work hard, who are doing the best they can to serve the public interests. But the time has come, I think, to take a step back from the collection of agencies, boards and commissions, to look

at administrative justice as a system and to see if we can find ways to make it work better. This is a big project. It's going to look at the issues I've identified and more.

I encourage anyone who is interested in how administrative justice works in British Columbia to go to the Ministry of Attorney General website and look at the terms of reference for the project and in the months to come, then if they have views or insights on these issues, provide those views and insights to the various components of the project. The project will address all of these issues, and it will bring back final recommendations to cabinet by next August.

That's some of the work we've already started to do to make good on our promise to reform the institutions of government and to improve the systems of justice. There is obviously a lot more to do, and in the weeks and months ahead I know there will be legislative initiatives and other initiatives that will continue our progress toward the larger goals we've set for ourselves as a government.

I want to talk for a minute about treaty negotiations. One of the top priorities for this government is to find equitable solutions to some of the many issues that face the province's first nations peoples. As Minister Responsible for Treaty Negotiations, I share the Premier's commitment to negotiating workable, affordable settlements that will provide all British Columbians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal, with the platform of certainty and finality and equality that's needed to establish a new era of reconciliation, if you will, among aboriginal and non-aboriginal British Columbians.

Treaties offer the promise of hope, economic opportunity and greater self-determination for aboriginal people in British Columbia. We do want to build on the work that has been done and to fast-track settlements that reflect the principles that British Columbians want and expect from the treaty process and from treaties.

To meet these objectives, the government has established a treaty negotiations office that will allow us to focus on these priorities directly and more efficiently. The treaty negotiations office will deal largely with the questions of negotiation of treaties, with interim measures and also with land- and resource-related issues that are outside the treaty process.

One of the immediate aims of this office is to develop interim agreements with first nations to provide greater certainty during treaty talks. We also, as a government, are committed to the project that…

Hon. G. Plant: …will have to be described in more detail in a few minutes.

Hon. G. Plant: To continue where I left off, I want to point out that as a government, we are committed to negotiate delegated municipal style of self-government arrangements with any first nation that wants to work beyond the restrictions of the federal Indian Act. Regardless of the outcome of any negotiations, this government is committed to ensuring that all aboriginal governments have the same legal status in B.C. as they do in any other province.

Let's speak for a moment about the referendum commitment. There are three parties to the treaty process in British Columbia. There's the federal government, the provincial government and each first nation that has submitted a statement of intent and been admitted to the negotiation process.

For far too long, in my view, most British Columbians have felt shut out of the negotiation process. They've felt alienated from the positions that the province takes when it sits down and negotiates, for its part, at the treaty table. I have felt the same sense of frustration. All of us, after all, will have to live with the outcomes of treaty settlements. That's why we're committed to giving all British Columbians the opportunity to participate in a public debate about the principles the province should take to the treaty table, the principles that should guide B.C.'s approach to treaty negotiations.

We'll have that public debate in the form of a one-time provincewide referendum. The government, through the Legislature, will ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to consult with British Columbians, including first nations, to draft the referendum questions that will be put to the people of British Columbia in the referendum. I want to be clear: it cannot and will not be a referendum on aboriginal rights or title. The government recognizes that these rights are protected under section 35 of the constitution, and nothing in the referendum will undermine those rights or title.

Those are some of the most important priorities of this ministry for the next year. If there's an opportunity to pursue issues in the course of this debate, I certainly will welcome that.

I want to say that the last two months, which for me have been the first two months of serving in the new government, have been an exhilarating roller-coaster ride. I have been given an enormous amount of help and assistance from a public service in my ministry that is dedicated to helping us move forward to achieve our goals and to do so in a way that respects the best traditions of public service, with confidence, with independent judgment where required and with a cheerful sense of the project and the hard work that lies ahead of us. It's actually even been fun from time to time.

Hon. G. Plant: I hope that the member is being detained by press and…. There aren't any questions, so….

I have some questions for the Attorney General. They're primarily related to the referendum process. My first question is: when will the committee that's designed to deal with the referendum question be established?

Hon. G. Plant: The answer is: no specific date, but I am confident that we will be able to appoint the committee and to give it a mandate during the current session of the Legislature.

J. Kwan: This committee will consist of only MLAs and no experts, if you will, or community leaders?

Hon. G. Plant: The platform commitment was to appoint an all-party committee of the Legislature. So the committee will be a committee of the Legislature. In fact, it will be the Select Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs that I expect will be given the mandate to undertake this work. Members of the public, including experts and persons interested in treaty issues, will have an opportunity to contribute to the work of the committee through the process that the committee will establish for itself.

J. Kwan: Your former Aboriginal Affairs critic has said that there could be up to a dozen questions on the referendum. Is this still under consideration?

Hon. G. Plant: The commitment is to appoint an all-party committee. It's going to be the committee that decides that question, as well as whatever other questions the committee decides it needs to decide in order to give the government the tools it needs to conduct the referendum.

J. Kwan: What mandate would be given to the committee? Is it just to construct the referendum question or to make a recommendation on the referendum question?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the exact terms of reference for the committee are still being worked on, but the intention is to honour the platform commitment.

Hon. G. Plant: This is a committee of the Legislature, and it will operate in accordance with the rules and practices that apply to committees of the Legislature. It's not a committee constituted under the vote of the Ministry of Attorney General or the treaty negotiations office.

J. Kwan: What if the majority of those that vote on the referendum endorse a position that refuses self-government or land being on the table?

The Chair: Member, hypothetical questions are not in order. The responsibilities of the minister….

J. Kwan: On the referendum process, to what communities does the minister anticipate the committee will travel?

J. Kwan: Would it also be up to the committee to decide the length of time that would be required to do the work of the committee, or would the government put a specific date on completion of the committee's work?

J. Kwan: You're considering putting a time line on it, or you're considering leaving it wide open? You're considering both?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the member identified a couple of options, and there may be others, around whether or not the terms of reference for the committee should include a time line for completion of their work. That is one of the issues we are considering in developing the terms of reference for the committee.

J. Kwan: Has the minister, to date, received letters from members of the community — whether it be business, aboriginal leaders or others — asking the minister not to proceed with the referendum?

J. Kwan: Would the minister provide us with that list of people who have expressed an opinion on the referendum question?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I am not really at liberty to do so. People who communicate with me do so sometimes in circumstances where I think that ordinarily the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act might provide some protection for their identity. I can tell the member, though, that I have been part of a public discussion around the idea of a referendum for some years now in British Columbia, and it's clear to me that there are people in the province who do not

support the proposal that we made in the election campaign. I have listened to their arguments. We think, as a government, that we were not just given a mandate by the election campaign but were, in effect, told by the public that they expect us to honour the commitments we've made. One of those commitments is to hold, within a year, a one-time provincewide referendum on the principles that should guide the province's approach to treaty negotiations.

So to people who have, in the past, expressed opposition to our proposal and our commitment to conduct a referendum, I say this: join with us in the project of improving the treaty process in British Columbia. Join with us in making the treaty process a process that will bring British Columbians together, and it will resolve the issues that exist with respect to such matters as the Indian land question, as it's often called. Put aside your concerns for as long as it takes to work with us to make sure that the referendum will fulfil the purpose that I believe it can fulfil, which is to re-engage the public in the business of treaty-making, to re-engage the public of British Columbia in this very important project that will affect all our lives for many years.

I think that the public have been left out of this dialogue. I think that they need to be a part of this dialogue. They need to be a part of treaty-making in British Columbia if we are going to build treaties that work. We have made a commitment to hold a referendum because we believe the referendum is the tool to achieve that re-engagement of the public in the treaty process. So there are people out there who have raised questions and concerns. That makes democracy a healthy place, when there's a divergence of views, but we have a commitment, and we intend to honour it.

J. Kwan: Since the attorney has been appointed as the Attorney General, has he engaged in stakeholder consultations with community groups relating to the referendum?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I'm not going to go down the path and try to sort out what the member means by the term she uses: "stakeholder consultations." I can tell you that one of the projects of the government has been to meet with first nations groups that are interested in meeting with us, and we've met with a number of those groups. We have re-instituted the process of quarterly meetings of the principals in the B.C. Treaty Commission process, and in the context of some of those meetings the issue of a referendum has come up.

J. Kwan: Different ministries would have a list of stakeholder groups on particular issues, and consultation would usually begin with those people, and others perhaps would be added on down the road. So on the referendum question, can the minister provide me with a list of people that he's consulted with on this?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm getting a bit of a sense of what the member means by the term "stakeholder consultation." We haven't been doing that.

J. Kwan: Just so I'm clear, the minister or his staff have not consulted, then, with the various stakeholders on the referendum question since he's been appointed.

J. Kwan: Has the minister received feedback or comments from the business community on the issue of the referendum question?

J. Kwan: Would the minister shed some light on who these community business leaders might be?

J. Kwan: I can see that the minister is being particularly helpful and forthcoming with information. Does the minister even know the information that he's received from the business community and whether they're in support of the referendum question or are opposed to it?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I've already answered that question. I did so about five minutes ago. We're going to hold a referendum.

J. Kwan: Actually, that wasn't the question. The question was about the correspondence, the information, that the minister has received to date in his office from the business community. Are they in support of the referendum question, or are they opposed to it?

J. Kwan: I guess this is the new era under the Liberal government. Showing, I think, complete disdain to a question from the opposition relating to his ministry and his work is the approach that he's taken. I think that's most unfortunate and certainly does not foster a cooperative working relationship.

In particular, I hope that the minister does not take this approach in the treaty-making process. If he treats the aboriginal people in the manner which he is displaying right now, I have no doubt that there will be a lot of problems out in the community. Perhaps the minister doesn't care about that, but I would urge the minister to please check his attitude. Perhaps he doesn't care, in this House, in terms of how he deals with opposition members. But perhaps he should care a little bit more for British Columbians out in the public.

Having said that, is the minister concerned — or maybe he is not concerned — about legal liabilities in changing the initial intent of the treaty process on the

principles that were signed and originally agreed to? Is the minister concerned at all that there may be legal liabilities with respect to changing the initial intent of the treaty process by injecting a referendum question into the process?

J. Kwan: So the minister has reviewed a legal position, and by changing the initial intent of the treaty process and the principles that were agreed to by the three parties…. The minister has no legal liability concerns whatsoever about injecting the referendum question and thereby changing the principles of the treaty process that were agreed to by all three parties.

Hon. G. Plant: The member may not be aware of this, but I'm sure she's aware that the B.C. Claims Task Force report, which was the original basis for establishing the Treaty Commission, had, I think, some 19 recommendations in it for the treaty process itself. Prior to the election, the Premier indicated his support for those 19 process principles. Sadly, they are principles that were not always honoured by the former government. We think that they are principles that can be honoured by this government.

The question that the referendum is concerned with is: what are the principles in terms of outcomes and mandates that the province should take to the treaty table? Those are, I believe, issues of public policy, issues on which the public of British Columbia are entitled to have a say. They are not issues, in my view, around legal liability. So we're talking about a process that's intended to make good public policy. In this process each of the three parties is responsible for determining their own approach to the issues that will be raised at the treaty table, and we're entitled, I believe, to consult with British Columbians to get some help on the approach we should take at the treaty table.

J. Kwan: The United Native Nations and the B.C. Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres formed a group called the Aboriginal Peoples Council, and I know that they have written to the minister requesting a meeting with the minister. Particularly, they are interested in engaging with the minister to ask about forming some sort of tripartite process with respect to aboriginal issues with this particular group. Does the minister intend to meet with this group, the UNN and the friendship association forming the Aboriginal Peoples Council group?

Hon. G. Plant: My understanding is that given the nature of the requests made by those folks, the minister of our government that will be responsible for responding to that request is the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

J. Kwan: That's on the assumption that all of the program deliveries related to aboriginal people are from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services?

Hon. G. Plant: That is the intention behind the way the government has been reorganized. So program delivery, which could include things like friendship centres, is going to be the responsibility of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

J. Kwan: I know that there is an interest from the UNN and the aboriginal friendship association, the Aboriginal Peoples Council, in engaging in the treaty process as well. Would they have an opportunity to engage in discussions with the minister on that front — not on the programs delivered to urban aboriginals but rather on the overall issues related to the treaty process?

Hon. G. Plant: Based on the advice I'm receiving, I don't know that they've made that request. If they make that request, we'll deal with it. I can inform the member that one of our other commitments is to create a first citizens forum, which is going to be a place where we think aboriginal people will have an opportunity, divorced from some of the traditional aboriginal political organizations, to bring forward and discuss, amongst themselves and with government, issues that relate to the relationship between aboriginal people and the government of British Columbia, issues around service delivery and the like. That may well be a very good forum for the United Native Nations and Aboriginal Peoples Council to participate in a dialogue with government.

J. Kwan: Could the minister advise us what the status is with the rest of the communities throughout the province who have entered into agreements-in-principle on the treaty process?

Hon. G. Plant: There are in fact no agreements-in-principle that have been ratified in British Columbia as matters stand today. There are stage 4 negotiations underway at a number of tables, and those negotiations have…. There was a hiatus over the election campaign, but those negotiations are underway again.

J. Kwan: Could the minister say what the communities are that are now in stage 4 negotiations?

Hon. G. Plant: We're talking about approximately 30 or 40 different first nations that are at the stage 4 process, and we'll provide the member with a list of the first nations that are in the AIP negotiation stage.

J. Kwan: Out of those 30-some first nations, how many does the minister anticipate would actually move forward beyond stage 4, towards an agreement-in-principle?

Hon. G. Plant: Let me say this first of all: not much in this respect has changed since the member was a minister of the Crown. We're back negotiating. We're trying to make progress where we think we can make progress. As the member herself would know from her previous experience in government, there are a couple of tables where we are pretty close. In the case of Sliammon, for example, I think that an agreement-in-principle was initialled by the Sliammon negotiators, and the Sliammon are working with their community towards a more formal ratification of the AIP.

In the case of the Nuu-chah-nulth the situation today is pretty much as it was before the election. Although I may not have the timing quite right, I think that six of the member first nations and the Nuu-chah-nulth have essentially not ratified an AIP and six have. All three sets of parties, if you will — the federal government, the provincial government and the Nuu-chah-nulth communities — are trying to sort out how to deal with that situation. There may be one or two others that are close to concluding an AIP, but in some it's a handful at most.

J. Kwan: Since May the mandates given to the negotiators by the government for the negotiations have…. Are there any changes with respect to the mandates given to the negotiators?

Hon. G. Plant: After the government took office, there was a meeting with the First Nations Summit Task Group, the Premier, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and me in Vancouver. At that meeting we undertook to resume negotiations. We have in general terms told the province's negotiators that we think there can be some progress in the near term on issues like the identification of lands and resources, discussing questions around interim measures, subsurface resources, forest resources, access roads, rights-of-way, fisheries, migratory birds, wildlife, environmental assessment and protection, capital transfer and so on, cultural artifacts and heritage, where those are issues that progress can be made on at specific tables.

We've also said that we think that there are some issues where we as a province are not going to make much progress while we undertake the referendum process, which, after all, is about making sure we get a principal mandate to proceed with treaty negotiations. Some of those issues include the discussions around general provisions, which include discussions around certainty and finality clauses, governance, fiscal relations, taxation and some other water and lands issues.

Generally speaking, that's the breakdown between what we have told our negotiators we would like to concentrate on in the months leading up to the referendum. We've also said — the Premier has said — that in some specific cases where negotiations are well advanced, we're willing to look at a broader range of issues if that would help ensure that there is progress at the treaty tables.

J. Kwan: Specifically on the mandates given to the negotiators by the province with respect to land and governance, has the mandate changed for these two areas?

Hon. G. Plant: I want to pause for a moment. The member uses the term "mandate." Mandate, as she will know, having been a member of cabinet, is really a term that is often used to describe what the instructions are that cabinet gives to negotiators in terms of the actual amounts of things like land and the actual substantive provisions of the agreement. When she uses the term "mandate" in the present context, though, I think what she's really talking about is the instructions that we have given to negotiators about the issues that we believe we can make some progress on over the course of the next few months leading up to the referendum. I've already given that broad overview of issues in my answer to the last question. The issues that have been set aside have not changed.

J. Kwan: Just to be clear, then, the minister has not changed his instructions to his negotiators on negotiations with first nations around treaty-making — let's say the Nuu-chah-nulth on the amount of land made available for the agreement. Is that correct?

Hon. G. Plant: That's correct. The example of the Nuu-chah-nulth takes us back to the information that I gave the member already. Instructions have not changed. What we have done is said to our negotiators: "There are some issues that we would like to set aside for the time being and other issues where we think we can negotiate and make progress." The difference between those two is, approximately speaking, the list that I outlined a minute or so ago.

J. Kwan: Would the minister provide us with a list of the areas that he has asked his negotiators to set aside in negotiations of treaties?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm informed that there is a public fact sheet that we'll be distributing at each table, if we have not already begun to do so, which I believe will answer the member's question. I'll make sure that she gets a copy of it.

J. Kwan: I'm actually pressed for time to get back to the big House, but such is the situation we're in.

I want to switch gears for a moment to ask a question around pay equity. I know that there is legislation introduced in the big House, and I'm not going to ask specific questions around the legislation itself. Rather, I'm interested in what consultation process, if any, the ministry engaged in, in bringing

Hon. G. Plant: Before dealing with the pay equity issue, let me respond to the first part of what the member said. If there are other questions that the member has from time to time relating to either the Treaty Negotiation Office work or the Ministry of Attorney General, I encourage you to raise them. I will certainly try to deal with them. Although it's off subject, strictly speaking, I suppose it relates in part to the second aspect of the member's question.

The staff of the Ministry of Attorney General are available to provide technical briefings on legislation when it's introduced. I know the member is going to have a hard time being in seven places at once, but we're certainly prepared to try to help provide the member with the information that she needs to do her job.

Yesterday we announced that the task force to review pay equity had been appointed. I think that in the weeks to come, we'll hear from the head of the task force on the process that she'll follow in doing the work that we've asked her to do.

The Chair: We will have a short recess, and we will return with the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'd like to start just by introducing my staff. On my right is Margaret Arthur, the Deputy Minister of Ag, Food and Fisheries, and on my left is Gordon Macatee, the assistant deputy ministry responsible for agriculture and food operations. Oh, behind me there's more staff than I thought. We have Al Martin — I guess you're a director, Al? — from the fisheries part of the ministry; Paul Kariya, directly behind me, the CEO of Fisheries Renewal; and Dave Davies, who is our executive director of public services.

Hon. Chair, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries has a diverse portfolio: fishing, farming and food processing. The portfolio is complex — I think often more complex than most people realize — requiring that our land and water resources are used wisely and effectively. Our priority is economic development but in an environmentally sustainable way, whether we are talking about greenhouse production or our wild fish stocks.

Our mission is to find solutions that meet the needs of farmers, ranchers, fishermen, fish and shellfish farmers, and food processors. We must assist in achieving industry-led solutions acceptable to communities and always meeting the task of environmental and economic sustainability. We will act boldly to help British Columbia's agriculture, food and fisheries industries to grow in a manner that is economically viable, environmentally sustainable and socially acceptable.

We do have several key opportunities. We will develop a strategic plan to renew the fisheries sector, including the processing industry. I know that the seafood industry faces many challenges. Certainly in the last 60 days we've engaged in some of those. We will work cooperatively with industry and other stakeholders to address these. We will work to strengthen, develop and diversify B.C.'s seafood industry to see that it emerges as a more competitive industry. I am committed to an agenda for change that outlines priorities, objectives and performance measures.

We will work to improve the financial viability of the aquaculture sector, always in a way that minimizes environmental impacts. Our industry has some excellent competitive advantages, including growing conditions and proximity and access to the U.S. market. But clearly, there are challenges. Industry is telling us they require more growing space, to be economically viable in today's global marketplace. They are concerned about investor security, regulatory costs imposed by government, access to new tenures and their ability to meet new environmental standards on existing sites. We must address these by providing clear direction that recognizes aquaculture as a legitimate user of aquatic space and resources while maintaining sound environmental practices.

We must coordinate and improve the approvals and monitoring process to establish clear industry standards to be followed, ensuring environmental and economic sustainability. It is imperative that the policy framework for aquaculture development balances growth with community consensus and environmental needs.

Salmon and shellfish farming operations must continue to meet or exceed regulatory standards for siting, fish health, waste management and escape management. We must also work with industry to ensure that any expansion can take place in a fair and open manner. I look forward to the challenge of developing the policy framework to allow the industry to develop in an environmentally sustainable manner.

We will review regulated marketing in the agriculture and food industry. The government will work with agricultural marketing boards to give fair and stable returns to farmers for quality products and a consistent food supply at a fair price to consumers. We will review ways to improve the system and make

regulated marketing sensitive to local and international markets through appropriate policy direction but with a minimum of government interference.

We must develop effective partnerships. This ministry will work closely with the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management and the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection to address barriers that interfere with farming and aquaculture doing business and to encourage more effective use of Crown resources for food production. It is critical that these three provincial government agencies work together to balance economic development with the protection of our natural resources.

We also have an important relationship with ministries like the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. Together with all of our provincial partners, we will launch an aggressive and sustained assault on reducing red tape and unnecessary regulations that restrict businesses and use up their valuable time and resources.

We also intend to establish effective working relationships with the federal government. We will negotiate a better definition of our regulatory responsibilities for fisheries resource management, food safety and international trade. At the same time, we will express our concerns about federal — that's the Department of Fisheries and Oceans — encroachment on provincial economic activities such as farming and aquaculture. We will negotiate with Ottawa to capture greater economic and social benefits from our offshore resources and to have a fair share of federal programs, and we will build on our partnerships in place with the federal government in the agriculture and food industry.

We also intend to build cooperative and constructive relationships with local governments. We see this as a critical element in our plan to advance the economic contribution of agriculture and aquaculture. The provincial right to farm legislation and well-managed relationships with local governments and citizens will be a very important role for our ministry.

We are developing a plan to allow agrifood sectors to grow. In June I met federal, provincial and territorial agriculture ministers in Whitehorse. We took a major step towards securing the long-term success of the sector by agreeing in principle on a national action plan to make Canada the world leader in food safety, innovation and environmental protection. We agreed to a principal framework for federal-provincial safety net programs — a core priority to help our farmers remain competitive while handling the risks associated with farming. Part of this new plan will see improved science and technology in agriculture and food to strengthen environmental stewardship and food safety. Science will facilitate economic opportunities for new products such as nutraceuticals and functional foods. Change is inevitable, and we will work hard to help the agriculture, food and fisheries sectors adapt.

Trade and investment. We live in a global marketplace. Our products are going further, and they are being recognized around the world. We recognize the challenges faced in marketing agricultural products internationally, through trade agreements, and nationally, through Canadian supply management programs. One of our priorities will be to promote B.C.'s strengths in trade and investment to become more competitive and develop markets that are viable and sustainable. I want to help producers be more competitive and to find new markets for their products so they can contribute to the prosperity of British Columbia.

In conclusion, I know that the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries can be a very important part of our plan to build a strong economy. We have much to look forward to in British Columbia by making sure that species and products so important to our communities are developed fairly and managed carefully.

I will encourage better technology to help industry compete internationally and to diversify. We will work to reduce red tape and regulations that complicate the process of doing business in British Columbia. We will work to promote more new businesses and expand our share of export markets. We will work closely with other governments to ensure that our farmers on land and water can carry out their business while also respecting our natural resources. Throughout the process we will evaluate to see what has been achieved, and we will take stock of what still needs to be done.

I also want to take this opportunity to thank all of the ministry staff and the farm community for their support. We look forward to working with both these groups as well as all of the members of this House to make our agriculture, fish and food industries the best they can be.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his opening comments. I represent a community that is not heavily laden with farms, although it's adjacent to some of the farms in the Blenkinsop Valley, so I am familiar with some of the issues facing the farmers there. However, the issue I'm concerned about which has been raised with me has to do with a program that this ministry has administered in the past. That, of course, as the minister is aware, is the Buy B.C. program. I know it has been a successful food and beverage marketing program, so much so that our B.C. products and the label are very well known to consumers, and very well received, I might add.

I do appreciate, like all programs that are launched by government, that at some point there should be a review undertaken to determine what direction that program should take. As it turns out, this government and this ministry have decided that they no longer need to continue with that program. I appreciate the fact that if our priorities are health care and education, then we do have to take a look and scrutinize all the programs that are available. Also, coming from the private sector, I do know that governments, from time to time, have to get out of the way to allow the private sector to flourish and to do other, more innovative things with programs that a government may launch.

However, there is a component of that particular program that was brought to my attention. I was able to suggest that a meeting take place with the ministry staff and the people involved. It's the Share B.C. program and the food banks that were affected by it. I was just wondering if the minister could provide some update on that and whether he knows how long that program will continue. I know it has to do with coupons that are available so that the food bank associations can do some planning of their own to see to what extent they have to develop a new program or work in partnership with other people. That's the first part of the question that I have.

I think, also, that the Buy B.C. program in general, as I understand it…. The ministry is finalizing the formal expressions of interest out there. Perhaps the minister can share with us, without disclosing confidential sectors of those expressions of interest, the criteria that may be used and what the progress is on that. I'd like an update as to how the expressions of interest on the program itself are going to come through, if possible. Then, secondly and in particular, the Share B.C. program — what the food bank organizations can anticipate and how we in our communities might work with them in that area, if we are called upon to do that.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Well, certainly, speaking first of all to the overall Buy B.C. program, I share the member's view that it was a good program. It was in place for about eight years and was well supported, I think, through that time. It was successful in creating a high level of consumer identification with the Buy B.C. logo and the buy local logo and some of the other themes and logos that were part of the program. Certainly I think that one of the performance evaluations of the program indicated that there was something like an 80 percent consumer recognition.

That being said, when this government took office, one of the things we looked at was all taxpayer-funded advertising. That was one of the things that caused this program to be reviewed. In the overall analysis of the critical needs for health care and education and the deficit situation that we find ourselves in, in weighing those various interests and the use of taxpayers' dollars, it was decided to discontinue the public funding of the program. In doing that, we recognize that we have considerable brand equity built up in the program and considerable interest outside of government in possibly looking at some kind of an arrangement to maintain those logos and that program. So, as the member knows, we are in the process of seeking expressions of interest.

She asked about criteria that would be used to evaluate those submissions. We are in the process of developing a letter seeking those expressions of interest. Once those are received, we will fine-tune the criteria for evaluating the options that we have and possibly put together a small working group within the ministry to execute that.

The part of the program that the member referred to, the B.C. Sharing program, was certainly a very successful and critical element in the program. It had been going about four years, and it was well received by consumers. I have to confess that I personally probably underestimated the value of that program. In the process of winding down the Buy B.C. program, we met with the B.C. branch of the Canadian Food Bank Association and had a very productive meeting, with about six representatives there from Vancouver, Victoria, Kelowna, Kamloops and maybe a few other places. I thank the member for helping to put that meeting together. I think it was on July 17. We had a very good meeting, a very productive meeting, and our staff are in the process of talking to the Food Bank Association, because we think they are one party that could carry the program on. The investment on an annual basis was somewhere around $65,000 to $100,000, depending on what year it was, and the level of revenue generated for food banks was about $600,000 a year.

It was very interesting to talk to representatives from Vancouver, for example, who said that the Vancouver food bank purchased $10,000 worth of B.C. eggs every month on a very consistent basis. Shortly afterwards, my ministerial assistant and I met with Brian Walter of the Canadian Grocers' Association, because we see them as very important partners in our overall food industry. They represent virtually all of our large retailers. We wanted to ensure that they had the level of interest to work with us to maintain the B.C. Sharing program, and they do. So we were very pleased to have their support, and we are now actively engaged in maintaining that program.

I should also say that we have assured all parties that we would maintain the program up to six months. We have an existing inventory of coupons and other materials that we'll use, and we've authorized a company to ensure that the supermarkets are well stocked with these coupons and that the appropriate and existing level of advertising materials, etc., for the program are there.

I've been very pleased with the response of the food banks and the other partners, and I have absolutely no doubt that we will put together an arrangement whereby we can have an ongoing B.C. Sharing program. We will continue to license and control the labels, as government. We have these labels trademarked. I have no doubt that it will continue to be a program that is equally successful as anything we've had in the last four years.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that update. I didn't realize that there was a commitment for six months. I think that's very important, given that the winter months and the Christmas time period are coming up, when the food banks are always in more demand than they care to be. This will certainly carry them through that time. I do appreciate the minister's confidence that the B.C. Sharing program can continue in some form after this with whatever partnership is developed. I do want to thank him for that.

I would ask the minister, then, if possible — I'm sure he'll keep all members informed, but myself in particular — if his ministry staff is able to keep me informed on this. I do have a good working relationship with the association here and with the Mustard Seed, who in particular have been very instrumental in seeing that the B.C. Sharing program, as well, has had the awareness of the B.C. products out there, helping all of us here and our economy. With that, I thank the minister.

B. Penner: Hon. Chair, this is my first opportunity, I think, to congratulate you on your appointment as committee Chair. I look forward to working with you in the weeks, months and years ahead. It's also my first opportunity to publicly congratulate the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries on his appointment. I'm sure he'll do a very good job. It seems to me that I've heard that he has at least a passing familiarity with agriculture, which is not surprising given his background as a farmer. I think the province will benefit greatly from his experience.

I'd like to ask a question concerning greenhouses and the entire greenhouse industry. It's my understanding that most of the time, the greenhouse industry is looked at as two separate components. There's the hothouse industry, which grows vegetables and produce, and the horticulture industry, which grows mostly gardening plants, flowers and the like for market.

In the last year that entire sector has faced huge economic challenges as a result of wild fluctuations in the price of natural gas. Of course, natural gas is required to keep the greenhouses heated not only in the winter months but, I'm told, also in the summer from time to time. I wonder if the minister, first of all, could provide us with a bit of an overview as to the size and economic significance of the greenhouse industry to British Columbia, including the number of employees and the benefit to government in terms of revenue, if those figures are available to him.

Hon. J. van Dongen: First of all, to answer the question on the scale of the greenhouse industry, the vegetable portion particularly — I guess I could also say flora culture, but the vegetable portion has been more prominent — has experienced tremendous growth and annual gross sales of now over $200 million. A big percentage of that, better than 50 percent of that, is new export markets in the United States.

It's creating great jobs for our people 12 months of the year. The level of productivity from greenhouse vegetables is really something to behold in that, depending on the vegetable — whether it's cucumber or tomato — we are multiplying the production per acre by something like a factor of 35 to 50 times what would be produced in a field situation versus in a greenhouse. There's the added benefit of having better control of the environment and the product and the added benefit of having the facility, the ability, to use things like integrated pest management. Most of this production is happening with very, very little in the way of chemicals. It's being done in integrated pest management fashion.

The floriculture side has also been growing significantly. It's over $75 million a year and growing. The difference between the two sectors is quite significant, in that the vegetable operations are very large units. They are fairly large corporate entities, usually driven by one or two families. They're large, independent units. In the floriculture industry, the greenhouses are much smaller. So when they were faced with the huge spike in natural gas prices, starting last November, the situation was really somewhat different for the vegetable side than for the floriculture side.

The vegetable side tended to be into arrangements for purchasing natural gas that were based on day pricing, as opposed to prices that were locked in for the year. The smaller floriculture operations were involved in pricing arrangements, generally through B.C. Gas, which are quite parallel to our residential pricing arrangements. They were part of the rate stabilization account scheme. So they had a level price. They didn't face the huge spike that some of the vegetable greenhouses did.

But at the same time, now, when actual prices are in the $3 to $4 range, they're paying $11. They are expected to be paying $11 or somewhere in that neighbourhood for natural gas for the next two to two and a half years, unless they can find a way to opt out of that arrangement and buy at the day price. You could buy a year's worth of gas, lock it in today, at somewhere between $5 and $6 a gigajoule.

So they're facing some unique challenges in terms of trying to get their operations viable over the next two to three years because of that pricing situation, that pricing arrangement.

B. Penner: I appreciate the answer from the minister and the thorough overview. One specific question, though, following up on that is: is the minister aware of how many employees in British Columbia depend upon the greenhouse industry for their employment?

Hon. J. van Dongen: Again we don't have the precise figures, but in Delta alone we know there are about 2,000 employees. As I said, those are year-round jobs, not seasonal jobs. If we look at the whole industry, we're estimating between 3,000 and 4,000.

B. Penner: As a result of the increased cost pressures arising from the higher prices for natural gas, a number of greenhouse operators have been looking at imaginative and creative solutions to try and deal with that huge cost pressure. One of the suggestions that's been put forward is to move toward a localized form of cogeneration, where the excess heat that's generated by burning natural gas to heat the greenhouses would be harnessed in some fashion to generate electricity. The electricity then could presumably be sold to B.C. Hydro or Powerex, helping

Can the minister provide us with an update as to where that proposal or concept is? I know it's fraught with many technical and other challenges. I just wonder if the minister can inform us where that concept is at today.

Before I sit down, I'd just like to put on the record my concern, of course, for air quality in the Fraser Valley. I think it is an idea, in terms of cogeneration for greenhouses, worth looking at, provided that it can be done in an environmentally sensitive manner without adversely impacting air quality in the Fraser Valley.

Hon. J. van Dongen: Certainly the member is correct that cogeneration is one of the options that greenhouse operators have identified to deal with the huge spikes in wildly fluctuating natural gas prices. Any sort of option that is considered, whether it's based on natural gas or other possible fuels, needs to meet the test of good environmental standards. I think the industry recognizes that.

Given the movement of prices both of electricity and natural gas since December, when they peaked, the idea or the option of cogeneration based on natural gas is becoming less and less economical under general conditions. There are certain situations where it may still be viable, depending on the kinds of arrangements that can be made with B.C. Hydro.

One of the benefits of cogeneration for these kinds of facilities…. For example, the lower mainland can be producing surplus power from their operation and plugging it into the B.C. Hydro distribution system in an area where there is a high demand for electricity. There are certain situations, one of the them in the member's constituency, where there appears to be some seriously fluctuating voltages on power lines in the distribution system. So in a circumstance like that, it may be possible to justify a cogeneration situation, because it will actually add some value to the situation in terms of balancing voltages.

We have had, I think, three meetings with the greenhouse industry since this government was sworn in. We have convened a meeting that involved B.C. Hydro, some private gas brokers, some co-gen equipment suppliers, and I think we have fostered some new discussion with B.C. Hydro to look at all of the various options.

For the floriculture sector it seems to me that the most immediate thing that government could do is see if there was some way we could help facilitate these growers being able to buy their way out of the $11 fixed price and get into the current market at something like $5 or $6, which can be done with a limited penalty. The problem that most of the growers are facing is that their financial resources are so exhausted that they're not able to find someone to finance a letter of credit. They need to go to a new supplier and find some way to cover off the existing debt to the existing gas supplier. So that's something that we are currently addressing to see if there's anything that this ministry can do to help facilitate that. That, in my mind, is the single most viable and immediate thing that could be done and should be done.

Co-gen, I think, is certainly an ongoing area of interest and one that will fit into this government's intention and policy to look at more independent power generation as part of our overall energy plan in British Columbia.

B. Penner: Again, I thank the minister for his answer. He did answer most of my questions.

I'd just like to leave on this point. At the recent Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference we heard a number of presenters from across North America talk about the increasing trend toward what's called distributive power generation, where the impetus is to generate the electricity closer to the demand centres so that you can prevent or alleviate the kind of voltage fluctuation problems that the member quite properly identified as occurring in the constituency I represent. I do think that the whole issue of cogeneration on that small scale close to the load demand is worth considering — again, with the caveat of minimal air emissions, because we all know about the air quality problems in the Fraser Valley.

One concept which I know has been bandied about, if this government follows through on a commitment to phase out the use of Burrard Thermal, is to look at a way of replacing that generation capacity with smaller-scale projects distributed more widely throughout the lower mainland, with an overall goal of achieving a net reduction in emissions as compared to what's presently coming out of Burrard Thermal. I think that is a goal that is potentially realistic. It just needs to be closely examined and studied to confirm it, but I think that might be something worth pursuing. I agree with the member that it's probably more of a long-term answer to the challenges and the other suggestion that he's identified in terms of getting the producers out of the $11-per-gigajoule contract for natural gas.

R. Masi: My question today is on cannons and berries. I think we've gone around this a number of times. I've spoken on it before in estimates over the years. We haven't seen much change in the results, though, in terms of the effect on the neighbourhood. I represent North Delta specifically, and the problem is located in the Sunshine Hills area, which is a neighbourhood which is very heavily populated — a long-time residence. I'm a 25-year resident myself.

Over the last few years there's been an increase in the noise created by the berry cannons. They exist just below North Delta on the farm area there. I understand perfectly that there is a right to farm. There's no question in my mind about that. It's a valuable industry, and it should be maintained. However, on the other hand, citizens do have a right to peace and quiet and good order. I think that's one of our founding principles in Canada. But I have to assure the minister that the guns of August are booming again. Sundays

are disrupted; shift workers are losing sleep. It's just a whole general reduction of peace and tranquility in the area. I'm interested in hearing the minister's response on whether or not there's progress in this area.

Hon. J. van Dongen: I thank the member for his question. He may not be aware that I'm somewhat familiar with the area, because I spent a year of my life in Delta. It was about 1963. We lived on 104th Street. So I'm familiar with the lands in that area that are great blueberry-growing lands.

Certainly the member is correct in identifying the need for farmers to have the tools to control birds and predation of their crops. When you have a flock of birds swoop down on a blueberry field, you can lose up to 50 percent of the crop. That can sometimes happen in devastatingly short order under certain conditions. On the other hand, certainly there are citizens in Delta and in other communities who have expressed concern about the noise of the blueberry cannons. As the member says, this is an issue that the ministry has worked hard to address over the years, together with local governments and other partners.

Shortly after coming into this position, we made some decisions about what we would try and do to more proactively address this issue than in the past. We designated two staff members, one senior staff member in Abbotsford and one summer student, to work on this project for us with two things in mind. One is to identify and record any complaints or issues we had with cannons throughout British Columbia — obviously mainly in the lower mainland, but there also may be some in the Okanagan.

We wanted to document what's out there in terms of the issues. Certainly there are many situations that vary from one to another. We also wanted to ensure that farmers were following the current guidelines that are in place. There's a code of practice, including a number of points that should be followed in terms of the operation of these cannons: for example, hours of operation, frequency, this kind of thing.

So we wanted to try and do those two things for this season, obviously coming into this situation fairly well advanced into the season. We're doing that. So I would encourage the member, if he gets calls to his constituency office, to forward them to Bert Van Dalfsen in Abbotsford. It's been set up under the Enquiry B.C. line so that you can identify that person and get the message to them. They will investigate the situation, try and work with the people involved to deal with the current situation and document whether there's a bird management plan, what kind of tools the farmer is using, whether there are some other tools being used — those kinds of other options that the farmer has.

Certainly there's been a whole range of options that farmers have tried: everything from scarecrows to motorbikes to a number of things. The farmers that I talked to want to be able to reserve the right to use cannons, but where it's most successful is where they're used in combination with other approaches. Netting is certainly an option in many situations. It's a much higher capital cost; there are higher operating costs. It does have some problems when you're doing machine picking, but it is an option.

What we intend to do is review all of the material we have. We do have a study that was done two or three years ago by the Farm Practices Board. We'll review all of the information that we assemble out of the exercise this summer, and we'll consult with the industry and other stakeholders with a view to trying to implement a more proactive program for the next season. I'm not committing at this time that the outcome may be the complete banning of cannons, but certainly I think there's room for a more proactive approach in using them as a management tool.

I just cite one example where we have a higher level of difficulty than others: where you have owners of blueberry fields that do not live where the blueberry fields are. We find that the cannons are sometimes running longer hours. They're not monitored. Sometimes they're running when they don't need to be running. So we want to try and see if we can be more proactive in those kind of situations.

I thank the member for his question. It is an important issue and one that I'm committed to trying to find a better balance of interests on than we have right now.

The Chair: We'll take a five-minute recess, and then we'll take the Ministry of Transportation.

Hon. J. Reid: When I was appointed Minister of Transportation, I was encouraged that all provincial transportation agencies would now report to one minister. I've been asked to review the province's transportation system and develop a strategic provincial transportation plan involving the ministry and the other transportation agencies. This is underway. I'm absolutely committed to making sure we all work together to make our transportation

systems efficient and reliable. This will help revitalize and stimulate the economy.

For the Ministry of Transportation the total budget for capital maintenance, operations and asset acquisition this year is $809 million. From this amount the $331 million capital plan emphasizes needed improvements with special focus on the north.

The Chair: Minister, I'll have to interrupt you. We'll have to take a ten-minute recess and resume later.

Hon. J. Reid: To continue on with my opening remarks, the total budget for the ministry also includes $324 million in payments to highway maintenance contractors and a further $81 million for ministry-performed maintenance work. In order to develop new transportation infrastructure, the ministry is continuing to look for partnership opportunities with municipalities, private developers and other government agencies.

Partnership arrangements are in place for about $380 million worth of transportation infrastructure. About $250 million of that will come from partners and about $40 million from the sale of surplus public lands.

I'm going to make a few brief comments on some of the other agencies. I would like to welcome B.C. Ferries new chairman of the board, David Emerson. B.C. Ferries recently put in place a number of financial practices to better manage its assets and operations. Over the course of this fiscal year the corporation will continue making improvements in this area.

There are several important capital projects planned for this fiscal year. These projects will expand the quality of the service and address safety issues. They include tendering the construction of a new 110-car ferry for Bowen Island; continuing improvement projects at Horseshoe Bay, Departure Bay and Westview terminal in Powell River; and installing new state-of-the-art sewage treatment upgrade systems on five ships and at one terminal.

Rapid Transit Project 2000 Ltd., of course, is involved in the construction on the new $1.167 billion SkyTrain line, coined the Millennium Line. It is progressing rapidly. When complete, it will connect Vancouver, Burnaby and New Westminster via the Broadway-Lougheed corridor. The first phase of the new line through New Westminster is scheduled to be opened for revenue service in December.

Rapid Transit Project 2000 is also mandated to plan for future construction of two other SkyTrain lines. One will run from Lougheed town centre to Coquitlam via Port Moody, the other running west from Vancouver Community College to serve the central Broadway corridor. Preliminary work on these two future lines is proceeding.

B.C. Rail last year had an unexpected and severe decline in the coal and forestry sector. That, combined with increased fuel costs, adversely affected B.C. Rail Group's revenues and operating results. Continued shortfalls in revenue from the forestry sector and a decrease in the container business at the company's marine operations mean the company is only projected to break even this year. However, new coal and oriented strand board projects in northern British Columbia are expected to improve the company's financial position in the future.

B.C. Transit operates in partnership with municipal councils and private sector operators to deliver transit services. The company's 2001-02 operating budget represents modest growth in service hours over last year. The capital budget is based on B.C. Transit's long-term capital plan. It reflects current estimates of fleet and infrastructure requirements to meet their ten-year plan objectives.

I've only been minister for this portfolio for two months, and in that time I've had the opportunity to learn a great deal about British Columbia's highway and transportation infrastructure. There is a lot yet to learn. Hon. Chair, I'd be pleased to answer members' questions.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to ask a question concerning, ostensibly, all of my constituents on the North Shore. There's not going to be any trick questions or mean-spirited questions, so you can rest assured on that. Ostensibly, it's about a major problem at the Second Narrows Bridge at the confluence where it hits the North Shore. You have Lillooet Road coming into it, Mount Seymour Park coming into it, Fern Street coming into it, Main Street coming into it, and you have Dollarton Highway coming into that area. They all attach to Highway No. 1 leading up into Upper Levels Highway.

I had a meeting several months ago with the old BCTFA — I guess it's still there, but it's under different auspices at the moment — and the district of North Vancouver to discuss the matter. It is a major concern in the sense that our commercial traffic on the North Shore is slowing down, especially in the two major rush hour periods. It's virtually impossible to get from one side of the Seymour area to the Lynn Valley–Lonsdale area or West Vancouver without having to enter into that northern quadrant in which all the traffic coming off the bridge or going onto the bridge is entering into it.

Now, you're probably aware that there's a lot of vehicles coming across there. In a ten-day period there are 1.2 million cars, minimum, coming off that bridge or onto that bridge. It's ripe for a major entanglement, in the sense that if you have any breakdowns or flat tires or an accident or anything like that, the bridge is jammed, and the lineup goes up the hill for maybe two miles.

The question is basically that…. I have to ask the question, because you know, politicians are the same all over. They even promise to build a bridge when

there's no river or water to cross. At least I've been finding that out in my ten years here, with the previous politicians that ran the Transportation Ministry. I think there was an old saying years ago — many, many years ago — that improvements make straight roads but the crooked roads, without improvements, are roads of a genius.

So I'm asking you to see where we're going to come from. I appreciate that the minister is also under a limited budget, so the limited budget has to be considered in what may be coming down the line. As we all know, we've made a big commitment towards the Olympics. This figure, for example, on the Lions Gate Bridge…. About 600,000 cars, minimum, go across the Lions Gate Bridge in a ten-day period, which would be, say, an Olympic period, and 1.2 million go across the Second Narrows, and almost 200,000 passengers on the SeaBus. That is where it was as of a couple of months ago, and it's rising exponentially as we go along. Heaven knows how many vehicles will be arriving there ten years down the line — plus the fact that we'll have God knows how many hundreds of thousands, hopefully, of visitors in the town.

We keep reading in the paper where the minister that's looking after the Whistler situation, the minister of state, says that every day he's going to have at least 750 buses coming in, starting from the North Shore, to head up to Whistler. So something has to be done now rather than waiting until that time down the line. So I'm asking the minister if they are looking into having any type of review as to whether they can double-bridge it. Or can they change that northern quadrant so that we don't have a problem with all these roads coming into it and curtailing commercial traffic that's going across to the North Shore without having to enter into those situations?

Generally, we probably are asking for all of your budget for the next ten years to solve the problem over there that will not get any better. They have some basic plans that were planned for probably this fall, I would assume, but those are all on hold because we have had two other situations that have come in and changed the situation. First of all, TransLink was supposed to fund one-third of it. I doubt very much that TransLink is going to do that now.

The second and third aspects have to do with the aboriginal bands in the area. The Squamish band is extending their existing mall into a larger mall — theoretically almost equivalent to the size of Park Royal. With an agreement they made with the government back in the eighties, the government is committed to building them access off the highway and all the rest of it into it. So that changes the picture of the plans that the BCTFA and the district of North Vancouver had originally. Also, we have the Burrard band, who are building tower condominiums in the area. They are adding 150 to 200 cars every day into this mix as well. So we have got one hell of a mix. It seems to me that we have to do something about it before it gets worse. Again, I'll repeat: has the minister given any consideration towards anything that's coming up to try to take these new factors into consideration with the planning that's already on the books now for the future, down the road?

Hon. J. Reid: I'd like to begin my remarks by introducing staff from the Ministry of Transportation that are with me. I have Dan Doyle, John Dyble, Kathie Miller and Har Singh. I appreciate their help and their assistance.

I appreciate the detail the member went into with his question. As he knows, I am new to this portfolio. I have a lot to learn to understand the complexity of the problem, the urgent need for plans that people can have confidence in. I certainly appreciate those comments. He was quite correct in saying that we do have limited resources to work with.

With regard to the northern quadrant of which he spoke, with the Second Narrows Bridge, we are currently working with the district of North Vancouver, TransLink and the Squamish first nation to develop a partnership. This is obviously a situation, as he pointed out, where there are a great many factors coming together. We have to look at the improvements. We know that there needs to be improvements in and around the Dollarton–Main Street interchange. The objective, of course, of these improvements would be to expedite the east-west traffic flows along the Dollarton Highway and Main Street and also to address the safety issues that go with that, just as the member spoke of — if there was a traffic tie-up, how that is compounded in an area that's so heavily travelled.

We do know there is growth going on in this area, and this has to be part of the strategic plan. I can give him my word that this is going to be part of the overall discussion that we have to have not only with…. We could mention the Olympic bid, but as the member stated, this really is an ongoing and growing situation apart from that. So I give him my assurances that this will be part of the strategic plan that we do have to develop. We do have to work in partnership with these other groups, and we are quite willing to continue dialogue with him as he wants to provide suggestions to me.

D. Jarvis: I thank the minister very much. As long as she's aware that there's another mix coming into the situation with this Olympic situation. It's a frightening thing to think of where the heck you're going to get your money. God knows. Hopefully, the feds will come in and do something for us. Getting the people up to Whistler is probably everyone's sort of primary thought, but they don't realize that they've got to start somewhere, and it looks like it's going to be on the North Shore here. And what'll we do with them as far as moving those people across in order to get onto the trains and buses, etc.? So I thank the minister very much, and I'll be in touch again. Don't think I won't.

The Chair: Due to time restraints, we're going to have to adjourn this and come back Monday. Sorry.

The Chair: We will carry on. One moment, minister. We will open up again and carry on. We are under some time restraints. The House has to sit, so….

B. Penner: Just seeking clarification from the Chair. Do we have time for additional questions or not at this stage?

B. Penner: A first question for the minister. Just following up on the comments from my colleague from North Vancouver–Seymour, one of the only negative remarks I heard at the recent Pacific NorthWest Economic Region conference at Whistler from our American visitors had to do with transportation in and around the Vancouver area. They were very impressed with the locale at Whistler. They were impressed with the weather initially; it was sunny for the first few days. They were impressed with the accommodation and the food. They were also very impressed with the security provided by the RCMP in the place of potential violent protests.

But unfortunately, they were not so impressed with the transportation in and around Vancouver. I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised to hear that. I guess, being a person from the lower mainland, I've grown accustomed to the bottleneck and traffic jams that are just part of the landscape. So it was a bit of a shock to hear some of these remarks from our American cousins, who can't believe what we have for transportation in the greater Vancouver area. It was a sobering reality.

My question to the minister pertains to the Chilliwack area. Almost every year, I ask a question during Ministry of Transportation estimates pertaining to a proposed Evans Road flyover across the Highway 1 freeway. Every year I'm given a status report about where that might be in terms of the provincial priority for projects, and I would like to maintain the tradition and ask the minister, for academic purposes mostly: where is that proposal in terms of provincial priority today?

Hon. J. Reid: I would like to tell the member that we are involved in planning with Chilliwack on this project, and we will move ahead with it when resources are available to do so.

Hon. J. Reid: I move the committee rise, report resolutions and ask leave to sit again.

	YEAS — 57
Coell	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Hawkins	Whittred	Cheema
Hansen	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Barisoff	Masi
Lee	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Jarvis
Anderson	Orr	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Long	Chutter
Mayencourt	Johnston	R. Stewart
Hayer	Krueger	McMahon
Bray	Les	Locke
Nijjar	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Manhas	Hunter

	NAYS — 2
MacPhail		Kwan

	YEAS — 54

Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Cheema
Hansen	J. Reid	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Masi	Lee	Hagen
Murray	Plant	Collins
Clark	Bond	de Jong
Nebbeling	Stephens	Abbott
Coleman	Weisbeck	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Long	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Hayer
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	K. Stewart	Visser
Lekstrom	Brice	Sultan
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Manhas	Coell	Hunter

	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail