Hansard -- Volume 2, Number 15 -- Monday, August 13, 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

Oral Questions
	U.S. decision on Canadian softwood lumber exports	1405
	J. MacPhail
	Drug-resistant HIV strain	1415
	L. Mayencourt
	Government support for forestry-dependent communities	1420
	J. MacPhail
	Drought conditions in East Kootenays	1420
	B. Bennett

Proceedings in Section B

Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 14)
	Second reading
	Hon. G. Plant	1425
	J. MacPhail	1430
	Hon. G. Plant	1445

Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act (Bill 4). Hon. G. Collins
	Committee stage	1445
	Third reading	1455

Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 5). Hon. G. Collins
	Committee stage	1455
	Third reading	1500

Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001 (Bill 11). Hon. G. Plant
	Committee stage	1505
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. L. Stephens
	Hon. G. Plant
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Hon. S. Hawkins
	Hon. G. Collins

Proceedings in Section A

Committee of Supply
	Ministry of Forests estimates. Hon. M. de Jong
	Vote 30: Ministry operations	1435
	R. Sultan
	R. Stewart
	R. Harris
	P. Wong
	R. Visser
	J. Nuraney
	Vote 31: Fire suppression	1610
	Vote 54: Forest Practices Board	1610
	Ministry of Human Resources estimates. Hon. M. Coell
	Vote 35: Ministry operations	1510
	Hon. M. Coell
	I. Chong
	Ministry of Management Services estimates. Hon. S. Santori
	Vote 36: Ministry operations	1655
	Hon. S. Santori
	I. Chong
	Vote 37: Public Service Employee Relations Commission	1725
	Vote 38: Product sales and services	1725

Hon. S. Santori: It gives me great pleasure today to welcome two very special people from my constituency. As we all know, volunteers in our communities play an integral part in the success of our communities and the many programs that we're able to offer through the work of volunteers. It gives me great pleasure today to introduce two people to the House, very special friends: Mr. and Mrs. Bob Moffat, here from Trail. Bob has been involved with the Trail Little League program for a number of years and also with the Trail Smokeaters hockey club. I would ask that the House make them feel welcome.

Also, I would like to acknowledge Dave and Carolyn Reynolds and their two children, Gillian and Jocelyn, who are in the House today, from the beautiful city of Rossland. Dave has lived in Trail and Rossland his entire life and has been an engineer at Cominco for more than ten years. Would the House please make them welcome as well.

Hon. G. Plant: Mr. Speaker, seated in the gallery is an articling student with the Ministry of Attorney General, named Jamie Van Wart, who is going to spend some time with the Clerk this afternoon. I warned him that that could be a highly dangerously intoxicating experience, but I certainly hope the House will make him welcome.

R. Hawes: Visiting us today in the precincts are two of my constituents, Capt. Ed Monteiro and his wife Wendy. They're holidaying here with two friends, Brenda Correa from the United Kingdom and Clover Digby from Toronto. Could the House please make them welcome.

I. Chong: Hon. Speaker, I see seated in the gallery today a constituent and a very good friend — also, in fact, a very good friend of the Minister of Human Resources. He is not a stranger to the world of politics. He is also a former president of the Union Club of British Columbia. I ask the House to please welcome Mr. Ed Kisling.

Hon. J. Murray: It's my pleasure to introduce two special constituents from New Westminster who are in the gallery. They are Bruce Clark and Melissa Holland. Those of you who aren't familiar with Bruce Clark may have heard of his sister. She's about to make him an uncle. She's our Minister of Education and the member for Port Moody–Westwood. Would the House please make them both welcome.

I also have the pleasure of introducing two very dear friends from Vancouver and New Westminster. Both are excellent and innovative teachers and are in the gallery today: Aleeta Grant and Candace Bergstrom. Would the House please make them very welcome.

A. Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to recognize the Victoria all-star midget AA baseball team on their winning of the provincial championships in Courtenay this past weekend. Would the House please join me in congratulating these young men and their coaches.

P. Nettleton: Please join me in welcoming John Major, a business person who's here from the great city of Prince George. Welcome, John — and great to have you here.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm grateful to the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin for his announcement. In the interest of full disclosure, I should make it clear that his son's team beat my son's team during the course of that tournament, and it was a great match. I won't say whether the better team won, but Victoria certainly did win.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Speaker, B.C. coastal mills produce high-end specialty products such as western red cedar, green Douglas fir, coastal hemlock and also remanufactured component parts of the value-added products. We know that value-added products have an exclusion, but the rest do not. These products aren't a threat to the U.S. industry. The U.S. industry fears losing its market share to spruce, pine and fir products.

Both industry and workers support an exclusion and would ask for an exclusion from the softwood countervail duty for these high-end products. Can the Minister of Forests tell us how he's joining with the coastal industry and the workers to stand up and support coastal producers who are seeking an exclusion of these specialty products from the punishing duty?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am pleased to hear the member refer to this draconian tariff as punishing, because it is indeed that. On Friday last, by virtue of its decision, the commerce department confirmed once and for all that the American industry coalition is quite simply afraid to trade. They are apparently afraid to compete with British Columbia and Canada. To get to the specific question, however…. I want all members of the House to know this, because I think it is instructive as to how the Americans have dealt with this matter.

On Thursday prior to the long weekend the commerce department indicated that it would entertain applications for an exemption at a company level. But with respect to the preliminary determination, they set

the cutoff for the receipt of those exemption applications on the following Tuesday, knowing full well that British Columbia, where the bulk of the wood exports from Canada are derived, was in the midst of a long weekend. It is an indication of the self-serving manner in which the American commerce department and the industry have proceeded throughout. We have been helping the industry, particularly those on the west coast who were able to get an application form in, to process them through and pass them on to the officials both in Ottawa and in Washington. There is a subsequent deadline for later this month that pertains to the final determination. If we get that far, we'll be cooperating in every way we can to process through those applications as well.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Forests is on record — and no one disputes his comments — that the softwood lumber decision will result in job losses in British Columbia. In fact, he's quoting as saying: "There are going to be casualties. There are going to be job losses." I think that the public, the forest-dependant communities and the industry itself would wish the specifics of the next steps in terms of the government supporting the request for exclusion.

Can he please outline for us specifically how he's trying to minimize the job losses or at least how he's moving forward in the next days to secure the exclusion of the specialty products? For instance, has he phoned Mr. Pettigrew, the minister responsible for this issue at the national level? Has he worked with the feds in demanding that the feds vigorously pursue an exclusion? Or is it his position that he should always wait for Mr. Pettigrew to contact him?

Hon. M. de Jong: I would have thought that in the face of a challenge that I presume all members of this House understand, including this member, we could set politics aside and, as we have in this House in the past in differing circumstances, speak with one unified voice defending the interests of B.C. forest-dependent communities.

I can advise the House that within moments of learning of the decision, I provided instructions to our consul in Washington to file the necessary documentation to proceed with the challenge through the domestic processes, through the World Trade Organization and through the NAFTA bilateral processes. The Premier this day is in Idaho communicating in explicit terms to the Governors who are attending that conference how seriously we take this and how offended British Columbians are that we would be dealt with in a way that we can only characterize as unfair. We are speaking and have in the past, in the weeks leading up to this decision, spoken with officials, with Mr. Pettigrew. We'll be speaking with him again. The stakeholder groups have been consulted. A meeting held a week and a half ago was attended by virtually every single representative agency of the softwood and lumber business in British Columbia, including the IWA — unprecedented, I am told, in the last number of years. This is an unwarranted, unjust and unfair decision, and this government will not rest until it has been undone.

J. MacPhail: Pursuing information about a very complex matter that spans the provincial and federal governments is not playing politics. My question was: had this government initiated contact with the federal government, who will take a lead on this file? Indeed, it sounds like it is definitely Ottawa having to contact British Columbia on this matter. Fair enough. But as the Minister of Forests knows, the American decision, however unfair, was probably in the making for quite a time. In fact, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services programs actually did accompany the then Minister of Forests to Washington.

You're right. It was a non-partisan approach. But everyone knew this was coming. Can the Minister of Forests now tell this House what contingency plans his government has made, in anticipation of the decision, to help forest communities deal with the crisis?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't know what difficulty the member is having in understanding the fact that weeks ago this government — the Premier, in fact, in his first meeting with the Prime Minister — raised this specific issue. Two weeks ago I went to Ottawa to meet with Minister Pettigrew to highlight to him that this government expects this file to be at the top of the trade file. I went to Washington and highlighted to the officials at the embassy and at the legal level that this was our top priority in British Columbia. So the question now is whether or not this member wants to work with the government in sending a message to the Americans that this is unacceptable.

There are two groups going to be hurt here, and we all know who they are. People who rely upon our forest economy and forest-dependent communities in British Columbia are going to be hurt in the short term unless we take steps to have this decision set aside or are able to engage Americans and determine whether they are serious about finding a long-term solution to this recurrent trade issue. The other group that's going to be hurt, which we don't hear quite as much about in British Columbia, are Americans who want to buy a home. About 1.5 million of them have just been put out of the home-purchasing market. We are going to work with consumer organizations in the United States, we are going to work with forest-dependent communities here in British Columbia, and we are going to set this decision aside.

L. Mayencourt: My question is to the Minister of Health Services. This past week I had the opportunity

to speak with some researchers at the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS and to follow up on a news report about a superbug, a change in the HIV virus that is highly resistant to current treatments that we have developed. While there is only a handful of cases at this point, I am very concerned, because back in 1980 we started with a handful of cases and we ended up with about 3,200 people dying of that illness since that time. Can the minister tell me what he is doing to try and address this problem?

Hon. C. Hansen: The news of this new superbug is, I think, distressing to everybody that's watched the tragedy of HIV/AIDS over the last number of years. I am not surprised that this particular discovery was made by researchers in British Columbia, because we have some of the best researchers working out of the Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS at St. Paul's Hospital in Vancouver. That is a program that has been supported by the provincial government. It will continue to be supported by the provincial government, and hopefully, we can start to find ways to treat this new superbug that will benefit not only British Columbians but others around the world.

L. Mayencourt: A lot of the drug treatment strategies that have been developed at the Centre for Excellence have been quite encouraging, and they've certainly helped our community quite a bit. But it seems to those researchers that one of the key elements of successfully combatting this disease is through an education program. I wonder if the minister could speak to what he's doing in the area of educating people about the transmission of HIV/AIDS and particularly this strain.

Hon. C. Hansen: Certainly, there have been some news stories in recent weeks about diminishing concern about HIV/AIDS transmission in British Columbia. I think one of the real tragedies is that it is a 100 percent preventable disease and that education programs are essential. I think, certainly, the ministry has been supporting those programs and will continue to be supporting education programs throughout British Columbia. Also, later this month I will be meeting with the B.C. Persons with AIDS Society and also with AIDS Vancouver to look at how the ministry can work cooperatively with them to ensure that those education programs continue and are strengthened.

J. MacPhail: Back to the issue of the softwood lumber agreement and its follow-up and the damage it's going to do to our economy…. I know that the most important aspect of supporting the industry to pursue an exclusion — specifics around that matter — is working with the federal government. There are some immediate actions that the provincial government can do, but it also requires the provincial government actually supporting communities.

The Minister of Forests didn't answer the last question about plans on supporting communities. I notice that the minister responsible for community transition programs is absent. So to the Minister of Finance: the ministry is feeling great pressure to cut programs, to make sure that your deficit doesn't balloon. You're looking at deep cuts to Forest Renewal B.C., and you've already started cutting other community transition programs. Forest-dependent communities are facing this crisis now and need immediate help. Can the Minister of Finance promise that he will not cut any community transition programs that will help — in the short, medium or long term — communities facing this crisis?

Hon. G. Collins: We take this issue very seriously. I know that the Premier and the Minister of Forests have been working on this for some time. Rest assured that the members of this government and this caucus will be taking into consideration to a great extent those communities that are heavily reliant upon this one industry and making sure that government is there to offer some assistance when they're impacted by these kinds of major decisions which are beyond our control. Certainly, I expect that if and when those issues occur, and in preparation for them as well, the ministers responsible will make their needs known to other members of cabinet and government as a whole.

B. Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries. In the East Kootenay we have a crisis in addition to the crisis before us in forestry. We have a crisis in the lack of water and the lack of rain that we've had there in the last two years. We have drought conditions in the East Kootenay. The ranchers and farmers that try to do business there have a hard enough time making a go of it even when there is lots of rain. Over the past two years our region has essentially become almost like a desert — similar to what's happening in Alberta, which you may have seen on the television news.

Our ranchers raise mostly cattle. They raise forage for their cattle. Without rain, they're basically out of business. My question to the minister is: what is our government prepared to do to help those folks in the East Kootenay with these drought conditions?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I want to assure the member that I am familiar with the drought situation in the Kootenays. I've met with some of the ranchers involved there. Just to mention some of the issues that are hurting us there: a lack of irrigation and water in some cases; in other cases we've got deer and elk grazing on the limited forage supplies that we have. I've asked

staff to gather all information and to explore all options, and we will work with the ranchers in that area to try and deal with this difficult situation.

Hon. G. Collins: I call, in the big House, second reading of Bill 14, the Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be beginning with the estimates of the Ministry of Forests.

The government intends to chart a new course with its Crown corporations to ensure that they operate under modern governance principles. In order to move in this new direction, it is essential that we have the necessary infrastructure in place. Bill 14 makes two legislative changes towards this goal. First, it revises sections 2(2) and 2(3) of the Insurance Corporation Act. Second, it repeals section 7(a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act. It should be noted that these amendments ensure consistency with other Crown corporation legislation.

Currently, sections 2(2) and 2(3) of the Insurance Corporation Act — that's the act for ICBC — stipulate that the corporation consists of the minister and not less than two other members appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council for a term of three years. As a matter of policy, this government has determined that generally it will not appoint ministers to Crown corporation boards, particularly where there is a direct ministerial reporting relationship.

In addition, it has been suggested that in many cases defining the term of an appointment in legislation could place the government in binding employment conditions — conditions that are unnecessary given the nature of order-in-council appointments. Accordingly, Bill 14 revises section 2 to remove the requirement that the corporation include the minister, as well as the three-year appointment stipulation. Appointments to the corporation after these provisions have been brought into force will not be subject to a three-year express limitation.

Currently, section 7(a) of the Hydro and Power Authority Act stipulates that directors — that is, directors of B.C. Hydro — may not, either directly or indirectly, have any association whatsoever with a company that generates or supplies power. That provision may have been realistic when it was first enacted; it is no longer a realistic reflection of the world of business.

Hon. Speaker, this section creates an excessive and unworkable limitation with respect to the composition of the board of B.C. Hydro, with the ultimate result that no single person owning a mutual fund that holds shares in any part of this sector of the economy could sit on the board. Accordingly, Bill 14 repeals this section from the Hydro and Power Authority Act.

That concludes my comments with respect to Bill 14. I look forward to the comments of other members.

J. MacPhail: It will come as no surprise to the government that I oppose this legislation for this reason: it does seem so early in a mandate of a government to use as a reason for repealing a 37-year prohibition against the ownership of shares that could possibly put a director in conflict with his or her responsibilities toward the ultimate shareholder, the taxpayer. It does seem a little bit early to repeal that by virtue of the stated reason that it makes it so hard to attract good-quality directors to sit on the B.C. Hydro board.

Let's be clear what section 1 of this legislation does. It takes away what I think is a 37-year prohibition — it could be shorter, but it's a decades-long prohibition — against directors of B.C. Hydro holding shares or responsibilities in an energy company that would put them in conflict with their roles as directors of the publicly owned Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, which has one shareholder. That's the taxpayer, the British Columbians — a shareholder made up of the four million British Columbians. Why is it hard, so early in a mandate, for this government to recruit directors that can do the job; that can represent the taxpayers; that can represent British Columbians, who should take pride in their publicly owned hydro utility? Why is it so hard for them to recruit people who have only the interests of B.C. Hydro at heart, who aren't encumbered by responsibilities or the potential for conflict with their lives elsewhere?

Why is it that the government needs to remove the prohibition to now allow a British Columbian to be a director of B.C. Hydro and also own shares or be a director in a private energy concern? It's very early in their mandate. Theoretically, there should be thousands of people lining up to offer their public service to sit on the B.C. Hydro board. In fact, I believe the government has said that it's going to put an independent commission in place to recruit directors for agencies, boards and commissions. Why is it that this prohibition against a potential conflict for a B.C. Hydro director needs to be removed before that independent commission has completed its work?

Well, one might look to the history of the relationship between this government and people who are responsible for private energy companies, people who may have a goal of really lessening the role of B.C. Hydro in British Columbia society and who may want

to look at B.C. Hydro being broken up and the advantages of a natural resource monopoly being given away to the private sector. Perhaps it could be that the people who have contributed to the Liberals in the past — contributed hugely — have interests where they do want the role of B.C. Hydro to be changed, where they do want B.C. Hydro to be deregulate, that they do want B.C. Hydro to take second place to independent power producers or that they just want the same spoils that were offered — given away — to them when the natural gas arm of B.C. Hydro was privatized. Maybe they're looking for those same advantages. We do know that of the top 15 donors to the B.C. Liberal Party from 1996 to '99, B.C. Gas and Centra Gas were amongst that group. They were amongst the top 15 donors — over $75,000 in contribution — to the B.C. Liberals.

We know that B.C. Gas has a major influence in this government now. Pretty much every single one of its directors or vice-presidents will play a major role in deciding the future of British Columbia. The new chair of B.C. Hydro, although he has recently disposed of his shares, as far as we know, in B.C. Gas — he has said so publicly — was a director of B.C. Gas. Gordon Barefoot is a B.C. Gas executive, and he did the fiscal review panel for this government. Thomas Buell, who sits on the B.C. Gas board, is a major fundraiser for the Liberals. The B.C. Gas board of directors includes two former provincial deputy finance ministers. I've already mentioned Larry Bell and David Emerson, who sits on — I think chairs — this government's Progress Board.

In fact, it's probably safe to say that we know that these open cabinet meetings that we see on television don't make decisions. It's probably safe to say that the cabinet decisions are really made in the B.C. Gas boardroom. Now we have a situation where anyone whose primary or major interest is in B.C. Gas or Centra Gas can also now be in charge of B.C. Hydro. One merely needs to ask: isn't it a little bit early to say that you can't recruit good people to the B.C. Hydro board of directors, that you need to give it away to people who also hold shares in other private energy interests? Is it that there are many, such as the Thomas Buells of the world, waiting to line up to be recruited to sit on the B.C. Hydro board and change the direction of B.C. Hydro so that it is no longer working in the interests of British Columbians but is working in the interests of the large corporations who donate to the Liberal Party?

We're seeing a disturbing trend here — that those who donate to the Liberal Party get their way quickly and easily with this government. I would suggest that this Bill 14 is another example of that.

I note that there are many other situations where the Liberal government has said that it wants to move quickly with deregulation, particularly in the area of the forest sector. We see that the companies who are the biggest polluters in the province donated to the Liberals, and so they will probably get their way very quickly with this government as well.

I expect that those that operate in the interests of the corporate backers of the Liberal Party feel very good about Bill 14 today, knowing that the minute this bill is passed, this government, despite their claims to have a non-partisan, open and accountable group of people managing our Crown corporations…. Despite that promise, there will be people who have donated large sums of money to the Liberal government rubbing their hands with glee, knowing that their telephone call to be appointed to the board of B.C. Hydro is coming very shortly.

We can only assume that's going to happen within days now, because they have Mr. Larry Bell, the chair of B.C. Hydro, who has said that he needs this legislation here to recruit good people. That means the only people he can recruit are people who hold shares in energy companies. The link is irrefutable by Mr. Larry Bell. He didn't say: "Well, it's only one of the factors. Really, we may not have to use it, and really, I would prefer not to have to use it." Mr. Larry Bell didn't say that. He said: "It's the only way that we can recruit good directors."

Well, I will be watching with interest to see what the future holds for B.C. Hydro under this government. The record during the election was not clear, not clear at all. The now Minister of Finance said one thing, the now Premier said another thing, and we were left in a state of confusion and, I would say, anxiety. I would say that British Columbians were left in a state of anxiety about the future of B.C. Hydro.

We know what happened when the natural gas arm of B.C. Hydro was privatized. We saw what that did to the disposable income of British Columbians. The price of natural gas had to be borne by British Columbians; the market price had to be borne by British Columbians. There was no made-in-B.C. price. British Columbians are worried today that the future plans of this government, which will now be supported by directors of B.C. Hydro who have interests other than the interests of B.C. Hydro at heart…. We'll see what happens to the price of hydro, to hydro energy rates, under this government. I sincerely hope that British Columbians can say to this government: "Don't put all of your pals in place at B.C. Hydro; don't do that."

B.C. Hydro, working on behalf of British Columbians, is the underpinning of a British Columbia advantage. We know the B.C. advantage is much about the hydro rates that industry and commercial entities get. That is a B.C. advantage. In fact, during the election it became clear that…. Companies said that the B.C. advantage of low hydro rates makes it better to be here in B.C. than in Alberta, where the deregulated, privatized hydro energy sources led to skyrocketing rates for commercial and industrial enterprises, let alone the ordinary residential consumer.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of British Columbians, I say to the government: don't put all the pals that donated to your election in place. Have some balance. Have some good sense that B.C. Hydro, as a Crown corporation monopoly, works in the interest of industry, commercial enterprise and consumers, and

keep it that way. Don't turn it over as spoils to your pals that donated and want B.C. Hydro divided up and given away to them.

Hon. G. Plant: I listened with interest to the comments of the member opposite. I don't think that she was opposing in principle any part of the legislation. I noticed that she did have some concerns about people she identified as appointees. I can assure her, and I want to assure all members of the House, that with this legislation in place, we as a government are going to be able to move forward in a new way to ensure that for the first time in many years in British Columbia we're going to have a board of the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that is composed of people who have the public interest at heart, who care about the business and responsibilities of B.C. Hydro and who are willing to work consistently within the policy framework that we as government will establish to ensure that we have the best hydro authority of any hydro authority going.

Mr. Speaker, I think this bill is a small but necessary step to move forward to ensure that we can build a B.C. Hydro and Power Authority that will be the envy of the world. With that in mind, I move second reading.

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

Bill 14, Crown Corporations Governance Statutes Amendment Act, 2001, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 4, the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I just want to let the House be aware that we scheduled this bill for this afternoon. I've advised the Leader of the Opposition of it, as well, just so she's aware that we are discussing it. I don't want members to feel that we're moving through it without providing notice to the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 6 standing in my name on the order paper.

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

Bill 4, Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 4, Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: Mr. Speaker, I'm being heckled by my colleague the Attorney General, who's anticipating his 20 percent pay cut. I'm hoping we never get to that point.

I call Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 5, the Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 5; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

Hon. G. Collins: I move the amendment to section 32 standing in my name on the order paper.

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

Bill 5, Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, reported complete with amendment.

Bill 5, Budget Transparency and Accountability Amendment Act, 2001, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 11.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 11; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I don't have the legislation with me. The book isn't up to date here, so I'm going to have to seek some information from the minister responsible, for the record. Otherwise, I would read it into the record. But for the record, it's about the content of the legislation that's actually being repealed.

Section 1 repeals "the definitions of 'child care grant,' 'funding assistance program,' and 'funding assistance program grant' and substitutes the following." What was the intent of changing the definition of child care grant from the law that was passed earlier this year?

Hon. L. Stephens: The intent of the changes was to repeal the universal aspect of the previous Child Care BC Act. By removing the sections "funding assistance program" and "funding assistance program grant," it allowed the present government the flexibility to still provide child care grants but not to the universal program, as was in the original bill.

Hon. L. Stephens: Hon. member, I think the families and the children in British Columbia all win in this. Certainly, what we're proposing is that we are going to be consulting with parents and with child care providers to come up with a plan that's sustainable. It's our view that the previous bill, the Child Care BC Act, was not sustainable. Therefore, we've taken steps to make sure that the programs that we implement for children and families will be sustainable in the future.

J. MacPhail: Well, there are winners and losers. Actually, I think that perhaps it's safe to say that there are just losers in this situation. I need some detail on that. The Child Care BC Act that is being repealed now…. It's being done in a way where the child care grant definition is being changed so that the program is no longer universal. This means substantial loss to families in British Columbia. It's my information that the current family who has one child in before- and after-school care saves on average about $1,100 per year per child by virtue of the fact that the maximum fee is $7 for a half day of child care and $14 for a full day of child care. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Stephens: What we are going to be doing is cancelling that particular portion of the child care plan that the member is talking about. Those kinds of decisions will be made in the future as to what kind of funding will or will not be available to families. We've said quite clearly in our New Era document and throughout the election campaign that we will be targeting funds to families that need them the most. That is what we intend to do.

J. MacPhail: My question was very specific, because I hope the member isn't somehow indicating that the current circumstance in which parents find themselves is at threat. My understanding is that the Minister of Finance continued the funding for programs of before- and after-school child care now and that it is future programs that are cut. So what I'm asking the minister to confirm is that for a family — whether that be a single-parent family, a dual-parent family or a blended family — if that family has a child

Hon. L. Stephens: That's correct. That's the way the funding applies. Those programs will remain in place — the before- and after-school care — until the contracts expire on June 30, 2002. By that time we will have the new child care program in place.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's indication to the House, then, that the before- and after-school care program that's in place now may be changed?

Hon. L. Stephens: The whole child care program is undergoing review. We have made these changes to the act to allow us to do that. We are going to be looking at various ways to provide a sustainable child care program in British Columbia, so all aspects of the current program are under review, just as all other programs of government are under our core services review.

J. MacPhail: So the minister is telling families today that they may not be guaranteed $7 per half day or $14 per day for before- and after-school care after March 31, 2002?

Hon. L. Stephens: As applies to all of the programs that we have been talking about across government, there's a core services review that is in place. The child care program is no different than any of the others. We are committed to a sustainable child care program in the province. We are committed to making it as easy as possible for parents to access quality, safe, affordable child care. We are certainly committed to strengthening our child care providers in the province.

This is future policy that we're going to be developing in concert with parents and with child care providers. As we develop that program, there will be more information forthcoming, and I would be happy to share it with the member opposite. Really, what we want to develop is a flexible program that will help parents and child care providers — those that are most in need.

J. MacPhail: Families of low income have child care subsidies available to them now. By virtue of the government changing the definition to eliminate the universality of the child care program, who — what kind of family, what kind of child — was ineligible prior to the Child Care BC Act who now becomes eligible under the minister's change?

Hon. L. Stephens: The subsidy program that was in place continues to be in place. We don't see that changing in any way. What we are doing is looking at the child care program in terms of the former Child Care BC Act and looking at how we can implement a child care program over and above the subsidy program that will meet the needs of the families of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Does the definition change in section 1? Let's be clear; all of this was studied at length in '99-2000. Huge consultation was done. Tens of thousands — or thousands, anyway; I think it was about 11,000 — of people made submissions to the government of the day about child care, and there were consultations all around the province. So for the government to somehow now suggest that that work wasn't done and needs to be done again, or redone, they must have in mind a reason why.

We had a situation…. Clearly, the change to universality is not on, so that's gone; that's out the window. Families who could count on universal child care and more money in their pockets because they don't have to pay for day care or child care — their hopes are dashed. We have a situation in that prior to this act, the way families got child care subsidies was mainly through the Ministry of Human Resources. Sometimes through employment training programs — again, the Ministry of Human Resources — they got a child care subsidy. Are we reverting to those days, or does the minister have something else in mind? Why is she needing to do another consultation when it's already all been done? Is there a middle ground, or are we reverting to the days where low-income families get child care subsidies only?

Hon. L. Stephens: To answer the member's first question, section 1 of the amendment here simply removes the name of the program, the funding assistance program, and clarifies what "child care grant" means, which is (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). This amendment sets out quite clearly what child care grant means and just removes the name of the program — the funding assistance program. Now, the government can still provide grants, but the name "funding assistance program" does not need to be in the act and will not be.

The universal program was stopped before it was implemented. The before- and after-school parents still benefit until June 30, 2002. Further, the commitment to the families in British Columbia — all families, not just those that are receiving the subsidy assistance — is very strong for this government. We are developing that plan using some of the information that was compiled in the last two or three years, I believe. Not all of that information is wasted. We're certainly going to be looking at that, taking another look at it and talking with the groups and individuals who participated in that review to help in formulating the new plan for British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: These are definition changes, but they fundamentally alter the Child Care B.C. program, so they're key. What is the nature of the consultation that is required that hasn't already been done? What extra information is the minister seeking that hasn't already been done in the massive, massive consultation that was done within the last 18 months?

Hon. L. Stephens: The information that was gathered in the last 18 months to two years was extensive, and we will be going back and looking at all of the information that was compiled there — the fundamental difference being that most of the individuals, certainly many of the individuals, wanted to see a significant change in how child care was done in British Columbia. What we've said is that we agree with them and that we need to look at what some of those models may be.

The former administration — your administration, hon. member — chose one plan. We have said quite clearly that that's not something that we believe is sustainable, and so we're going to be going back and talking to these individuals and groups and parents to determine what their suggestions will be in the future. They have told me that they want to work with this government for the best interests of all the children and child care providers and parents in the province.

J. MacPhail: Before introducing these changes, whom did the minister consult with from the child care community?

Hon. L. Stephens: There was the Provincial Child Care Council. Who else? The advocacy forum and a couple of other advocacy groups. Parents for Child Care and some individuals were also consulted before the amendments were brought in.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister indicate to the people with whom she consulted that this was an option that she was going to bring forward to end the universal child care program?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think the people who were paying attention during the election in the province knew that in fact we did not support universal child care. As a matter of fact, during the last session of the House we voted against section 4, which set up the universal program. It wasn't something that people were not aware of, and certainly the individuals in the child care sector that I spoke to were well aware that this government was not going to proceed with the universal child care.

J. MacPhail: When the minister then met to discuss the potential for this amendment to erase — eradicate — universal child care, what was the response? Does she have anything that she can table about the record of response to that initiative?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think it's fair to say that many of the individuals and some of the groups were disappointed that the universal child care program was not going to move forward. However, they knew, as I said, leading up to the election that this was not going to happen. Each and every one of them, I have to say, member, has committed to working with me and this government to develop a new child care program. Without exception, the child care organizations in the province have committed to do that.

J. MacPhail: Would the minister indicate the organizations that are in support of the initiative to end universal child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: The Child Care Council, which, as you know, has a broad representation of parents and private and non-profit providers from a wide range of models; multi-service and single child care organizations all around the province, not just in the lower mainland but certainly in the interior and the northern parts of the province, representing that wide a group…. That organization has committed to assisting. The advocacy groups have also committed to assisting.

The one thing that was loud and clear was that child care is extremely important, and we couldn't agree more. What the providers support is making child care spaces more available and certainly to have the kind of fiscal supports they need to expand and to provide the safe, affordable child care that we all want to see happen in B.C.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, this is going to be a very interesting week. I'm going to try to keep my rhetoric to a limit, and I hope the ministers that work with me can keep their rhetoric to a limit and just answer my questions.

What groups supported the minister's position to delete the universal child care program?

Hon. L. Stephens: The government had committed, as I said earlier, to not moving forward with the universal child care system. All of the groups out there and all of the individuals were perfectly aware of that, as was the province, when we were going through our election campaign. Prior to the introduction of this bill in the House, I've had a number of conversations with the groups that I mentioned previously. Each and every one of them is committed to working with this government to find a new child care plan.

J. MacPhail: I failed miserably to eliminate the rhetoric. Of course if someone is having the guillotine swung over their head and the choice is to either have their head cut off or work cooperatively in their demise and elsewhere, they'd probably choose the latter. I would actually put it that the reason why the minister cannot list the people who are in support of her move to eliminate universal child care is because there is no one. There is no group in support of the minister's move. No child care group is in support of the minister's move. But I rest assured that if I'm wrong, she'll stand up and tell me and name the people who are in support of her initiative.

The elimination of the "funding assistance program" definition refers to programs listed under sections 3 and 4, which are repealed. I think I will address those questions now. It is mixed, because then we go to eliminating sections 3 and 4 as well. So what

we have is the definition of funding assistance program eliminated because that refers to a program that's now being repealed under sections 3 and 4. Section 3 sets out the maximum fees that a child care provider may require. This is where I was referring to the $14 per day for a full day of care. The fees were also in a written agreement that said $7 per day for before- and after-school care where school is in attendance.

When this act is passed — within moments, at the speed with which we move in this chamber — what happens to a parent's child care fees? What's the time line of guarantee, if any?

Hon. L. Stephens: The program that is currently in place, which was the first phase — and that was the before- and after-school care at $7 or $14 per day — will continue until June 30, 2002. That program will not change. The funding is there, and that will continue until June 2002. The remaining rollout of the child care plan will not go forward.

J. MacPhail: Are there child care facilities that have applications before the minister for qualification under the funding assistance program as defined in the current section 1 of the Child Care BC Act?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, there are some applications that are currently in the ministry. If the member wishes, I can provide the details to her at a later time.

J. MacPhail: When this legislation is passed this week, what happens to those applications?

Hon. L. Stephens: For people who had applied to the ministry when the funding assistance program was in place, with the understanding that they qualified, those applications will be processed and we will be living up to the commitments of that first phase of the before- and after-school child care. Those processes and applications that are in the works will be finalized.

J. MacPhail: So the minister guarantees that current contracts in place for before- and after-school child care under the old legislation are guaranteed till June 30, 2002, and current applications before the minister now will also be honoured. Is there a notice that has gone out to child care facilities saying that no more applications will be received?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, that is what has happened. In terms of applications that we have, if in fact the criteria are met, there are still some investigations that need to take place as far as whether or not the applications that have come forward are valid. Those applications that may come in from now on will not be accepted.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister provide me with a copy of the notice sent to child care facilities where the program is terminated under sections for before and after school?

J. MacPhail: Has the minister set in place a system for…? When June 30, 2002, comes about, do the child care facilities…? Have they been told that their funding will be cut off at that point? Or is the continuation of their funding determined on the basis of the consultation the minister is making?

Hon. L. Stephens: The letters that were sent out were informing the individual child care providers that there will be a change in the child care program, that their contracts will continue to June 30, 2002, and that there will be a new child care program developed in the meantime. Prior to the end of June 2002, they will be informed as to what the new child care program will look like. At that time they will be free to make whatever decisions they wish to make.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to get here is some comfort for parents and also the child care providers — some comfort for planning. This government has made a huge deal about the tax cuts that families will get, I think, in January 2002. That tax cut is supposed to bring nirvana to families in this province, in that they can plan to stimulate the economy so that there'll be economic growth of 3.8 percent come January 2002. By the same token, families have to plan for their child care costs in that same year. And I know that families plan by saying: "Here's my monthly allocation of bills, and here's my monthly income."

So what is the minister going to do? Can the minister give a time line to families that will prepare them for either skyrocketing child care costs in 2002 or else no increase in child care costs? What reassurance can the minister give to families who have to plan around child care, which we all know is a huge family expenditure?

Hon. L. Stephens: The member is quite right: it is a huge family expenditure. It certainly is a concern for families, and we recognize that. One of the areas that we're going to be moving on very quickly is the consultation process. Families and the child care providers are very apprehensive as to what is going to happen, and that is perfectly understandable. We recognize that. So we're going to be working and acting very quickly.

We have met with some of the groups to talk about what a new child care program will look like. We want to have it done just as soon as possible. There is the budgeting process that needs to be gone through, and we're very hopeful that we will have for public consumption, for child care providers and parents, a decision and a plan either late this year or certainly early in the year 2002 for families to be able to do just that — to do their planning around their child care needs.

J. MacPhail: The next tax cut kicks in January 2002. Can the minister commit that she will inform families about their dramatic increase in child care costs at the same time or guarantee that their child care costs will not increase so that that family can actually set aside the tax cut — that their saving starts January 2002 to pay for the skyrocketing child care costs?

Hon. L. Stephens: I think it's premature for the member to suggest that there will be any kind of skyrocketing child care costs. I think that's rather inflammatory, and it certainly isn't going to help the families of British Columbia deal with a very serious issue for them.

Now, I've said repeatedly that we are going to be consulting with parents and child care providers, and we are going to be developing a plan that meets the needs of the families in British Columbia, taking into consideration the kind of financial situation the province finds itself in. I would suggest that the members of the former government would know the kinds of fiscal constraints that we have in the province at this time. However, having said that, we are going to work very closely and very hard with the individuals in child care to make sure that we can develop and deliver a sustainable child care program for British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Well, the reason why I suggest that perhaps parents should expect skyrocketing child care costs is because the minister herself has said that the program isn't sustainable and isn't affordable. I don't know whether that's a signal to families that says: "Don't worry; we're going to pay you anyway." So I would just assume, as a parent planning his or her child care costs, that they would assume that their child care costs are going to go up. Can the minister make a commitment that a family will receive that information by January 1, 2002, so that they can decide what to do with their tax cut — set it aside to pay for child care costs?

Hon. L. Stephens: That is certainly a time line that I would like to have put in place. I agree with the member that the quicker we can inform parents and child care providers, the better it's going to be. That is, as I've said, the time that I am shooting for, and I'm hopeful that I will have the program in place and announced prior to that. I'm not going to give a hard-and-fast time line, but that is the preferred time.

J. MacPhail: The minister has repealed the definition of "funding assistance program grant," which provides to child care institutions that are licensed under the Community Care Facility Act. Can the minister tell me why that was eliminated?

Hon. L. Stephens: We don't need that definition. We can still provide the grant through the child care definition. We didn't need the former.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister have any plans for providing grants to stay-at-home parents for child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: Not at this time. We haven't discussed anything like that. What we're looking at is a publicly funded child care system, one that supports the needs and targets the needs for parents and child care providers in the province.

J. MacPhail: Again, we're all breaking new ground here with the situation that we find ourselves in. I speak against this entire amendment, the amendments to the Child Care BC Act. There is nothing that I am in support of. So do you want me to vote against each section or …?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps what would be good is if we could vote on sections 1 through 5 at the same time, and I could vote against sections 1 through 5.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, obviously, I'm in the Chair's hands. I want to make sure that the member has the opportunity to raise all of her questions tonight. I understand that her objections are not simply objections to detail but include questions of principle. I'm informed by the Clerk that it would be possible to have a vote on sections 1 to 5 compendiously, and I have no objection to that.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I think that's probably the Attorney General predicting that there won't be members of his government caucus voting against an individual section, so that we could do sections 1 through 5. I don't know; maybe we should see, though. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the assistance.

I have a question to the minister on section 4. Section 4 is being repealed, and it provided funding for up to 21,000 spaces for children enrolled during the school year. Can the minister tell me how many places have been taken up by the program funding to date?

J. MacPhail: The applications still before the minister would add how many, if they're all completed? I understand that the approval process has

to be completed and all the checks done. But for how many spaces are there now applications before the minister?

Hon. L. Stephens: I don't have the exact numbers of the child care organizations or the spaces they would represent. Again, I can get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: With the repeal of section 4 the minister has closed off applications for 7,000 spaces for kindergarten and school-aged children and 4,680 spaces for toddlers under the age of three years. Have you sent out a notice saying that that has been killed?

Hon. L. Stephens: In terms of the 4,680 spaces for children under 36 months, the infants and toddlers, that program was not in place. There was no need to send out notices to any of the organizations that would be providing those extra spaces, because the program simply had not been rolled out yet.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the minister is also saying that it's true of the program that's being killed: effective September 3, 2002, the 17,000 spaces for school-aged children enrolled; July 2, 2003, the number of spaces that were (a) and (b) together; and September 1, 2003, the 16,560 spaces for children aged 30 months and up who have not yet entered grade 1.

Hon. L. Stephens: That's correct. Section 4 outlines the rollout for the program. Those areas the member just mentioned have not been rolled out; therefore, they will not be moving forward.

J. MacPhail: What is the budget that the minister has for the provision of this B.C. child care program up to June 30, 2002? A corollary question to that is: if the government has committed to multi-year budgeting, what's the preparation? Has the minister received her multi-year budget for the B.C. child care program?

Hon. L. Stephens: The funding for this year — and that includes the before- and after-school plan that runs until June 30 — was $45.18 million. The three-year rolling budgets have not been developed yet, as I'm sure the member knows. That is going to be happening over the next few months. When we get to that point where we are developing those three-year budgets, I'm sure the member would like to ask that question then — in the next budget.

J. MacPhail: Section 12 is being amended by repealing the regulation that establishes the nature and maximum amount of additional fees that a child care provider may charge parents under the funding assistance program. With the repeal of that ability to make regulation, are child care facilities now able to make additional charges without approval from the government?

Hon. L. Stephens: The current contracts are still in place, and those contracts call for the parent fee to be fixed. To answer the member's question, no, that's not possible.

J. MacPhail: The contracts specify, with each child care facility, the nature and ability to charge extra fees. The contract specifies that?

Hon. L. Stephens: They can charge ancillary fees. The contracts do say that.

J. MacPhail: So the contracts prevail even though the power to make regulation to control that is deleted? The contracts prevail over the legislation?

Hon. L. Stephens: The contracts do prevail; they are legal documents. The kinds of fees that are able to be charged are very limited and are primarily limited to transportation and field trips.

J. MacPhail: The transitional phase of sections 14 to 17 is to provide for smooth implementation of this program. The program will be in place until June 30, 2002, before the government probably kills it. Why is it that there's not a need for transitional programs or transitional regulations until June 30, 2002?

Hon. L. Stephens: With the passage of this bill, we don't need the transitional sections any longer. Sections 14 through 17 simply look for the continuity of the child care grants and the written agreements, and because those are not moving forward, we don't need the transitional sections any longer.

Hon. L. Stephens: As the member well knows, the government is currently undergoing some changes in terms of government structure, in terms of deregulation and red-tape process review and also the core services review. Those are processes that are ongoing. As they progress and as these events unfold, we will be looking at all kinds of options, and there may or may not be staff layoffs. We're certainly not anticipating any. The desire would be to find job opportunities and spaces for individuals within the government structure.

J. MacPhail: Why is it that the minister needs to do a separate consultation on this issue when there's a core services review? Is it duplication? If the minister stands up and says it isn't duplication, could she please say how the two will be meshed.

Hon. L. Stephens: The core services review is an exercise that government is undergoing to look at all of its programs, practices, policies, procedures and legislation and to ask some fundamental questions about whether or not government should be doing what those programs and policies do or whether they can be done in a different way or by someone else.

The child care program is one that I believe is certainly required, and we are going to be proceeding on that basis. We will be developing a comprehensive sustainable child care program for the province, one that serves families in the north and in the lower mainland. We are proceeding on the basis that as soon as possible, we will have a child care plan in place that works for all the families in B.C.

J. MacPhail: The minister said that there would be a separate consultation for the child care program from the core services review. Let me just outline for the minister what the core services review is supposed to do. It's supposed to ask what we are doing, why we are doing it, how we are doing it and how we will measure our progress. Then there are specific questions within that broad framework: public interest test, affordability test, effectiveness in role of government test, efficiency test, accountability test. What is it that the minister, in her consultation, will be asking that's over and above the core services review?

Hon. L. Stephens: The core services review is examining the existing programs of government and ways to improve the service to people. The consultations that we're going to be having with the parents and child care providers will assist us with the future planning of child care in the province.

	YEAS — 70

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	Santori	van Dongen
Barisoff	Nettleton	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Hagen	Murray
Plant	Collins	Bond
de Jong	Stephens	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Harris	Nuraney	Brenzinger
Belsey	Bell	Long
Chutter	Mayencourt	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine
MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter
	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail

J. MacPhail: Is it the Attorney General that's doing this? Sorry, I don't know who to look at.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Perhaps the Attorney General could explain the intent of the section for the record.

Hon. G. Plant: Section 6 amends section 14(2) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act to eliminate the clause which limits the appointment of an acting child, youth and family advocate to 20 sitting days of the Legislature. A provision is added allowing the Legislature to appoint, reappoint or extend an acting advocate to a term not exceeding 12 months, renewable once. The amendment applies to an individual acting as advocate before or after the amendment is made. I understand there is an individual who has been appointed as an acting advocate. In the event that the provision is enacted, the term of office of that individual will continue beyond what would ordinarily be the 20-sitting-day limit applicable to acting advocates.

J. MacPhail: For maybe a more free-ranging discussion on this, I'll attempt it. I don't know whether it's possible or not. I was actually the minister responsible for this legislation when it was first passed in the Legislature, and it was lauded at the time for being groundbreaking legislation. It was before many people — including, I think, the Attorney General — were here. It was in the first term of the NDP government.

We had done so. As the minister responsible I — I shouldn't say I had done; I was the minister who sponsored the bill — put in place an independent officer of the Legislature called the child, youth and family advocate. There had been wide-ranging consultation on that, and virtually everybody supported the concept, including the then Liberal members of the opposition. We could go back and examine the Hansard, although I remember it clearly because it was a very difficult portfolio and this was one area where there was, I believe, unanimous approval of the child, youth and family advocate.

The reason for that was that all governments face very difficult challenges in terms of supporting children who are responsibilities of the state and supporting families who require the assistance of the state. I think this now-government, then-opposition

has raised many, many issues around children and families in this province and their support, or lack thereof, by the government. There have even been some accusations — or allegations, I should say, to be more charitable — that the state could have done a better job in supporting children and families. We as a chamber always discussed what was in the best interests of the child. When the rhetoric was set aside and when the partisan politics were taken out of it, every single member in this chamber — whether they be on that side or this side, whenever — said that it's the best interests of the child that must prevail.

The child, youth and family advocate was put in place to ensure the best interests of the child in the context of support from the state. The child, youth and family advocate was to be an independent officer of the Legislature so that he or she could ensure the best interests of the child regardless of the actions of the government of the day.

I have to tell you, it was a very tough debate that we had internal to our government of the day about whether to proceed with the advocate, and I'm sure the current government will have those same kinds of debate. How do we possibly monitor our own actions? How do we ensure openness and accountability in a way that's transparent and protects the best interests of the public? How do we do that?

Well, our government came to the conclusion that, particularly when you're dealing with the best interests of the child, it makes sense to have an independent officer of the Legislature. There should be no fooling around with that — none. It was such an important issue. So while we had wide-ranging, often varying opinions within our government caucus, we supported unanimously, as did the then Liberal opposition, the appointment of the child, youth and family advocate.

The first advocate selected by the all-party legislative committee, which I think is outlined…. The method by which that was appointed is listed in section 3(1) of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. While I didn't sit on that committee, I know there are members in the chamber today, now in the government, who did sit on that committee. It was a very, very inclusive process. Dozens of applications came forward, and then a woman named Joyce Preston was chosen as the first child, youth and family advocate.

Ms. Preston did her job admirably. She took the state to task when necessary. Her reports were very controversial. The then Liberal opposition relied on her reports to hold the government accountable. Ms. Preston is recognized — was recognized, I should say; she's now retired —nationally and internationally as an advocate with a solid, solid mandate to hold the state accountable.

It was always preferable, on behalf of children and families in this province — and youth; Ms. Preston was a passionate and compassionate advocate on behalf of youth, a group that often got forgotten by so many…. It was always preferable for the Ministry for Children and Families to work with the advocate, but at the end of the day it wasn't required. The advocate had her own resources and her own legislation and her own independence to hold the government accountable.

When Ms. Preston's term ended and she retired with great accolades from all, there was certainly a plan. I could be wrong on this, but I think a committee was appointed to find her successor as per the legislation, as per section 3(1) of the act. That, of course, is what's being changed. Sorry, that's not true. Section 3(1) is not being changed, but the effect of 3(1) is being modified today, and that's what we're dealing with here.

It may come as a surprise, particularly to the Attorney General, but I am only going to ask questions here; I am not going to prejudge. But it is important, because of the history of this appointment, that he be very clear — or I'm asking him to be very clear — about the intent of the government, given the history that I have just outlined.

It is key to have an advocate for children and families in this province, because while many of us may try to make this a partisan issue, it is a very difficult exercise of state authority to look after children who cannot rely on their own families. It is a very difficult exercise of power to assist families who do not have the skills or the resources to each and every day look after their children in the children's best interest.

All of that can change. One child can be supported by the state so that he or she survives and grows and is nurtured. But our children can often slip through the cracks in a way that is literally fatal to the child. It is important that every single government be held accountable for every single child who slips through the cracks and whose life is inalterably worse off, whether the child is injured or harmed or dies.

I only wish this government the best — that fewer and fewer children slip through the cracks. But I also know how difficult it is. That's why it's so important to have an independent advocate who is not beholden to the ministry responsible for children and families but is beholden only to the children and the families. I would ask that the Attorney General stand up and reassure children, youth and families in this province that he will continue an independent advocate for children, youth and families who is answerable to the Legislature, who is not accountable to the government but reports to the children, youth and families as an independent officer of the Legislature.

Having said that, I've heard the Attorney General speculate that the role may be called something different. I can't remember whether it was that I heard the Attorney General speculate that roles may be amalgamated. If he could reiterate that speculation in the context of assuring that children and youth and the families who need help to raise our children and youth will have an independent advocate....

Hon. G. Plant: I find myself in agreement with most of what the member says about the challenge that governments face in the area of protecting kids at risk, children who are in the care or custody of government,

and the importance of ensuring that there are in place appropriate institutions to protect children, youth and families.

I was not a member of the assembly, as the member noted, when the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act was enacted. I will say this small thing, if you will, about the history of oversight of the institutions that we're talking about. As the member knows, after the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act was enacted, there was public controversy and a great deal of concern about the question of whether or not the government was in fact appropriately discharging its responsibilities. Those questions led to a commission of inquiry headed by Provincial Court judge Gove. Among the recommendations of Judge Gove that were acted upon was the recommendation, as I recall anyway, that a children's commission be constituted.

A Children's Commission Act was passed. I think it was supported by all sides of the Legislature. I know there was an issue at the time about the reporting or accountability structure for the Children's Commission. But the principle of oversight was supported by the opposition caucus that existed during the last parliament.

So a new government comes into office. One of the things I think we are obliged to do as a government is ensure that the services that government provides and the responsibilities that are undertaken, both by government and by other institutions, with respect to the oversight of those services are the best they can possibly be. It is legitimate to look at questions of, for example, overlap in terms of responsibilities to make sure that we don't have more institutions in place than we need as a society to protect these vital interests.

It has been suggested to me — and I am not here to argue the point — by some who know this area better that at the moment there may be more institutions overseeing the work of child protection workers, the responsibilities of government and the position of children, youth and families at risk than are actually needed or can reasonably be said to be an appropriately efficient use of limited government resources. I don't know the answer to that question, but I do think it's a reasonable question to ask when a new political party takes over government after a government has been in office for a decade.

So this part of what government does is in fact being looked at. In order for that review to be conducted in a way that ensures we don't find ourselves having committed to a course of action that we later realize ought not to have been undertaken, it was considered important, and I believe it to be important, to introduce this minor transitional amendment to the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. It ensures that the existing appointed acting advocate can continue to serve in her capacity — a capacity which she must have some familiarity with, because I'm told that she served as the deputy to Joyce Preston — for the period of time which we as government need to conduct a review to make sure the services we provide and the institutions we have in place are doing the job we ask of them.

That is the slightly larger context, if you will, for these amendments. Let me assure the member opposite that I share her belief that there is urgent and continuing need for mechanisms that protect the public interest and the best interests of children who are kids at risk, children in need of protection or children who are already in the custody of government.

I also believe in the principle of independence, which is recognized in the office of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act. I think it's important that in doing the kind of oversight work that the member was talking about, the people who are doing that oversight be independent from the work they're supervising. So whatever comes of the review, I can assure the member that the principle of independence will be respected in the oversight mechanisms that government chooses to continue with.

It may be that the result of this review will be to leave the existing institutions in place exactly as they are. One of the things about a review is that you do it because you don't already know the answer to the question that has been identified as important. We don't already know the answer to this question. But I do believe it's a legitimate question. I believe it's legitimate to examine whether or not there is, if I may put it this way, too much oversight. Oversight then tends to become a burden which does not result in an improvement of the service delivered, but rather becomes a hindrance to the delivery of the service that we're talking about.

I think it's important to look at the child, youth and family advocacy position in conjunction with the other institutions and oversight mechanisms that exist, and we'll do that expeditiously. We'll do that fairly, and at the end of it I am convinced that we will be able to ensure that the right institutions are in place to achieve the public policy objectives that the member herself identified in her remarks.

J. MacPhail: I offer my assistance in that review. I have no idea what the plan is for the nature of the review, but I would appreciate having a discussion with whoever is conducting the review, because I have experience to offer but also some cautions as well.

I appreciate the Attorney General's comments about independence, because I think that's key to this — the fact that perhaps others may say that the children's commissioner and the child, youth and family advocate can be amalgamated. The children's commissioner performs an excellent, excellent function as well, but it does report to the Attorney General.

As we move forward, perhaps there is a way that supports the community better, supports children and youth and families better by changing positions or amalgamating positions, but the underlying premise in my view must be independent reporting from the government.

With that, I would just like to ask a couple of questions for clarification, if I may, to fully understand

this. The acting advocate who is now currently in office can be appointed for one 12-month date and then a subsequent 12-month appointment for a total of a 24-month appointment from now?

Hon. G. Plant: First of all, I will make sure that the member's offer to assist or provide comments to the review that I spoke about is conveyed to those doing the work.

Secondly, with respect to the specific question, the operation of the provisions is that the term of the existing appointed acting advocate could be extended, or rather will be extended, for a term not exceeding 12 months, renewable once. So there is the possibility that the position of acting advocate could continue for 24 months. I consider that possibility to be undesirable.

J. MacPhail: Does the acting advocate have duties in any way different than the advocate that would have been chosen by an all-party legislative committee?

J. MacPhail: Does the acting advocate have to then meet all of the responsibilities of the Child, Youth and Family Advocacy Act, including making reports to the Legislature in a timely way?

J. MacPhail: Could the Attorney General please indicate the other sections that are also captured by photo radar? Is it sections 20 and 21, as well as section 7 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act?

Hon. G. Plant: We're getting there. So far as I know, it's section 7, sections 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 — I'll say something about that in a minute — 26 and 27. Section 25 is a repeal of a section of the supplement to the Motor Vehicle Act, and as the member knows, supplements are provisions that were not brought into force. I'm not sure if that was a photo radar provision or not.

J. MacPhail: I certainly don't mind dealing with these as a package again, just for consideration. My questions will only be for the Attorney General's — I'm trying to remember the announcement that was made at the time — or the Minister of Public Safety's plan to continue the reduction in speed-related accidents and deaths that needs to come into full force with the abandonment of photo radar.

The Chair: Attorney General, I just want to confirm those numbers before we start. Is it section 7 and then sections 20 through 27 — is that correct — that we're dealing with?

Hon. G. Plant: I think so. Why don't we deal with the member's general question in the context of section 7? And then we'll move along accordingly. I can deal with the member's question about photo radar.

As the member knows, the decision was taken to cancel the program. I think it was effective on the date of the promulgation of an order-in-council which repealed the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act regulation. I think that was June 28. At the time the decision was made to cancel the program, we knew that there were some transitional costs involved in terms of things like the obligation to continue to pay salaries of police officers who were seconded to the program pending their redeployment or reassignment to various provincial or municipal police force detachments.

The plan, in terms of the future, is to look at how we as a government can participate in the project of improving traffic safety. I know it's the view of the Solicitor General that — if I can put it colloquially — in-your-face traffic enforcement is more effective than photo radar vans sitting on the side of the road taking photographs. I think the minister responsible has begun discussions with police forces and probably with municipal governments to see what can be done. That probably is about the state of things. I haven't spoken about this with the Solicitor General in the last couple of weeks, but I can tell you that we as a government are committed to traffic safety enforcement. If the member has ideas along the way for initiatives that could help us as a government to make our streets safer, I'd welcome them, as I know the Solicitor General would also.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to have to ask a series of general questions, all related to traffic safety. The police forces in the province need to have funding for what they call base enforcement of traffic safety, separate and apart from photo radar, separate and apart from CounterAttack programs that are funded by ICBC. I don't know whether it's the Solicitor General or the Attorney General who has responsibility for this, but I assume it's the Attorney General who has responsibility for police forces in this province.

J. MacPhail: No. Okay. It's awkward, then, asking these questions. Is there a committee in place, a consultation in place, an advisory mechanism by which the government consults and takes the advice of police forces on traffic safety and traffic enforcement?

Hon. G. Plant: The responsibility for policing belongs to the Solicitor General as a result of the reorganization of government. I am somewhat limited in my ability to deal with general questions, although the question the member did ask would be, I think, a

perfectly legitimate question in the context of the estimates debate for the Minister of Public Safety.

The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police has a committee responsible for traffic safety. I'm told that they meet twice a year and that representatives of government attend. I think, as a result of the reorganization of government, the representatives of government that would participate in that committee would be representatives of the Public Safety ministry, which is where the police services division went. The minister himself may have other initiatives underway that I don't know about, but I do know that that initiative is considered by the police chiefs themselves to be a valuable tool for communicating their concerns around traffic safety issues to the provincial government.

J. MacPhail: Is there some reason the Minister of Public Safety isn't available? Is it just by virtue of him being in the buildings but not available, in which case we can move on to other sections and stand these down?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't know whether or not he's still at the committee meeting that I was supposed to be at. The questions the member's asking…. I certainly don't want to interfere with the legitimate exploration of the issues raised by the amendments, but questions about the government's general approach to traffic safety enforcement are quite good estimates questions. They could be pursued by the member in the context of the estimates debate, or if the member wants, she could put them on record here and I'll certainly speak to the Solicitor General and attempt to get answers in writing.

J. MacPhail: Unfortunately, the estimates are going by so quickly that I'm missing virtually all of them except ones that I served notice that I want to…. So I'd be happy to serve notice to the House Leader that if he could hold the estimates of the Minister of Public Safety, I'd be glad to do that.

I also know that the change in law about traffic enforcement often becomes the record of the land and is used elsewhere, so I want to be very careful that all of the issues are explored around the changes as they relate to photo radar. I'm really at a loss to know how to proceed on this, Mr. Chair. The complexities of the intent of sections 20 and 21, for instance….

Hon. G. Plant: Perchance, if the member wants to move forward to section 20, we could stand down sections 8 through 19. We'd have to pass section 7, then stand down sections 8 through 19, and then move to section 20.

J. MacPhail: The explanatory note says that it removes references to provisions respecting speed-monitoring devices under section 20, and then section 21 repeals the provision that made the owner liable for a speeding offence if photo radar actually was the method by which he or she was ticketed. So I take it that section 20 put in place the offence and section 21 put in place who was liable. Both of those are removed now. Do these two sections deal with anything other than photo radar? Are there any other implications for this in sections 20 and 21, other than photo radar no longer being in position?

The Chair: I just wanted to inform that sections 8 to 19 have been stood down.

The member asked a question: is there any implication beyond photo radar contained in the amendments that are proposed in sections 20 and 21 of the bill? The answer is no, and let me make that clearer, in this sense. What is left in these provisions will continue to permit the red-light camera program, which we have not altered.

J. MacPhail: Photo radar is the euphemism for speed-monitoring device. So as I understand it, the only changes to the Motor Vehicle Act are the deletions of speed-monitoring devices as a way to get people.

J. MacPhail: The Attorney General and I were having a discussion about the general principles around traffic safety enforcement and the deletion of a speed-monitoring device from the tools of the police. Maybe we could direct a question to the Solicitor General about whether he has advisory committees in place and a working relationship with the police to ensure that traffic safety not only continues to be enforced but also improves the lives of British Columbians through reduced accidents and deaths. I'd be happy to have this discussion with the Solicitor General in his estimates if he guarantees that they don't go by with me missing them.

Hon. R. Coleman: There's a couple of facts. First of all, we made the commitment to get rid of photo radar within 90 days of an election, and we followed through on that commitment. We followed through on that commitment for a number of reasons. One is that we didn't feel — and neither did a lot of the people involved in the program and people I had actually spoken to on the front lines — that the program was applied for the reasons it was supposed to be applied, and that was the reduction of speed. It was more a revenue generator as far as where they would place the cameras rather than the reduction of speed in the province.

I am a big fan of visible policing. I believe that visibility and the immediate impact of somebody being stopped for speeding have much more impact than mailing a ticket to them. I've sat down with the various

police agencies — the B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP — relative to the removal of photo radar. We are actually talking and working on a traffic safety strategy for the province, and we'll continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: For general reassurance from the Solicitor General, the amendments that we're dealing with here affect only speed-monitoring devices, throughout the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2001.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I meant beyond sections 20 and 21, just for the record.

Hon. R. Coleman: The photo radar program was eliminated. It was eliminated as a commitment by us. So it's as long as we're government.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, the minister misunderstood my question. When was it eliminated? What was the exact date?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have the exact date in front of me, but it was an open cabinet meeting in the month of June, and it was effective immediately: June 28.

J. MacPhail: If the program was eliminated June 28, has the minister received any monthly statistics? That's about seven weeks ago. Have there been any statistics released on speed-related offences in that time, since the elimination of photo radar?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't have those details available to me right at my fingertips, but I'm sure I can undertake to get them to the member.

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons I ask is that I assume that would be a statistic that's analyzed to make sure that traffic safety remains paramount for the government. I would be interested in knowing. I appreciate that the minister will be giving this later but would appreciate knowing how he expects to analyze the statistics. Is it on a monthly basis? There will be a seasonal aspect to the analysis, and I assume there will be a regional analysis to the statistics as well. I hope all of that information will be made public.

I have another question of a general nature on the elimination of photo radar. ICBC had responsibility for, or was the funder of, other traffic safety programs as well as photo radar enforcement. Does ICBC continue to be part of the body which the Solicitor General seeks advice from in his new program for traffic safety enforcement?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, to define a program as a new program when traffic safety has always been a paramount concern is unfair. ICBC has participated as a corporation in different traffic safety initiatives. It would be up to that corporation as to what their future involvement will be, through the core review and also through whatever priorities it sets for a corporation. I'm not in a position to basically speculate on what they will or will not do in the future. My ministry will focus on traffic safety with the police agencies of the province to come up with the ability for us to work together to improve traffic safety long-term. That's something we've already started discussing with various police agencies, and we'll continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: I'm having difficulty communicating my point of view. Believe you me, this is not from an adversarial point of view. All I want to know is…. Regardless of what their role is in the future, ICBC now plays a role. They're the ones that are directly affected by speeding violations, often in the form of accidents and fatalities. They are key; they actually pay the piper for the offence. My only point was: is it the Solicitor General's goal to continue? If it's not a new program, then is ICBC involved now in working with the Solicitor General on making sure that all of the positive effects of speed enforcement remain?

Hon. R. Coleman: ICBC is involved on a program-by-program basis with the local police. They have continued to do that. On the recent long weekend they were involved in a safe driving program with local police. It was a relationship between them and police agencies, not the ministry. It wasn't funded through the ministry.

The fact of the matter is that this ministry is going to look at all aspects of traffic safety, including traffic accidents. The level of accidents that take place as a result of speeding versus the percentage of accidents that take place as a result of other activities is disproportional. I believe it's about 19 percent relative to speed. That's why we maintain the intersection program relative to where high accident areas are taking place. We're going to work on those priorities.

For some time there hasn't been in this province somebody, a ministry, that is actually concentrating on aspects of policing, waking up in the morning and saying: "How can we improve policing?" That's certainly a mandate of this ministry. Over the next few months I intend to work with all the agencies in the province to try and improve all aspects of public safety.

J. MacPhail: I know that the Liberal Party was very clear on what would happen to photo radar during the election. I assume that was based on wide consultation, taking that position in the New Era document. Did the Solicitor General consult or seek advice after the

election, after assuming office, on the future of photo radar, and if so, from whom?

Hon. R. Coleman: My office took on the task of completing what was a commitment to the people of British Columbia in the campaign. It wasn't a consultative process. It was a process to meet a commitment that we'd already decided and committed to do.

J. MacPhail: Could I please have an explanation of the intent of section 8? It says it's self-explanatory, but I've got the act here, and the whole act is repealed. The elimination of this act achieves what, affects whom?

Hon. G. Plant: I notice that the mystery of explanatory notes is that they are just as mysterious after the election as they were before the election.

Sections 8, 9 and 10 are really part of a package. Section 8 repeals the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act. The objective is to remove barriers and conditions regulating the sale, change in use and other transactions involving seniors housing and care facilities that were partially funded through grants under the act. The objective is to increase flexibility and autonomy for non-profit housing societies.

Now the act authorizes the provision of grants to non-profit societies to assist in the construction of affordable seniors housing. No grants have been made under the act since 1986. In fact, the grants made pursuant to this legislation were made, I think, between 1955 and 1986. There was an amendment to the act made in about 1999, and the amendment required the societies who had received these grants to make payments to the government if there was a sale or a change in the use of the property. Our observation was that that amendment created unintended barriers for non-profit housing societies who wished to redevelop or remortgage their properties for repairs.

The repeal of the act will remove all of these obligations and these restrictions on societies that received grants under the act, including the restrictions on the use and disposition of the property and the obligations to compensate the government on disposition. What this does is accommodate non-profit societies who received grants under this old act and want autonomy over the management of their portfolios. From our perspective, it addresses the government's priority to cut red tape and the regulatory burden.

The government of which the member was a member…. The amendments that her government introduced in 1999 came about as a result of some litigation. At the time I think members of my party were mindful of a principle, if you will, around protecting the interests that government could be said to have in the facilities constructed by these societies over the years when they had received a grant. But the truth is that the amendments that were passed in 1999 were just terribly restrictive. They meant, for example, that if a non-profit society that had constructed a seniors facility wanted to add a couple of spaces to its parking garage, they would have to go to the bank to borrow enough money to pay the government a third of the value of the entire property. Our view is that those provisions, rather than assisting this important sector of society, were frustrating and restricting them.

The goal we have in mind here is to remove this fetter and to ensure that this portion of the not-for-profit sector that has provided and continues to provide affordable seniors housing will be allowed to flourish by essentially empowering the directors of these societies to make their own decisions about how to redevelop their facilities. At the same time, of course, they will be limited in their ability to do so because they will have to continue to be using their assets for non-profit purposes for the construction of affordable seniors housing. So I think that's an overview of what this is all about.

J. MacPhail: Well, it will come, I'm sure, as a surprise to the Attorney General that I absolutely agree with what he just articulated about the consequences of an amendment that my then-government made in July 1999. It was an amendment that did not serve a useful purpose in achieving what the public service had told us needed to be done. I totally agree, referring to the amendment to the Housing Construction (Elderly Citizens) Act made on July 13, 1999. So I support the government in removing what some may say was an unintended consequence or others may say was bad advice — not bad advice, but advice we received from the internal workings of government that may have made sense for the internal workings of the bureaucracy but not for the people who were out there being affected by it. I stand here and make that admission now.

What I do want to have the Attorney General reassure the public on, though, is…. I thought I heard him say that the last grant was made in 1986. What happens to organizations, non-profit societies, that were subject to the rules of this act? What are the consequences for those organizations, those societies, now that this act is completely repealed? By what laws are they governed now?

Hon. G. Plant: If I understand the member's question correctly, the restrictions that the act as amended in 1999 placed on financing, if you will, will no longer be there. The societies themselves will continue to be subject to the rules that relate to societies that ensure that they'll have to continue to do the business that they say in their constitution and bylaws they are doing. And of course they'll be subject to whatever local land use laws they're subject to in the jurisdictions where these facilities have been

J. MacPhail: I wasn't referring just to the amendment. My understanding is that section 8 of the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act that we're discussing now repeals the entire act, so it's gone. It repeals that nasty little amendment as well, and I appreciate and support that. I gather the second half of the Attorney General's comments, then, prevails: that it's the Society Act that governs organizations that remain. If the last grant was made in '86, have all of those organizations disappeared and moved on, or what?

Hon. G. Plant: No, I think the organizations, by and large, continue to exist. It is in fact those organizations that were subject to the restrictions imposed by the 1999 amendment. So these are organizations that may have been around for half a century, almost, and set up shop, if you will, as not-for-profit organizations to construct housing projects. They received their grant from the government, built their project, and it's sitting there. The societies that were established originally as the vehicle for building those projects generally continue to exist, and after this act is repealed, they will not be subject to whatever the act may have said about those projects.

J. MacPhail: This section repeals the Human Rights Code Amendment Act, 2001. For the purposes of shorthand and the public who may be interested in this, this was the act that brought in pay equity for women in this province and prevented discrimination in wages based on…. It prevented discrimination between employees…by employing an employee of one sex for work at a rate of pay that is less than the rate of pay at which an employee of the other sex is employed by that employer for work of equal value. The positive aspect of this piece of legislation is that it brought about equal pay for work of equal value for all working people in British Columbia, and now that, by virtue of section 11 of this Liberal government's Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, is gone. That is gone completely.

I feel badly about that. I know that we can engage in discussions about how this act was brought about without any consultation and that really more time is needed to examine the issue of equal pay for work of equal value. I simply reject that, Mr. Chair. Let's be clear. Women, men, the business community, working people and communities had a full consultation on the value of pay-equity laws and the value of putting prohibitions against discrimination and protecting the right of equal pay for work of equal value in the Human Rights Code. That consultation took place throughout the summer of 1999 by the then Minister of Women's Equality and carried on throughout the year 2000, until the act was passed in legislation in the spring of 2001. It was not a hurried piece of legislation. It was thoughtful and had been discussed amongst many for many, many months all around the province.

Now we see all of that work repealed, undone and thrown out. Yes, the Attorney General is replacing it with the consultation by a very well respected woman. I certainly hope this government is not paying lip service to that consultation. It will be interesting to find out the difference between the consultation that the Attorney General is now invoking and what already took place over the course of the last couple of years. I will be watching that with interest. I really question the need for doing another consultation, no matter how well-respected the person who is doing the consultation is, because the work is already done.

Over the course of the last ten years the wages of women in this province have risen, particularly in the public service. Particularly, they've been raised in relation to the wages of men in the public service. The reason for that was that the employer of the day made a specific goal that it would do everything possible, within its power of being the employer, to eliminate wage discrimination in the public sector. We took a lot of heat for that. We took a lot of heat for that in our wage bills, because our wage bills increased. In the health care sector the wage bills increased because women in the health care sector, the community care sector, weren't paid fairly. So the government of the day put a lot of effort into bringing those wages up.

In the public service, pay equity was a goal starting under the Social Credit government of the early 1990s. They didn't put it in place until, I think, 1990. But that work under the Social Credit government, which was started for pay equity in the public service, was continued throughout the 1990s. That made perfect sense — an employer taking action to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex in the way that people are paid.

The continuation to eliminate discrimination on the basis of sex was carried on into the community and social services sector, and women's wages were raised throughout the 1990s. It had great consequence. The work of the government as an employer had great consequence not only for women but for the families either that they supported or to whom they contributed a decent wage. A two-parent family, a two-income-earner, a three-income-earner family, young women entering the workforce — all had a greater shot at being treated fairly and being paid equitably for the value that they contributed, the same way as a young man entering the workforce had.

That changed the economy of the communities in which those women worked, because the money wasn't put into their pockets to take down to Dominion Securities to invest offshore. It was taken to the local McDonald's, to the local shoe store, to the local furniture store, to the local apartment landlord to rent a

better apartment. All that money was recirculated into the economy. And that made perfect sense; that was great news for boosting the economy. That's why it made sense to pay women the wage they deserved, based on what they were contributing to the productivity of the economy.

We weren't breaking new ground. When the Social Credit government started it, they weren't breaking new ground, although they could be given credit for breaking ground closer to what other jurisdictions were doing. The NDP government of the day just continued that work; it was already taking place at the federal level in Quebec and in Ontario and in Manitoba. Those governments, all of different political stripes, had recognized that wage discrimination didn't make any sense for the economy.

What was happening was that the gains made on behalf of paying people equitably, regardless of their sex, were being made mainly in the public sector. The private sector was not keeping pace. No matter how many discussions occurred, no matter how many efforts government asked the private sector to make to eliminate wage discrimination, the gap still remained. The consultation continued between the government of the day and the public — all those affected in the public — about how we could achieve fairness for, mainly women, in the workforce, although men who were being treated in a discriminatory fashion were assisted by this bill and were included in the effects of the amendment of earlier this spring as well.

There were certainly many who advocated a much stronger piece of legislation than what was actually introduced and passed. There were those who wanted the time lines for achieving pay equity in British Columbia to be shortened. There were those who didn't want to put any limits on employers about what contribution they had to make in terms of payroll toward eliminating wage discrimination. There were those who did not want to take into account at all the necessity for businesses to be prepared and to plan for the elimination of wage discrimination.

Basically, there were those who said to the government of the day: "Bring in a fiat; order the elimination of wage discrimination by fiat immediately." Those demands were rejected. They were replaced with what I would call a modest but consistent and almost plodding piece of legislation that would lead to pay equity for women and men in British Columbia regardless of where they worked.

It took into account all sorts of impediments that businesses told us they just couldn't overcome. Smaller businesses said: "We're just not able to achieve pay equity." That was taken into account. Smaller businesses would not be adversely affected by this. Businesses who needed time to put in place the elimination of wage discrimination — their concerns were taken into account in the legislation. The concerns of businesses about a huge amount of red tape and needless bureaucracy were taken into account, and the bill very much was about almost an honour system for businesses to eliminate wage discrimination.

It also said that we'd only ask businesses to do what they can do from an affordability aspect, an ability to pay, so there were very modest ceilings put in place about what businesses would have to contribute to eliminate wage discrimination. All this was in the interest of the economy. Yes, there was a social justice aspect to the pay equity legislation, but there was also the underpinning that this initiative was good for the economy.

We talk about how we put money into working people's pockets. I know that the government in power now prides itself on putting money into working people's pockets. They do it through tax cuts. They say that's the be-all and end-all. Nirvana will be achieved by cutting taxes for working people. Well, there are other ways of putting money into working people's pockets, and this was one. The pay equity legislation achieved exactly the same principle and the same outcome that this government now advocates through tax cuts — exactly the same. You distribute income in a way that recognizes productivity and value contributed to the economy.

This government says that if you cut taxes, the economy is stimulated. The economy is stimulated because the money saved through not paying taxes circulates, and the economy grows. But this bill does exactly the same thing. A woman contributing to the productivity of the economy gets paid what the value of that contribution is, and that money goes into her pocket and stimulates the economy and circulates in the economy. The principle is exactly the same. And the outcome — well, actually, I hope the outcome is exactly the same. I hope the outcome for tax reductions is exactly the same as what's achieved through ending wage discrimination.

Paying people a fair wage, based on their productivity and their value that they contribute to the economy, is good for the economy. Any wage paid to a person that doesn't recognize the value he or she is contributing to productivity is discrimination. This government chose to actually make that argument about tax cuts: that it was bad, that it hurt people for people to pay taxes. Well, it's all about disposable income; that's what it's about. So I cannot, for the life of me, understand why it is that this government somehow sees ending wage discrimination, putting more money into working families' pockets, as bad for the economy, especially given the modest nature of the Human Rights Code amendment that was passed in the spring of this year.

I will be voting against the repeal of the Human Rights Code Amendment Act that brings about equal pay for work of equal value, based on that it's bad for the economy. Delaying equal pay for work of equal value any longer is bad for the economy. It does seem a little bit specious and a little bit insincere if the government rises from its benches today and says: "Well, why didn't you bring it in sooner? Why did you just do this at the end of your mandate?"

The fact of the matter is that work had progressed on bringing about pay equity for years where we had

the greatest strength: as the employer. We waited through many months of discussion for it to come about across the province, and it didn't. For anybody on the government benches to now rise and say: "Well, if you were really sincere, you would have brought it in sooner…." To poke history in the eye by then repealing the legislation is really to poke women in this province in the eye, but it may be a dangerous trend. So far we've had child care programs taken away from women, namely, the caregivers of the family, which tend to be — a little less so these days — women.

Now we've had the guarantee of pay equity. I could be the designated speaker on this one if I wanted.

J. MacPhail: No. Not in committee? Oh, gosh. Anyway, I will be voting against this section.

	YEAS — 68

Falcon	Coell	Hogg
L. Reid	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	Bruce
Santori	van Dongen	Barisoff
Nettleton	Roddick	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Thorpe
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Collins	Bond	Stephens
Neufeld	Coleman	Chong
Penner	Jarvis	Anderson
Orr	Harris	Nuraney
Brenzinger	Belsey	Bell
Long	Chutter	Mayencourt
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
R. Stewart	Hayer	Christensen
Krueger	McMahon	Bray
Les	Locke	Nijjar
Bhullar	Wong	Bloy
Suffredine	MacKay	Cobb
K. Stewart	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
Manhas		Hunter
	NAYS — 1

	MacPhail

Hon. G. Plant: I wonder if we could stand down section 12 by agreement and move to section 13, which is the beginning of some provisions dealing with the Medical Practitioners Act.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the Minister of Health Planning can explain. I gather we're dealing with the amendments from 13 to 19. Again we have notes here saying that everything is self-explanatory, so perhaps we could have the minister put on the record the intent of the amendments.

Hon. S. Hawkins: This section of the bill repeals a number of provisions that unduly constrain the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. to fulfil their statutory roles and responsibility. The intent of this amendment is to strike the right balance between protecting a practitioner who offers alternative therapies and allowing the College of Physicians and Surgeons to exercise their regulatory role in protecting the public. We believe that these amendments strike the right balance between protecting the practitioner's option to deliver those alternative therapies and the scrutiny and protections a health consumer would expect the college to ensure.

J. MacPhail: So what role does complementary medicine play in our health care system after this legislation is passed and these various sections of the Medical Practitioners Act are repealed?

Hon. S. Hawkins: The proposed amendments don't deny patients in any way, shape or form the right to continue access to non-traditional or alternative treatment options. They don't halt the practice of complementary medicine. What they do is ensure that complementary medicine can be provided by practitioners without threat of disciplinary action by the college. However, the amendments do allow the college to take action if a therapy poses a health or safety risk to a patient.

When the proponents of complementary medicine practice were lobbying government, they wanted the same kinds of changes or protections that Alberta and Ontario put in their legislation, and the language that's used in section 19 does just that.

J. MacPhail: After this legislation is passed — because I predict it will be passed; I don't know why, but I do predict that it will be passed — is it the minister's view that the legislation is merely equal to Alberta, or is it less than Alberta, in terms of protection of the right of medical practitioners to practise complementary medicine?

Hon. S. Hawkins: My understanding is that the legislation is parallel to Alberta's. I want to say that this government's top priority is to protect patients. We want to make sure that they have access to safe and effective medical treatment. We also want to ensure that the practice of complementary medicine continues, but we want to make sure that there are appropriate safeguards for practitioners and for patients. This will allow practitioners who provide alternative therapies to continue, but it maintains the right of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of B.C. to carry out their

responsibilities in ensuring that these therapies do not pose health and safety risks to patients.

J. MacPhail: The intent of the legislation when it was introduced…. We'll all remember that this came about by a private member's bill from the then MLA for Victoria-Hillside, Steve Orcherton. When he introduced the legislation, he described the fact that across Canada a long history of interference by the College of Physicians and Surgeons existed with the public's right to choose medical doctors who incorporate complementary medicine into their practices — complementary medicine being a combination of the best of conventional western medicines and the best of alternative medicines. He described complementary medicine as medical therapies free from the side effects of drugs and surgery.

The purpose of the bill that eventually passed was to allow physicians to use their own judgment, in the interests of the patient, to diagnose and treat patients using complementary medicine. The bill also protected physicians who practised complementary medicine therapies from harassment by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In fact, it is my understanding that the Alberta legislation does contain that protection from harassment by the College of Physicians and Surgeons that's now being eliminated in these amendments. So it would be my view that the Alberta legislation, if this amendment is passed, is stronger in terms of protection of the practice of complementary medicine without harassment. Alberta is much stronger.

It's an interesting perspective for the government to rise up today and really set the practice of complementary medicine back on its heels by repealing so much of the work that was done by Steve Orcherton in bringing in the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act of 2001. I do know that the current Minister of Health Services entered the debate. I believe the then opposition actually voted in favour of this legislation, because, of course, we were all receiving from people across the province a huge amount of support for this legislation protecting the right to practise complementary medicine. I believe they all voted in favour of that which they're now repealing.

The current Minister of Health Services, who was then the opposition critic, said that perhaps the government of the day was making a mistake in targeting the College of Physicians and Surgeons by taking away their right to harass people in the practice of complementary medicine. He said: "But what we don't support is what's behind this bill: the way in which the member has chosen to bring in restrictions on the ability of the College of Physicians and Surgeons to act in a way that ensures the public interest is protected." That was his concluding remark.

That all comes about from his underlying premise that the bill targeted the wrong aspect for ensuring the proper practice of complementary medicine, anyway — even though, as I say, the then opposition all voted in favour of this bill. He suggested that the government of the day was picking the wrong target to show where leadership must come from on this. The bill was saying that it's up to the College of Physicians and Surgeons to allow people to practise medicine in the best interests of the public and that they couldn't choose one aspect of medicine — i.e., complementary medicine — to harass physicians. They couldn't choose complementary medicine over western medicine.

But perhaps that responsibility was misplaced in the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In fact, this is a quote:

I assume he's referring to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, who have chosen western medicine over complementary medicine.

I'd be interested in knowing what the views, now that leadership has to come from the Ministry of Health, are of the minister responsible for health planning on how this complementary medicine is going to be allowed to flourish in a way that's in the best interests of the public.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I must say, that was quite a tirade. Let me remind the member, if she reads the section, that the section provides the practitioner with the kind of protection that I think the member who introduced the bill in the spring was intending to do. It says: "The council or a committee of the council must not act — under those appropriate sections — "respecting a member, solely on the basis that the member practises a therapy that departs from prevailing medical practice unless it can be demonstrated that the therapy poses a greater risk to patient health or safety than does prevailing medical practice." I think that was the intent that the private member sought back in the spring session.

Let me just give a little history of this, because I understand that the member's bill was rushed through the normal process of the previous government. In fact, the Ministry of Health, in April, only found out about it two weeks before it was introduced. I understand that because it was introduced through a private member, it didn't receive the conventional analysis and the detailed assessment that legislation usually does. So the resulting amendments were excessively limiting in terms of the ability of the college to exercise its regulatory responsibility. It did not balance the expectation of safe practice.

Our government does recognize that there is growing consumer interest in traditional, alternative medicine. We recognize at the same time that we have to take a responsible course of action, and that responsible course of action is to address that particular interest with appropriate legislation and regulation. We need to strike the right balance, and we feel that this section of the bill, with these amendments, does strike that balance. It protects the practitioner.

There is nothing in here that changes what's happening today with respect to a practitioner practising complementary medicine. What it does do now is maintain the college's ability to exercise its role insofar as regulating the profession and making sure that the therapies offered are safe and in the best interests of patients.

J. MacPhail: Were the issues of complementary medicine and the changes that this government has made part of the New Era document?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Insofar as making sure that patients received good care, yes, that would be seen as a new era.

J. MacPhail: Does the New Era document make reference to complementary medicine?

Hon. S. Hawkins: No, the New Era doesn't talk specifically about providing complementary medicine; it talks about providing quality health care. I think that is encompassed in that term.

Hon. S. Hawkins: You will recall, hon. member, that in the spring when legislation was introduced…. I believe our leader and other members made it very clear at that time that we reserved the right to repeal, suspend or amend any legislation that was done. This was deemed to be one of them.

J. MacPhail: I guess it would have been perhaps the most open and honest way to actually vote against the Medical Practitioners Amendment Act and then go to the electorate on the basis that the then Liberal opposition voted against the complementary medicine bill and then had that debate during the election. I guess that would have been the most honest and open and accountable way. Instead, the then Liberal opposition actually voted in favour of the bill, which was very clear. It didn't deal with any other issues. It dealt with all of the issues that this government is now repealing: the ability for complementary medicine, in a safe and healthy way, to be practised equitably with traditional western medicine.

It would be interesting to know what some of the Liberal members sitting here — the member for Burnaby North, the member for Vancouver-Kensington, the member for Oak Bay–Gordon Head, the Minister of State for Mental Health — think about the repeal of this legislation. I heard from their constituents, unbelievably, about how disappointed they are that the Liberal government wasn't forthright enough during the election to say that this was its intent.

Perhaps the whole New Era document of openness and accountability only means they'll be open and accountable about things that the public may not be angry at them about. Things that the public had views about which they held passionately and which were debated vigorously and which the public communicated with every member of this Legislature — those kinds of things the now Liberal government doesn't want to cast the light on and didn't want to cast the light on in the New Era document.

Has the Minister of Health Planning received any information from the public since the introduction of this legislation? Has she received any correspondence from the public on this amendment?

Hon. S. Hawkins: Let me say this very clearly — and I hope the member's listening — that these amendments are in support of complementary medicine. There is nothing in these amendments that takes away any rights of practitioners who are practising today to practise their alternative therapies. There is nothing in here that does this. The principle of the bill which the private member from the then government side supported back in April is being maintained in this bill. For the member's information, I have received no public letters. I have received nothing. I personally have not. She wanted to know that. Maybe other members have, but I have not.

The sections that are being repealed in this bill, in these amendments — the section of the bill that the private member passed — are ones that placed the practitioners who practise complementary medicine actually on a higher level. They had a lower test to meet, and the sections that were passed in the spring actually interfered procedurally with the college's ability to exercise their regulatory responsibilities. So I don't know: does the member think that different people who are practising medicine should have different levels of a test that should be met? I think the college should treat everyone fairly, and the test should be public health and safety and patients' best interests. Does the member think that it should be a different test for different people out there who are practising medicine?

J. MacPhail: In fact, I think that health and safety and the legitimate practice of medicine are the paramount test for the practice of all medicine. But what this amendment does is once again put complementary medicine back into the Dark Ages, where the College of Physicians and Surgeons thinks that there is a hierarchy of the practice of good medicine and that they get to determine the hierarchy and that western medicine is the be-all and end-all. The legislation that was passed protected the health and

safety of British Columbians, and these amendments put complementary medicine back where it cannot be practised in the same fair way that western medicine can.

If the minister hasn't heard anything from people who are concerned about the repeal of this legislation, rest assured that I have, and rest assured that the voices have been speaking up in public dialogue, as well, rueing the day that this legislation will be passed. What consultation did the minister or the government do — because there are four ministers responsible for our health system now — in preparing these amendments?

Hon. G. Collins: Let me set the record straight, if I can. The member opposite was saying that somehow the public has been ambushed by this and that if we wanted to indicate our concern with this legislation, we should have done so at the time. I just want to set the record straight for the member opposite that, in fact, the opposition at the time voted against this in second reading in previous legislation. I can send that over to the member if she'd like to see it, and then she can at least be aware that certainly what I heard from the minister was that this issue was one of those items we wanted to review. We certainly heard all the input from the public at the time. This government takes a different position than the previous government, and that's clear with the legislation that's before us. Certainly it was not as though people were unaware that this government took a slightly different position than the previous government, because we voted against the bill in second reading.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think the member was asking whether there were consultations done. Shortly after the amendments to the act came into effect in April, the Ministry of Health was contacted by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. The college indicated at the time that it had received a legal challenge by a practitioner whose lawyer interpreted the amendments that we are repealing today as removing the ability of the college to investigate negligent or careless physicians who practise complementary medicine. Basically, in that instance, in the view of the college, that lawyer was seeking to use a loophole in the former amendments, the ones that we are repealing here, to protect his client in a situation that the amendments were not contemplated to cover. So they actually created a loophole for certain practitioners.

Based on this example, the college expressed concern that the amendments would severely constrain its ability to properly discipline its members. Potentially, members could hide from accountability for poor practices under the protection that the treatment provided was alternative in nature. So all this does today is put the college back into the position it was in before. It maintains their statutory regulatory role, and it does not in any way interfere with a member of the college, a practitioner, in practising complementary medicine in any way, shape or form.

The government has not engaged in public consultations on these amendments. In our view these amendments respect the principle, which many people support, that physicians should be able to provide alternative or complementary medicine to their patients without fear of harassment from the mainstream medical community. These amendments are primarily technical in nature in that they ensure that the providers of alternative therapies are subject to the same degree, not a different degree, of protection as in other provinces and as other practitioners who practise medicine in this province.

J. MacPhail: I stand corrected by the Minister of Finance — I gather, acting in his role as Government House Leader — about that, and I withdraw my comments about the vote. However, my comments stand about the lack of discussion about this in the New Era document.

If the minister is suggesting that the ministry received a legal challenge, did the ministry receive its own legal advice or legal opinion on that? If so, could she please table the legal opinion.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The ministry didn't receive the legal challenge; the college did. They sought their legal opinion, and the ministry sought advice from legislative counsel who did agree that the bill was procedurally flawed. This is how we propose to remedy it.

J. MacPhail: I assume that when making such a change, one seeks a legal opinion. Was the legal opinion from legislative counsel? If so, is it in writing? Has the public seen the legal challenge done by the College of Physicians and Surgeons? Where's the openness and the airiness and the accountability? What is the legal challenge that the College of Physicians brought about? Can the minister table a copy of that legal challenge and the corollary legal opinion that led to the amendments?

Hon. S. Hawkins: There appears to be a loophole in the act which allows some physicians to apply a different test, if you will. These amendments are being put forward to remedy that. This will put the college back in the position to maintain their statutory role in regulating their profession. Again, in no way does it interfere with or stop physicians or practitioners from practising complementary medicine. I have nothing else to add.

J. MacPhail: I asked a very specific question. Could the minister table the legal challenge? I assume that the minister has a copy of the legal challenge, because that's the basis on which she's saying she acted to bring in the amendments. Could the minister table the legal challenge? And if the answer to that is no, could I ask the Attorney General whether the College of Physicians and Surgeons is subject to the FOIPPA laws?

Hon. S. Hawkins: I think the member asked me what consultations had been done. We were in touch with the college. The college told us there was a problem. We recognized it last spring, if you will, when we voted against this on second reading. As I recall, we did get a fairly detailed letter from the College of Physicians and Surgeons at that time — and the government did too, because it was addressed to the government as well — about what the problems were and the test that had to be met and that it really severely constricted the college's ability to act in their responsible statutory regulatory role.

The member asked me what consultations had been done. Well, since April that's what had happened. One lawyer did in effect contact the college, and as I explained before, there was a loophole that seemed to be in place that could possibly protect his client in a situation that I believe the amendments weren't contemplated to cover. The amendments before you today, the repealing of the sections and the new amendment, are basically in place to still protect practitioners of complementary medicine from being harassed by the college — if that's the way the member wants to characterize it — but they also maintain the college's right to carry out its statutory duties. I think it's incumbent on government to make sure that they're striking the right balance, and I think this is a responsible way of dealing with this.

J. MacPhail: I take it that the current government decided to side with the College of Physicians and Surgeons and did not seek their own legal opinion about the challenge.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The college is subject to FOI, so if the member wants to get the legal opinion from them, she's welcome to do so. I was comfortable that this was a good way of remedying the amendments. They were quite intrusive and did trample on the roles — the statutory role, the regulatory role — that the college is required to carry. I think this strikes a nice balance in protecting the practitioner to practise complementary medicine and at the same time allowing the college to carry out its duties in the best interests of patients to make sure that the practice of medicine, as it applies to patients, is carried out in a safe manner.

J. MacPhail: I would submit that these amendments put us right back to the days where the College of Physicians and Surgeons got to discriminate against the practice of complementary medicine — that the two practices, western medicine and complementary medicine, are not on an equal footing as a direct result of these amendments introduced by the government. It is a sorry day when the College of Physicians and Surgeons governs the actions of this government without them seeking their own independent legal opinion.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I will vote against this legislation. Given the fact that I am probably the only one in the chamber voting against this, we can have a voice vote on division.

Hon. S. Hawkins: I just want to say that I think that was a misrepresentation of what this section is. Again, this in no way disallows complementary practitioners from practising. It doesn't set anything back. It puts all the practitioners on an equal footing.

Hon. G. Plant: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

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

R. Sultan: I would like to ask the minister…. Given the fact that his estimates are undoubtedly going to be impacted in some fashion — in fact, if we are to believe the newspaper headlines, perhaps quite seriously — by the U.S. softwood lumber agreement, perhaps I could ask a series of questions designed to cast some further light on this very serious levy of 19.3 percent on the Canadian industry.

To lead off, why, in the minister's opinion, were Atlantic provinces exempted from this ruling, whereas as I understand it, the province of Quebec was included, despite a request from the Canadian government to the contrary? Does he have a rationale for that decision?

Hon. M. de Jong: Before I answer the question, I wonder if I might introduce the staff that are here in the room assisting me. Deputy Minister Don Wright is here, as are Bronwen Beedle and Laurie Stein from the ministry, nervously watching their minister make his first foray into the estimates process.

To the specifics of the question. Historically, as I understand it, because of the difference in the way the timber is owned, the majority of the timber that is harvested and processed in the Maritime provinces tends to derive from private lands. That distinguishes them from the situation that exists elsewhere in the country and particularly here in British Columbia, which is the situation we're most familiar with.

So the Maritimes sought a continuation of the exemption that they enjoyed during the 1996 softwood lumber agreement, and they were successful. A week and a half ago the American commerce department granted that application. It is, I should emphasize, a decision of the U.S. commerce department, as opposed to anything we might have to say about it here in Canada.

Quebec brought an application and requested the federal government to proceed with an application on its behalf for an exemption as well. As I understand it, that was done. It was not successful. Once again, by virtue of a decision of the U.S. commerce department, Quebec now finds itself dealing with the very same preliminary countervail decision that is causing us such concern here in B.C.

R. Sultan: Because of the size of this levy which is proposed, does the minister have any quantitative estimate of the possible impact, should this levy be sustained, on employment, on government revenues and on his own estimates?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's difficult to estimate, actually. The reality is this: were this preliminary determination to mature to a final order requiring the accompaniment of roughly 20 percent of the value of the lumber shipment in cash payment to the Americans for the right to transport that lumber into the U.S., there would be a fairly dramatic impact on B.C. forest-dependent communities, forest companies, forest workers.

This is a preliminary order. There is now a bonding requirement that I think takes effect sometime this week, when the decision is gazetted in the U.S. That in and of itself may prove debilitating for certain operators in British Columbia who have been facing some pretty tough economic challenges, as it were, particularly on the coast but also elsewhere in the province.

If operations are impacted in a negative way, that will manifest itself in potential job loss or job reduction, and that will have an impact in terms of forest-dependent communities. That will have an impact on the revenue that forest companies and, ultimately, the province derive. I'm hesitant to offer a figure at this stage of the game, but rest assured, the reason we are so concerned, the reason I think all members of this House are concerned, is that we recognize that this preliminary order not only is unfair but, if allowed to go unchallenged, would have a pretty significant negative impact on our forest-dependent communities.

R. Sultan: As I understand it — perhaps the minister could confirm this — about one-half of Canadian softwood lumber exports are accounted for by British Columbia. Is that roughly the order of magnitude? The minister is nodding.

Because of the importance and the impact of this ruling, particularly on British Columbia, at what point do British Columbia and the ministry and the minister consider engaging the Americans directly in discussions?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in B.C.'s case it's the $5 billion question — isn't it? There are a number of challenges. Candidly, one of the reasons we went to Ottawa and Washington was to urge upon the federal government that we initiate a preliminary dialogue and discussion. I think that at the end of the day British Columbians are getting sick and tired of dealing with this bilateral trade dispute that seems to crop up every four or five years. It leaves a sense of uncertainty hanging over the industry. It causes division and frustration within the country and within the province.

The objective, I think, is twofold. One is to secure an agreement that will bring some certainty, but an agreement that also embraces the notion and concept of free trade and free access in a continental economy that supposedly has as its hallmark the notion of free trade. Now, has something happened to change our ability to

do that and engage in that dialogue now? Well, I tell you, I think there are a lot of people extremely upset. I don't think we're terribly surprised that as a negotiating ploy the commerce department, through that very politicized process, would render a decision that would cause concern. But the extent of this and the fact that it is so unfair and so indefensible from any rational perspective has, I think, disappointed a lot of people, including myself.

It is unreasonable. We want to have a reasonable dialogue with our American neighbours. We value that trade relationship. I think there are a lot of people today asking themselves whether Americans need to be reminded of the value of that trade relationship for themselves, or whether they value it in the same way that we do. That is a question we will be considering today, tomorrow and in the days ahead, in consultation with British Columbia stakeholders with whom we have met and are having discussions, with our colleagues in other provinces who are impacted by this decision and with the federal government, which constitutionally has responsibility for negotiating bilateral trade agreements.

Our objective is to see if we can move forward together, because when you're dealing with the most powerful economy in the world and one that, quite obviously, is prepared to bend and manipulate the rules in any way it likes to benefit its own self-interest, we'd best stand united to have the best chance of securing our objective.

R. Sultan: I wonder if the minister would speculate on what political support British Columbia and Canada might garner within the United States and what the best way to go about that might be.

Hon. M. de Jong: It's an interesting feature of softwood 5, as I guess this will quickly become labelled. It is a dynamic that I am told did not exist in the same way in 1996. That is, the presence of a well-organized consumer lobby, the alliance for affordable housing — who understand that on Friday the price of buying a home in the U.S. went up dramatically. I have seen numbers that range from one million to two million Americans that have been placed out of the housing market as a result of a decision made by a politicized U.S. commerce department driven by the protectionist tendencies of an admittedly powerful Senate lobby.

But American consumers will also pay the price. We are going to and have met with that consumer organization, the association for affordable housing. We are going to meet with them again, and we are going to work with them, unashamedly, to say directly to Americans: "Understand what your politicians have done to you, what your protectionist Senators have inflicted upon you, in terms of raising the price of housing in your country." Yes, there are real dislocation problems that result in British Columbia, and I suppose some Americans will be concerned about that and some won't. But they will all be concerned about the fact that under an administration that purports to be a defender of the principle of free trade, a decision of this sort would be introduced.

I have to say that I think the challenge has been issued to President Bush, by virtue of this decision, to step up to the plate now and articulate in the clearest possible terms whether his professed commitment to the principle of free trade is genuine or somewhat less than genuine, something that he'll haul up the flagpole at moments when it is convenient and abandon at other times.

We'll see, and we will do what we can to provoke a response on that question as well.

R. Sultan: I wonder if the minister, since he has started to enter this labyrinth of the American political apparatus, could speculate further as to perhaps the divergence in interests, vulnerabilities and motivations between the office of the President itself and the two branches of Congress and, for that matter, anybody else in that enormous community of Washington, in terms how we might hive off particular groups who might be more susceptible to our way of thinking. Are there some particular avenues that we in British Columbia should be trying to develop here?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is difficult when confronted by a decision of this sort. I still like to think that within the government of the United States and the Bush administration there is a willingness and a desire to find a mutually beneficial solution to this problem. I think that we have now been confronted with a challenge. We've talked about some of the ways that we might respond to that challenge in terms of engaging with the consumer coalition groups that have formed in the United States. I think that when we recognize that this is the single largest commodity trade that exists bilaterally between two countries in the world, it is not mere speculation to think that the leaders of those two countries would become engaged personally at some point — in terms of the case of Prime Minister Chrétien reminding President Bush and the Americans that they cannot take this relationship with their largest trading partner for granted. I think the Premier is, today, giving that very message to a group of western governors in Idaho.

I think it is something that every member in this House can play a role in, in terms of the contacts we all have with American officials: consular officials, diplomatic officials, politicians, members of the business community that we interact with, consumer groups, obviously trade organizations, community organizations. That is, to remind them that if their intention was to attract our attention, they've done it in a very dramatic way, but we are offended. We are offended because we see no basis in law — or morality for that matter, although I suspect the commerce department is less concerned with that — for the decision that was handed down on Monday.

It is time, I think, from British Columbians' point of view at least, to consider the manner in which we

impose that full-court press on our American neighbours. It's not a very neighbourly thing they've done, but more importantly, it is not an act that is consistent with either U.S. law or how I think one should behave vis-à-vis your largest trading partner.

R. Sultan: I wonder if the minister, then, would speculate on whether, in applying this full-court press on our cousins to the south, having a unified, pan-Canadian approach is key or whether we in fact will advance our interests better if we look, to some degree, after British Columbia first.

Hon. M. de Jong: As I said earlier, it is fundamentally important, from my perspective, that we do everything we can to try and move forward on this file, this trade dispute — and it is certainly that at this stage — unified as Canadians. I don't underestimate the challenge. There are differing interests at play, differing circumstances depending on whether you are a softwood lumber producer in Quebec or Alberta. There are differing policies that exist at the provincial level.

Having said that, I think it is also important that the country as a whole recognize that this issue is every bit as important to British Columbia as an issue involving the Wheat Board and the international marketing of wheat would be to Saskatchewan or a fish dispute would be to Newfoundland. I would expect our colleagues across the country to be cognizant of that fact and to move forward, again recognizing that for British Columbia, the stakes are even that much higher.

I think we can do it. I think that even in the short time this government has been in power, we have taken some steps to create the foundation upon which a firm national coalition can move forward. They tend to be, even in my limited experience, fragile things. We will do what we can to ensure that when we do sit down to engage the Americans, if we do at some point, they will know they are dealing with a unified Canada.

R. Sultan: I wonder if the minister could enlighten us — inasmuch as his ministry has an annual budget in excess of half a billion dollars, as I understand the numbers here — in view of the potentially tremendous magnitude of this decision on our industry and in view of the recentness of the announcement from the Americans, as to whether this was anticipated. Has some contingency factor been built into the estimates, or does it mean the estimates may have to be revised as we go into the immediate future if this ruling becomes a reality?

Hon. M. de Jong: There are two issues, I think, and I'll deal with them in this order. Insofar as the Forests ministry is concerned, there is an obvious cost associated with the defence of the petition, the issuance of our challenge and our pursuit of the appeal — and not an insignificant cost, as far as the legal fees are concerned. So that is something we have budgeted for on the basis of the best available information to move forward.

The other issue of interest to this member and others will be the potential impact this could have insofar as overall governmental revenues are concerned. The Finance minister, recognizing that this was an issue that would be on our plate in short order, did build into his interim budgetary figures a contingency allowance. I can get that figure for you, although it is in the blue book, as I recall.

Now, it is a bit speculative at this point to assign a figure to what this interim decision is ultimately going to mean. If we can move off of it, either via the appeal or challenge process or between now and when the final determination is issued, or if we are able to engage in a dialogue that leads to some other manner of settlement, obviously the impact will be decreased accordingly. I should say this to the member, and I hope I get these figures right: the last time this matter was — if I use the word "litigated" — argued from a preliminary determination to a final determination, the figure went from, I believe, 14 percent at the preliminary stage to 8 percent — a significant drop.

There is that component as we move, if we do, from a preliminary determination to a final order. That's the good news, I suppose. The bad news is that we haven't dealt with the anti-dumping case. We are still awaiting a decision there. You may have heard on the weekend that as far as the American industry coalition is concerned, they think this is just the beginning. They are looking to impose an even more sizable constraint on our lumber exports.

So they're not done yet. I guess the short answer is that greed knows no bounds, and this is a living testimony to that fact.

R. Sultan: In terms of greed knowing no bounds, is there any truth to this rumour that in fact any dumping duties, or however these outrageous levies are characterized, collected flow directly through to the plaintiffs?

Hon. M. de Jong: That, rather remarkably, is the intention of what is referred to as the Byrd amendment. So Canadian producers are confronted by the rather extraordinary situation where the duty they are forced to pay, if we get to that stage, might ultimately flow through to the very people who have brought the application imposing the obligation upon them in the first place.

That amendment, however, as I understand it, is likely to be the subject of a challenge, and the degree to which it is defensible and will withstand that challenge and scrutiny is not something that I am in the best position to comment upon. On this day, however, you will understand that when it comes to the U.S. commerce department's ability to create and manipulate rules in a way that benefits their own perceived self-interest, I am…. In short, nothing would surprise me.

R. Sultan: In terms of rumours and speculation, there's also a story going the rounds that some of our lumber producers have unilaterally raised their prices approximately 20 percent, presumably thereby solving the problem. Is this a possible tactic available to the British Columbia industry? Would this in fact satisfy the Americans?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if you are a producer of softwood lumber products in British Columbia today, knowing that you may be faced with having to pay up, at some point, on a roughly 20 percent duty, you're probably taking some steps to take account of that potential eventuality. I don't think it's happening uniformly. I think some of the companies are planning for contingencies in the best way they can.

But we shouldn't have any illusions, nor should American consumers, who I know are riveted to this debate and listening with keen interest. This is going to cost them money. Ultimately, a sizable portion of this is going to be borne by American consumers. That's how it works. That's what duties are all about: artificially increasing the price of a product that is imported into a country.

This might be as good a time as any for my rant about how difficult and puzzling it is to see this kind of behaviour from the country that prides itself as representing the bastion of free enterprise and entrepreneurial drive and prides itself in being able to compete with all other economies in the world. Largely, that is the case. So what is it about the lumber industry? Are they the exception? Are that group of American capitalists — the special-needs capitalists of the south — in need of assistance where others aren't? I don't know. Are they just afraid to trade? Are they incapable of competing? Or are they just greedy? Are they just a group of people who understand that they can wield tremendous political influence in Washington, D.C., and have chosen on a regular basis, when it suits them, to exert that influence?

I guess consumers in the U.S. will decide. Perhaps it is time for politicians in Washington and all of the states affected to stand up and take notice and understand the harm that this decision could cause and will cause right at home in the United States of America.

R. Stewart: I want to advise the minister, first of all, that I'm the former president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of B.C. In that capacity, with that hat on, I have dealt with many of the cost pressures that the homebuilders in the U.S. are undoubtedly facing as they wake up and find that their main, single largest input cost has risen tremendously in price, perhaps at a time when they have presold units. Obviously, they're going to have to find ways to pass these costs on to consumers.

In addition to that, though, I'm also the founding president of the council on housing affordability for British Columbia. In that capacity I have dealt with the same types of issues, in a different way, of course. Softwood dimensional lumber is the single highest commodity input into housing in North America.

To the minister, then: I wonder how we can bring to bear some of the pressures of consumers and industry in the United States specifically related to housing.

Of course, there are a number of other areas where softwood lumber is used, but in housing the consumer will feel it the most, and the consumer will feel it tremendously. Here in British Columbia an increase of $1,000 on the price of a home drives tens of thousands of people out of the housing market. The minister mentioned some numbers like that for the United States.

So I put to the minister: how can we bring more pressure to bear, using the industry that supplies housing in the United States as well as the non-profit and for-profit housing consumers?

Hon. M. de Jong: Along with the member for West Vancouver–Capilano, this member, I think, taps into one of the strongest cards we have to play and need to play and will play. That is the need to work with the kinds of organizations that this member sat on in Canada. Well, they exist in the United States. To the extent that he may have information regarding some of the people that he has had an association with in the past, that will be extremely useful information for us to have in the days and weeks ahead.

We shouldn't take for granted that Americans are even aware of this decision. We talk about it here; it is a matter of great import. In the United States there is a group dedicated to this issue, and it is of primary importance to them, but they face an overwhelming challenge in getting their message out about the impact this decision will have. So if we go to Washington and the coalition for affordable housing comes here, we will talk about it as if it is on everyone's minds. Well, it's not.

Part of our challenge is through some of the avenues the member has identified: get the word out about what the impact of this decision is likely to be on people wanting to purchase a home, on the families that are dependent on building that home, on the realtors who sell that home, on the suppliers and the subtrades that are engaged in finishing that home, all of whom are going to be impacted in a very real way. All of that goes away when demand dries up because a group of politicians, for very self-serving reasons, have decided to artificially inflate the price of the largest part of the product — as the member says, the single biggest cost-driver — in the equation of the construction of a home.

It's helpful to know the member has that background and those roots in Canada within the organizations that we are going to have to work with in the United States.

R. Stewart: The minister is entirely accurate when he speaks of the issue of awareness. Unfortunately, in political processes the loudest voice is all too often the

one that rises above, and consumers' voices are often silent. It often falls upon an industry association to speak for consumers, and governments don't take industry associations speaking on behalf of consumers very well. So consumer groups that can rise up and start to face some of these issues are in a better position.

Specifically on this issue, there's not only the cost of new housing but the cost of home improvements. On the do-it-yourself market in home improvements we find, generally speaking, that the materials are a much larger portion of the total improvement. Let's face it, people have babies — now, those aren't the responsibility of the forest sector here in British Columbia, except for a few of them — and as families grow and expand and as their opportunities change, they want to expand their homes. They want to improve their way of life and make a home that is large enough for a growing family. To a do-it-yourselfer, the cost of improvements is largely materials — in many cases even more than that, because there are mistakes made.

I would urge the minister to move forward, as well, on the issue of home improvements. Some home improvement supply companies are very vocal in their own way on certain issues, because home improvements are an enormous part of it. We must, as the minister says, awaken the public spirit, awaken consumer spirit. There is no other cost pressure, other than government levies and taxes, perhaps, that can affect the price of housing and the price of home improvements as much as softwood lumber in North America. Consumers should be encouraged to speak out as loudly as possible. And there may be other ways in which British Columbia can assist with home improvement companies and other supply companies in bringing to bear more pressure on this issue.

Hon. M. de Jong: It won't surprise members to know that I agree with everything the member has said about the impact this is going to have in the home improvement sector. I agree with what he has said about the need to engage all of the forces that are involved in that sector of the economy. Happily, whether it's Home Depot or the independent home improvement retailers association of the United States, all of these groups are presently engaged — and members of the American Consumers for Affordable Homes in the United States — so that some of that work, unlike 1996, I am told, has been done.

There is a degree of organization out there for us to tap into, to work with, and at this stage we do need to be imaginative about how we assist in drawing to the attention of the American public and ultimately the American decision-makers how negative an impact this American decision is going to have on Americans. If there is a challenge before us, that is probably the challenge, in terms of arriving at a destination where we want to be and having this order set aside or abandoned.

I am appreciative of the suggestions the member has made. We will be, as I say, in the hours and days ahead dealing with stakeholders, some of whom he has mentioned: American groups, provincial governments and the federal government. Americans who have sponsored this indefensible position perhaps will learn that we are a polite group of people north of the border but that on matters of this sort, you can only push Canadians so far. They may be surprised by the response that they receive insofar as the work we do with some of their own American organizations to press our point.

R. Harris: The small business program is a model that works in a truer market scenario. It's also a critical component of a lot of the small communities that specifically are single industry. Can the minister tell me if there's any opportunity under the small business program, where we're in bid scenarios, that there can be exemptions looked for, for those people operating under that program? Will that opportunity make itself available at all?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the interesting and disturbing features of the ruling that we saw last Friday relates to the methodology the Americans employed. For the first time — contrary, in our view, to existing trade law — they employed a cross-border, cross-boundary analysis that, without attempting to describe it in specific comprehensive detail, militates against the kind of sectoral exemption that the member is referring to.

What they have indicated a willingness to examine is company-specific exemptions. I think some of the companies that the member is referring to have been made aware of that, although, as I said with respect to the preliminary determination, probably in a way that didn't allow many of them to act to take advantage. The deadline, by the way, for the final determination for the application of an exemption is August 24, I believe, or August 22. I'll get that information for the member momentarily. However, there is a subsequent deadline later this month for the application for an exemption for the final order, if we get that far.

There are exemptions contemplated that are product-specific. Those are the two areas. I wouldn't want to mislead the member into thinking that there is any great likelihood of the Americans granting a blanket exemption or even entertaining an application for a blanket exemption for the small business program.

By the way, the dates that I couldn't provide earlier and now can are August 20 to get the documentation to British Columbia and August 31 to the Department of Commerce. The ministry then has to warrant certain information, and it has to travel via Ottawa to the Department of Commerce in Washington.

I would like to say one other thing. I think it is incumbent upon us to provide all of the information to companies that might be impacted by the availability of an exemption. I think it is incumbent upon the

provincial government to take all possible steps to help facilitate that application process. But as well, I think it is fundamentally important that we not lose sight of what our overall objective is.

Our strongest position is to reveal this decision for what it is, which is a sham. As I said, while we will provide all possible assistance to those companies seeking to avail themselves of the exemption opportunities that are made available, our ultimate objective, and one I think we share with all stakeholders, is to find a means by which we can secure free and unencumbered access to the United States and have this decision set aside. That is ultimately the goal we will be pursuing with all vigour and with all our energies.

R. Harris: Just to follow up on the point you just made, you refer to softwood 5. This is something we've been revisiting in the rural communities over and over again. What truly is the long-term strategy, so that we're not facing softwood 6?

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, the now $5 billion question. Is the industry in the U.S. serious about finding a long-term, principled solution? Probably not. Their interest is much narrower than that. It is to maximize their share of the market. And I don't know that that will ever change. I don't know that they won't continue, if they can, to flex the political and economic power they have in the United States and in Washington to try and achieve that objective.

The question, I think, is: to what extent is the administration, the political arm of government, prepared to engage in a discussion that would move us toward a long-term, negotiated solution that has, as part of its provisions, the mechanism by which industry can be prevented, four or five years out, from going back and returning to the cycle the member just accurately described?

If, for example, the administration has concerns about timber pricing and is interested in seeing jurisdictions like British Columbia move to more of a market-based timber-pricing system, well, guess what. That member and I were elected on a promise to do just that, because it makes sense domestically. So whether we had softwood 5 or not, there are some things that this member, hon. Chair, knows we are pledged to do to help this industry in British Columbia.

Now, is the administration in the U.S. prepared to acknowledge those changes? Is it prepared to discuss a trade relationship that acknowledges that new reality? I guess we'll see. I guess one of the challenges for us is to do what we can to separate off those elements of the U.S. lumber industry that are motivated by nothing more than greed from those forces within the administration who claim — and I hope they are legitimate when they say it — that they would like to see a principled, policy-based resolution to a bilateral trade dispute issue that keeps a lot of lawyers in gravy every three or four years.

P. Wong: Can the minister tell us what two other major markets are for B.C. timber, other than the States, and the percentage of our exports?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the two obvious ones that come to mind, for the member…. We do, happily, have a domestic market. After B.C.'s economy returns to number one, we're going to have an even bigger domestic market. We send lumber to Japan. That has been a tough market of late. I'm advised that numerically they would break down to about 25 percent each, in addition to the 50 percent we send to the United States. Those are our three largest markets: domestic, U.S. and Japan.

I think the member may want to ask about the wisdom of pursuing some diversification of that market, and perhaps if that's the question he wants to pose, I'll let him.

P. Wong: I understand there's quite a great demand in Pacific Rim countries, including China and Japan. Does the minister have any plan to explore expanding to these markets?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have a market presence today, a small market presence, in Taiwan. We ship some lumber to Korea. But I think this member might also be referring to what might, in the relatively short term, represent our greatest marketing challenge and greatest market development potential: China. There is work being undertaken there now which relates to that country's stated desire to adopt Canadian building code standards, or at least explore their adoption. That work is being spearheaded by individuals within British Columbia. The Council of Forest Industries is involved. We are supportive of that work. I am told that the time line is short for some of that work to be completed.

It is a time of great change in China. It would be a huge boost to the B.C. industry if we were in a position to ship lumber to a foreign jurisdiction like China that was operating under the same set of building code rules that we operate under here in Canada.

The last thing I'll say on that point is that it's an excellent example of an issue and a file that we in North America can work cooperatively around. There has been some American involvement in that issue, and that's good. Instead of fighting about a static pie in North America, let's work with our colleagues south of the border to examine some market diversification potential elsewhere on the globe.

The reality is that both of us are having our domestic markets — and our foreign markets, for that matter — encroached upon by new entrants and not-so-new entrants. Wood out of Europe and Scandinavia has an increasing presence in some of these markets. So does wood out of Russia. There is the prospect of volumes of lumber moving out of Russia and achieving a greater share of some of these emerging markets. We need to be there. We can spend all our energy fighting one another — as apparently some people in the U.S.

are interested in doing, by virtue of what we saw on Friday — or we can work together and prosper mutually.

I prefer the latter. Over the next few weeks and months, we will ascertain the extent to which that is an opinion and an approach shared by those in the U.S. that are responsible for making decisions.

P. Wong: I understand that China is able to absorb and buy up all the timber that we can produce. But they're interested in logs instead of semi-finished products from timber. In order to give us a certain weight, a certain weapon, against the United States during this negotiation, can we relax restrictions on the export of logs so that we are able to have more ammunition during the U.S. negotiation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I won't — I don't think I can — underestimate the challenge that this issue poses to this government, as it has to past governments. All of us would like to think that we can move beyond simply being a province where we go into the forest with a saw, cut down a tree and delimb it, put it on a barge and send it to China. I think all of us harbour the view — at least I hope we do — that what we would optimally like is an industry where those wood products are processed here as dimensional, structural lumber for construction of value-added products — windows, doors — for the homes that are being built elsewhere in the world. Some companies in this province have done some incredibly innovative and dynamic things in terms of developing niche markets right around the world. I think all of us in our hearts — at least, I do — find it a little bit difficult to watch a huge bargeload of logs leaving our shores at a time when mills are operating at half capacity in some towns now.

Are there situations where the economies around processing certain logs from certain specific parts of the province are difficult? I think that's probably the case. But I will say to the member, without trying to diminish or deny the fact that this may be an issue that we will hear more about in the weeks ahead in the context of discussions that are happening at a number of different levels, that my hope and my objective would be that we can revitalize the industry in British Columbia such that the vast majority of the timber we cut down is processed here to a certain extent before it is sent to market.

I think we can elicit the interest of China in those finished products, in that structural lumber. I have great faith in the ability of our producers to compete globally, given the chance to do so. It's not an issue that is going to go away. It has great symbolism for much of the province, and it's more than just symbolism. At the end of the day there are jobs attached, and I think our objective is to try and maximize the employment opportunities associated with our very precious forestry resource.

P. Wong: I understand that the Maritime provinces can be exempted from this unfavourable treatment because they have private land. Does the minister have any plan to lease or sell the Crown lands so that we are able to have a level playing field, the same as the Maritime provinces?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member knows, because he was elected on a platform that spoke to the issue of tenure reform…. As important as that issue is for all of us, it is perhaps a bit presumptuous for me, or for him either, to speculate as to what the result of that process might be. I think that when we talk about timber — forest lands, Crown lands — we really are talking about the people's asset. That requires that we engage the people in a discussion about how we may want to alter how companies or individuals are granted access to that asset.

We spoke earlier in this debate about different methods for making timber available in a more market-oriented way. The notion of considering how Crown lands are managed — or how private lands are managed, for that matter — and what rules they would be subject to…. As the member knows, there is a different set of guidelines applicable to privately owned lands than there is to Crown lands around the issue that we are discussing here.

So I think the trick is: how do you achieve that degree of balance and that degree of equity between a landowner in the Maritimes and a landowner on Vancouver Island? How do you achieve that degree of equity and balance between our stated desire to process as much of the wood as we can domestically versus other notional approaches to concepts like trade in logs? Difficult issues, and ones that I know the ministry and I have intentions to address directly in the review process that we will be undertaking in the weeks and months ahead.

R. Visser: I was wondering if the minister could tell us what the time limit was, or the distance between the preliminary determination and the final determination, in the countervail duty. Is it a fixed legislated date in the U.S., or will it continue on and on, as we saw with the preliminary determination, where the date kept slipping ahead? How long will companies have to produce this 19.3 percent bond?

Hon. M. de Jong: Conventionally, we have been talking in terms of three months. That is the time line. The short answer is that it need not be a specific date. The wrinkle here is the application that is presently being considered to align the CVD case with the anti-dumping case. Depending on how that is resolved, we could have a final order as late as next spring, so that the potential for at least this temporary order remaining in effect until then is there.

R. Visser: If the American position on softwood lumber is so indefensible, wouldn't it be prudent of us to pursue with all vigour in world bodies, in WTO and

in NAFTA, a positive solution from them — get a ruling that is in our favour rather than negotiate with the Americans?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the short answer is yes. I mean, it is certainly our view that this decision is wrong in law. It is indefensible, it is unfair, and it is destined to be overruled by any one of the appeal challenge processes that are available, let alone the domestic process that takes us from the preliminary determination to the final order.

The question, and the issue one struggles with, of course, is the timing. A process designed by trade law lawyers, not surprisingly, can stretch out over the years. I have not seen any information or received any advice that suggests this matter of the challenge — be it the World Trade Organization or NAFTA bilateral panel — would be completed inside of two and a half years. In fact three years is generally the length of time that I have been told.

What does that mean? Well, that means that over the next months our energies are spent making our case as it relates to this preliminary determination and trying to talk some sense into the American officials who are responsible for making the final determination.

The other issue for us to deal with and to consider is the extent to which we may want to explore other options. The member knows there is and has been, within British Columbia and within Canada, a difference of opinion about how you do that, whether you do that and when you do it.

We have spent a considerable amount of time and energy in the weeks since we took office leading up to this point, trying to craft an understanding amongst the stakeholders in British Columbia and Canada that we need to be together and we need to have that discussion. And as we decide on our course of action, we need to be mutually supportive of one another. That process is ongoing; it is taking place this afternoon, this evening and tomorrow. I'm optimistic.

I'm disappointed that we are confronted by such a draconian, unfair decision, but if there has been a positive feature — and I say this quite genuinely — to this exercise to this point, it is the extent to which I, as a new minister, have seen members of the forestry community who I am told have had differences of opinion that are legendary put those differences aside, understanding that if we are to achieve any success, we have to do it in a spirit of cooperation with one another.

That's very heartening for a new minister. It says to me that there is an understanding of what I think the reality of international negotiations is. It says to me that here are a group of people who understand the importance of this issue to British Columbia. And I have to say candidly, they are, to a certain extent, a group of people who have also said politically: "We want to give a new government a fair chance to help us succeed." Those are positive forces that I think can, channelled correctly, help us achieve our objective. But that's not to say that the going is going to be easy.

J. Nuraney: I'd like to address this question to the minister in terms of a bit of a clarification in my mind. We have been hearing, in the last little while, about the interim determination having come down, and we are looking forward to having it set aside. We have had this debate all this time, I believe, and arguments have been going on for the past several months. All these avenues of raising consumer awareness, lobbying support from interested parties who would side with us in our argument…. I would have thought that all those avenues had been exhausted, resulting in this kind of a determination coming down.

When we talk about setting this aside, I am not sure whether this is now a judicial matter. Is it that we are now seeking recourse in the judicial system to have this decision set aside? Or what are the mechanics?

Hon. M. de Jong: It's a good question to ask, in terms of getting one's head around the processes that are at work here. Insofar as the commerce department is concerned, we are dealing with domestic U.S. trade law and a domestic administrative body that has rendered a decision around that U.S. trade law. It is a preliminary determination. Subject to the statutory authority that they have, there is a process by which they take that decision, that preliminary determination, and it becomes — absent some intervening force — a final decision. There are opportunities for us and Canada and other provinces and other involved parties to make submissions around the preliminary determination. That process moves forward.

One of the questions that we are dealing with right now is: at what stage do we engage the world trade organizations — the WTO and the NAFTA bilateral panel, which is an international body — as opposed to the U.S. domestic apparatus? There are pros and cons to doing that, and in the next period of time we will decide.

I think the other comment I wanted to make about the member's question and particularly his preamble is that it was a source of some frustration for me that there was an element of hesitancy in certain quarters to do anything until the preliminary determination had been issued — until we had that figure, whatever it was. It turned out to be 19.3 percent. Part of that, I suspect, was a hope in some provinces and some parts of the country that they might, like the Maritimes, be exempted.

So their willingness and their interest in discussing certain contingencies that the national government might follow was hidden behind a hope that they could avoid the issue altogether. Well, those hopes have now been dashed, and there is a figure, 19.3, that is applied across the country except in the Maritimes. Everyone now knows that they are going to be caught and impacted by that decision. The challenge, the appeal, will move forward in the way that I've described. Then the question is: is there a willingness

or an interest or an opportunity to explore some other avenues that might help resolve this?

If that is the case, who has taken the torch for us and is going to do this? Is it the federal government on whom we are relying entirely to take the initiatives? Or are we in any way involved in the process to make sure that our interests are protected and safeguarded?

Hon. M. de Jong: Because constitutionally in this country international trade falls to the federal government, on this particular matter they play something of a coordinating role. For some time B.C. has retained its own counsel in Washington, D.C. They carry the case for us vis-à-vis the Department of Commerce and the ITC, the International Trade Commission, in the U.S. So we have our own counsel — our own hired guns, as it were — as do other provinces, as do certain industry representatives.

In British Columbia's case, the B.C. Lumber Trade Council has retained counsel, as they have in the past, and they are on the file. There is quite a legal industry engaged in this dispute, and as I say, the federal government played something of a coordinating role amongst the provinces. That's one of the challenges for us as a province. The opportunity to run off without regard for what other jurisdictions in Canada might be doing or thinking…. There's always that temptation. I'm not sure it would be wise for us to succumb to that without exploring every opportunity to keep us united, keep us unified as we move through this exercise.

R. Sultan: As a result of the softwood lumber preliminary ruling by the Americans, we've had some very scary headlines in Canada, both in the national press and locally, implying that the basic underpinnings of our economy are in the process of being pulled away. I would like the minister to answer the question: will this destroy the B.C. economy?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm glad, actually, that you asked the question, because this decision potentially could have some very serious consequences for forest-dependent communities, forestry families and companies. But it is important that we not overdramatize or instil in people a sense of panic. As disturbing and disappointing as this decision is, as others have correctly pointed out, we have been down this path with the Americans before. One of the challenges I would like this government to achieve is to, in a sense, decommission this road and find a longer-term solution that will allow people in British Columbia and, in fact, affected parties in the United States to get on with their lives with a clear understanding of what the rules of the game are going to be.

We want to have the opportunity to sell a product that we produce here in British Columbia to our trading partners in the United States. We have great people who employ some leading-edge technology, and we do it well here. We do it very well. It is founded upon a longstanding history of harvesting wood, and it shouldn't surprise anyone that we do it well. So there will be, as a result of this decision, some dislocation. And if we can't find a solution or if we see this turn into a more permanent state of affairs, the seriousness of that impact will increase. But our job today is to marshal our forces. We have a set of facts that will bear us out in the ultimate determination of this issue, and if we can marshal our forces in a responsible, unified, effective way, I still remain optimistic that right will prevail. Call me naïve, but that is my view and the objective that we will work towards as a government.

R. Sultan: A final question. Back to the specifics of the estimates, I see with some curiosity that our expenditures on direct firefighting have almost trebled between the estimates for 2000-01 and 2001-02, which raises curiosity and, I guess, begs the question: what's happened to the magnitude of the estimates overall in comparison to last year?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's sort of a good-news, good-news story at this point, and hopefully it will remain that way. The previous budget that the ministry was operating under provided a set amount for firefighting. It was the ministry's considered opinion, based on studying some data relative to year-over-year comparisons, that it probably wasn't going to be sufficient for the year ahead. We returned to Treasury Board, made our case based on the available data, the yearly averages, and obtained additional funding.

To credit the Finance minister, based on his desire to present a set of books that accurately reflect what is likely to happen, based on the best available information…. Now, the Finance minister will be the first to tell you that he's not exactly rolling in dough right now. But confronted by the realization that the figures previously presented probably weren't going to be sufficient, Treasury Board made a decision to provide some additional funding.

Happily, that was based on prognostications and weather forecasts. The month of July wasn't as dry, and fires didn't proceed at the rate we thought they would. We are presently significantly below where we thought we'd be. I think it's $18 million, compared to $30 million. So that's the good news right now. It has been hot, and there were some fires, which the member and others have heard about, burning in certain parts of the

province over the weekend. One in Princeton is the cause of some concern at the moment.

At the moment, in terms of a progress report, we're still below budget. That is good news for the forests and good news for people who might have their properties threatened. I suspect that the Finance minister, if somebody tells him, will be doing cartwheels if that trend holds.

Hon. M. Coell: Let me begin the estimates of this ministry by introducing my staff: my deputy, Robin Ciceri; Ruth Wittenberg, the assistant deputy ministry of finance and management division; Andrew Wharton, assistant deputy ministry of policy and research division; Alison Meredith, assistant deputy ministry of employment and benefits division; and Heather Dickson, assistant deputy ministry of labour market division.

With the committee's permission, I'd like to tell you briefly today about some of the key programs and services these dollars are supporting and their importance and some of the priorities we have for the next year.

As Minister of Human Resources, I am very pleased to be part of a ministry that is making a positive difference to the lives of so many British Columbians. MHR serves more than a quarter of a million people each month. Our primary objective is to support people with basic needs and to help people off welfare and into the workforce to the greatest degree possible. We are also focused on doing our part to get the economy rolling by getting more people into the workforce for the first time. This means providing people with opportunities and choices on the types of jobs they get and the training and support they need.

We're providing these opportunities through a range of programs and services. B.C. Benefits provides income support and shelter as well as other benefits to help families and individuals in need get back on their feet. The Ministry of Human Resources also has job-training programs that are helping unemployed British Columbians develop job skills and find and maintain employment. We also provide supports for people with disabilities so they can participate more fully in their communities and in some cases move into permanent jobs. Emergency shelters for people who are homeless provide a safe place for people in need. Staffed by more than 5,000 volunteers around the province, our emergency social services program provides short-term assistance to people who are forced to leave their homes because of natural disasters.

At the heart of our programs and services is the conviction that work is a better deal than welfare — better for individuals, better for families and better for society as a whole. We know that the vast majority of unemployed people do not want to be on welfare; they want jobs. Whether that person is a young person looking for their first job, an unemployed worker who needs skills upgrading, a single parent struggling through supporting a family or a person on disability, each shares the same goal, the goal to live independently and to gain the self-respect and dignity that go with long-term employment. Assisting people to reach the goal will continue to be a key focus of my ministry. Right now thousands of unemployed British Columbians are benefiting from MHR-funded job and training programs and other supports. They will go on to form an important part of our workforce, contributing to the province's economic well-being. One of my top priorities is to look at ways of improving our training and support programs so we can better help people move from welfare to work.

Let me talk about a few of my priorities over the next year. I want to streamline our service delivery to make sure that people we serve have better access to all the ministry's programs and services, wherever they live in this province. This means working toward giving them a choice on how they want to access our services, either in person at one of our offices or over the Internet, 24 hours a day. I want to develop a broad service delivery strategy that maximizes our human resources and the technology capability of our ministry to make it more efficient. I want to work with the disabled community to enhance the quality of life for British Columbians with disabilities and help as many of them as possible to move into the job market. And I want to develop a single tribunal review process to expedite B.C. Benefits appeals and to ensure they are heard as quickly as possible. Our government has made a commitment to bring in a new era of promise and prosperity for British Columbians. That means new opportunities for all the people of this province, including the families and individuals served by this ministry.

These are the estimates of a ministry that is working hard to help people find and keep jobs as well as supporting those of the most vulnerable in our society. I would be pleased to answer any of the committee's questions.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his opening comments. Certainly it's encouraging to hear that one of the goals of this ministry will be to deal with the B.C. Benefits appeal process. I know that in opposition the cases that both our offices dealt with included the appeal process, which appeared bureaucratic and, at

times, cumbersome. So knowing that's one of the goals of this ministry is certainly, as I say, encouraging.

I have a number of questions. The first issue I would like to canvass him on is the issue of the universal access card for the disabled. Just by way of background, a constituent with a disability who is currently able to have access to a number of programs at the provincial, federal and municipal government levels approached our office. To have access to a number of these programs requires a medical certificate for this disabled person. The disability that this constituent has is of a permanent nature. Year by year the condition may be stabilized, but it will not be such that he would suddenly change his status. This particular constituent is also wheelchair-bound. With that permanent disability it was required that he attend a physician's office quite frequently, requesting a written note confirming his status each and every time he wanted to access a new program that was introduced at the provincial, federal or municipal level. Each time he had to attend a physician's office was a bit of an inconvenience. Not only that, each time he had to get this written note, this confirmation, the doctor, by virtue of their fee schedule, had to charge the constituent. It certainly was cumbersome; it certainly was bureaucratic.

Clearly, in some cases, it presents itself such that a constituent who doesn't want to be bothered with all of this may choose not to access programs that he or she should rightfully take advantage of, if it's going to benefit his or her quality of life.

So my question to the minister, first of all, is: I understand that the universal access card for the disabled is an issue that has been thought up for a number of years. In fact, I believe there are some staff who might have been working on it for a number of years, and it's disappointing to know the previous administration has taken so long. I'm wondering now, with this new ministry and new direction to move things along, how soon we might expect to see a universal access card in place or, if there are still issues to be worked out, how long this minister sees that will take before he can possibly announce a universal access card.

Hon. M. Coell: I, too, have had a number of inquiries at my constituency office along the same line. I can give the member the current status. There is a discussion paper with options nearing completion right now. The internal stakeholders — government and organizations — are willing to accept changes, given that their programs are also burdened by complaints, the same as the member and myself are getting.

Several options are under consideration. Since most of the programs will accept B.C. disability benefits at level 2 status as proof of a permanent disability in lieu of a medical certification, a universal application for all discount programs could be designed on the use of that designation. Also, under the B.C. CareCard a disability designation is being reviewed which could be created, similar to the seniors' gold CareCard.

It's going to go through the core process, which will take place over the next six months, and we're looking at new innovations. This is definitely one that I support; I know the member does. So hopefully, within the next six months, we should have something we can bring forward with regard to a new innovative care card.

I. Chong: Certainly, the new card being developed would make it easier to deal with all the various programs at the provincial government level, but still we have people who need to have access to federal and local government programs. Can the minister advise if there is work being done with other levels of government, in particular the federal government? I would imagine there are more programs there that a disabled person would have to be linked to. What kind of discussions are ongoing? And will that be part of the current discussion paper that he indicated is out right now?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of issues that revolve around privacy and information security dealing with federal programs. But there has been a report produced by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers with regard to the principles, and the next step is an action plan from that.

I. Chong: I am hearing from the minister that there is continuing dialogue, given that an action plan is being developed, so when those issues of privacy are dealt with, we can move forward and ensure that the federal government is a party to this universal access card. Is that a correct assumption?

Hon. M. Coell: The card, in essence, hasn't been discussed by that group. But the principles and the need for an action plan on some direct programs…. When we've finished, at this point, developing the model, it would be my intention to take that forward to the federal, provincial and territorial ministers for their consideration.

I. Chong: That response is satisfactory as far as this issue is concerned, knowing that it will be a topic of discussion when the minister meets with his counterparts across the country. I think we'll probably solicit more areas of concern. Hopefully, everyone will work together and we will have something that ultimately does benefit those people who are disabled, for whom disability is permanent and will not change, to make it easier for them to access programs which were designed to benefit them.

The other area I'd like to ask about is in regard to interministerial funding. For the record, I'll read a case which stems back a couple of years. I know the minister is aware of this, because we both had to deal with this when we were in opposition. It's important to note that this still is a problem that needs to be pursued with this ministry as well as, I would imagine, the Ministry of Health Services or Health Planning.

It has to do with a constituent who had a head injury and required a new wheelchair. In fact, his physiotherapist requested he receive a new wheelchair. This happened in 1999, and after a fairly long process, the request for the wheelchair was denied by the then Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security. The MSDES tribunal decision approved the funding of the wheelchair subsequently, a year later, in February 2000. So from January '99 till February 2000…. We did finally find that there was approval for this.

This former Ministry of Social Development and Economic Security, having approved the necessity of the wheelchair for this patient, then turned around and said that the Ministry of Health at that time should pay for essential medical equipment. This is where the problem comes in: when a piece of medical equipment is deemed essential, whole new rules take effect. You go through one ministry for due diligence, and then you go to another ministry to get the apparatus approved or funded.

This obviously has to do with interministerial cooperation and the lack thereof that existed in the previous administration. I'm hoping that the ministry is aware that this is still an ongoing problem, even with the restructuring of government, with the Ministry of Human Resources and with Health. I think that area has still not been resolved.

I would like to know whether the ministry, in its short time — less than 60 days — has made any progress in resolving the issue of funding for medical equipment for residents of Health-funded facilities. This is where the patient was; he was located in a Ministry of Health facility. In fact, the minister knows the Gorge Road Hospital, where the patient was. Can the minister advise if there's been any movement in this kind of a partnership or working relationship with other ministries? Perhaps he can shed some light on that.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I am aware of the situation. I can say that the ministry is currently working with the Ministry of Health Services to address the issue. In the meantime, the cases are no longer going to tribunal. As the member says, the ministry is approving medical equipment — mostly mobility equipment, like wheelchairs — at the requests of clients who are residents of the Ministry of Health Services–funded facilities. So I think we've gone a long way to solving that problem, but we'll still have to work with the Health Services ministry to tighten it up.

I. Chong: I appreciate the minister's response. That, I think, will give some reassurance to people out there who had been going through this problem.

The third area I'd like to ask the minister about is…. While it may involve future policy, it still requires, I think, the ministry's understanding of what's happened out there in the real world as our economy starts to change. It has to do with people who are on disability benefits, those who have disabilities — in some cases, handicaps — and do receive their disability benefits but have managed to find an area of work, usually self-employment, that brings in additional income to supplement what they're making.

I understand that within the ministry, the rules are such that if you make a certain dollar value, then your disability benefits are clawed back. I'm not sure if it's 100 percent or a percentage of the incremental amount that you're allowed to earn. That's understandable. But in the area of those who are self-employed, the determination of what income you receive on a month-to-month basis is not as clear-cut. For example, if somebody were making a product and had to outlay and borrow $5,000 from family members to stock up and get inventory and then had sales that month of $1,000, they would still be behind in terms of cash flow. Yet, for the purposes of the income that is reported, the amount of $1,000 gross is what the recipient would have to disclose and thereby could potentially have their entire disability benefits clawed back without the benefit of the expenses related to earning that income.

I know from my background as an accountant that generally a person is entitled to deduct their expenses, and it's only the net amount which is reported. So it would seem that there is an inequity that now exists for those who actually are able to go out and work part-time and get a salary versus those who aren't able to work in a structure, who become self-employed but are not able to deduct the costs related to that self-employment. I was wondering whether the ministry has been looking at this — bearing in mind that it would be the previous administration, whether they started looking into this — and whether they would consider looking into this or whether there would be a pilot project that could be put forward to examine this inequity.

As the minister stated in his opening remarks, the objective that he would like to see is more people moving off of dependency on government into more independence. Where you have people who have the opportunity to become self-employed, we certainly would want to encourage that to improve their quality of life. Perhaps the minister can advise me if he has any background information on a program of this nature so I could relay this to a number of constituents who actually have called on this very issue.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a very interesting question that you pose. We're going to consider the issue through the core review. It is consistent with our objectives to enable people to be employed and to be self-employed. It's an issue that is known to staff. There are a number of cases in the province. It's a very difficult one, because you're having to deal with someone's small business. Many times their personal lives are also involved in the business, and at what point during the year do you know how much money you're either losing or gaining? There's a number of areas that will be difficult to analyze. But as I say, it's definitely one of our objectives to get people into employment if they wish and if they're able.

We do have a program within the ministry that assists people to exit disability benefits through employment, and we do help people who have disabilities and who want to be self-employed and to leave disability benefits. But the issue the member brings forward has some interesting ramifications that we will look at through the core process.

I. Chong: I do appreciate the complexities of this, but as it currently stands, it is punitive. I know, for example, that if somebody were receiving CPP disability benefits right now, the federal government would in fact allow them to stay on that, even if they went on to self-employed status, until such time as it is clear that it is income that will be self-supporting for the recipient to a certain level before they actually make any changes to the income assistance that is being provided. I know that the federal government has been able to deal with this for people who are on CPP disability.

I would hope that our provincial government also understands the complexity. Someone may end up working for six months and grossing $10,000 or $20,000 at the end of the six months as a self-employed individual, but in the end they've only netted $1,000. In the meantime, they've been cut off their benefits right from the start. Or a person who is disabled and runs a self-employed enterprise may be able to do so one month and not the following month. As I say, there are complexities involved in this, but the important issue is that the ministry is in fact aware of it, looking into it and, through the core-review process, will hopefully come up with some solutions.

The last item that I would like to ask, which I just noticed now, isn't to do with constituents but, more or less, with the actual blue book. Maybe just some clarification. I see in the expenditures for the year 2000-01 that health care and dental services were funded to the tune of $71,982,000. For our current fiscal estimates, 2001-02, that has risen to $82,542,000 — approximately a $10 million increase. I was wondering whether there had been significant or substantial changes in the criteria that have required this ministry to fund another $10 million. If he could share that with us, I would appreciate it.

Hon. M. Coell: If I could just go back to the self-employment program. For the information of the committee, the self-employment program participants who actively want to leave benefits can accumulate business assets and reinvestment of business profits without a penalty for up to 12 months. On disability benefits, too, that could be 18 months, with a six-month extension. That would allow someone to start a business, start to make money and reinvest money and then leave income assistance at that point.

With regard to the increases, they're basically due to a number of things. There is an increase in diet and natal benefits and also an increase in optical and dental services and some increase for schedule C health benefits. So there's a number of areas that there have been increases in. The entire budget, of course, is up over 3.9 percent for the entire ministry, and this is one of the areas that has had some pressure.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. It sounds as if there has been an expansion, I guess, of services provided versus an increase in the number of people who are needing those services.

The last area, as well, has to do with labour market programs. I note that, from last year's estimates to this year's estimates, there is in fact a decrease of about $10 million. I'm wondering if that is the result of these programs now being so highly successful that we're able to look at providing less in the area of these labour market programs or whether there's another fundamental reason why there is a decrease. Could the minister shed some light on that, please?

Hon. M. Coell: If I could go back again to the last question, it's a bit of both. There are more people and a greater cost to those programs. With regard to the labour market, the reduction is $7.5 million. And if you look at the estimates over the last number of years, there were unspent funds in the ministry for those programs averaging around the $7.5 million area. What the ministry has done is to say that they would take that off of our budget and live within the budget we've got. So there won't be any cuts to service or changes to programs, unless we find programs that aren't functioning and aren't providing the service that they contracted to.

I. Chong: I just want to give my thanks to the minister and his staff for providing that information. Those are all the questions I have. I'll yield the floor to my colleagues.

Hon. S. Santori: I'm very pleased to rise today to present the spending estimates of the 2001-02 fiscal year for the agencies that fall under my responsibility — namely, the Ministry of Management Services, vote 36; product sales and services, vote 38; and Public Service Employee Relations Commission, vote 37. A subvote for the Public Service Appeal Board is included under the Ministry of Management Services under vote 36.

This is the first budget for the newly created Ministry of Management Services, with a combined gross expenditure of $682 million for the 2001-02 fiscal year. After revenues are factored in, the net expenditure for the ministry totals $64 million. The

total capital budget for the ministry, including the Public Service Appeal Board, is $29.65 million. The ministry is made up of four operating divisions that include branches from a number of pre-existing government departments. These were brought together in order to reassemble the programs, resources and staff that will allow this government to move ahead on a number of goals outlined in their new-era vision.

The four core areas of the ministry are corporate and ministry support services, corporate and information programs, information and technology programs, and procurement and supply services. Our corporate and ministry support services division provides human resources and financial and information management services, as well as integrated planning for e-service delivery for the Ministry of Management Services and a number of other agencies, including the Ministries of Finance and Provincial Revenue and the office of the Premier. My ministry is exploring potential efficiencies of using similar types of shared services models throughout government.

Our procurement and services and Government House division is the area in which government's procurement branches have been amalgamated. These include the Purchasing Commission, Government House, B.C. Mail Plus, Queen's Printer, our warehousing and asset disposal unit, and our cost recovery product distribution centre. Highlights of our procurement services include leading our government's restoration of open tendering for government contracts and making access to all government tenders and contracts more accessible to more businesses by enhancing our single-portal tender website, B.C. Bid.

The corporate and information programs division administers several programs that involve core on-line services to British Columbians, including B.C. Stats, B.C. archives, the equal opportunity secretariat, Enquiry B.C. and our information technology career access office. The division is also responsible for corporate privacy and information access. Highlights for the division this year include establishing the waste-buster and multiple-address-change websites.

Next we have the information technology services division, which is government's provider of shared information technology services. The division is responsible for managing and brokering IT services that are common or shared across government. It also maintains and enhances the network infrastructure for the Ministry of Education provincial learning network. The division has a recovery unit through which it recovers its costs from ministries and other agencies that make use of its services. Current initiatives include refining the shared services model for information technology service delivery in government; working with the chief information officer to provide more services on line to British Columbians; re-engineering internal processes to reduce costs, eliminate paper and provide electronic services for clients and suppliers; and enhancing computer virus protection.

As I mentioned earlier, the Public Service Appeal Board also falls under my jurisdiction. As a quasi-judicial entity, the board hears appeals of applicants who are unsuccessful in public service job competitions, with a goal of resolving public service appeals in a fair and expeditious manner.

Although the ministry has only been in existence since June, we are making progress carrying out our new business and creating positive change in government and in the services we provide. My ministry's programs provide a variety of services to government, and our focus is making those services more efficient and, ultimately, saving tax dollars. We're also engaging the public's help in eliminating waste through the development of our waste-buster website. Eliminating waste is our business, but it's the public's business as well. We're ensuring open tendering and improved access to government procurement opportunities through our centralized government tendering website, B.C. Bid, that will provide better value for taxpayer dollars. We're working to provide better on-line government services that will save taxpayers money in other ways.

As you can see, my ministry has been very busy since day one identifying where it can better serve British Columbians, and its actions are directly related to the principles of this government's new era of prosperity for British Columbia.

I also have responsibility for another agency that is playing a key role in creating positive change for government and for taxpayers. That agency is the Public Service Employee Relations Commission. The net operating budget established by vote 37 for the commission is $26.11 million. It will allow the commission to provide direction to the public service's human resource planning, policy, staffing and training.

This work is tied into providing better service to British Columbia taxpayers and is perhaps more critical now than ever, because our public service is facing unprecedented challenges. Changing demographics show that 35 percent of public servants will be eligible to retire over the next five years. That number rises to 50 percent for senior managers. Those numbers jump significantly in ten years. The loss of corporate memory and the rapid domino effect of change will cause significant disruption to the provision of public services. This does not only affect the public service. Labour market forecasts show that the current shortage of knowledge workers will become even more acute over the next decade, creating a demand market.

Those employers seen as a second choice will be left behind in the competition for skilled talent. Ultimately, we want to be seen as a first-choice employer. That's why we're working to restore a professional public service. The goal is to revitalize and renew the public service, ensuring it's worthy of public support and making it capable of meeting the changing and diverse needs of government and the citizens it serves. The emergence of a more policy-driven and service-oriented government requires a more skilled and flexible public service — one that thrives in an environment of innovation, flexibility, risk-taking,

managing complex operations, partnering with experienced private enterprises and delivering e-government.

The commission is developing focused and competitive human resource tools to attract, develop, compensate and retain a skilled labour force that will meet the services of B.C. residents. The commission has drafted merit employment legislation which I will soon have tabled. Merit is one of the fundamental principles of a well-functioning public service. It is also a bridge to help us move from the old to the new, from a place of distrust, cynicism and disillusionment to a place of stability, pride and responsiveness.

In summary, I have outlined the activities of the areas of my responsibility under votes 36, 37 and 38. I'm asking for approval of the necessary funding to carry out activities that support our government as it moves forward on its delivery of a new era of prosperity for British Columbia.

At this time, I would like to take this opportunity to introduce some of our staff: my deputy, Mr. Gerry Armstrong; Brian Mann, director of financial services administration; and Byron Bernard, information technology services.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for his opening comments. Knowing that this is a new ministry, I guess it will perhaps take us a year to see how it affects our constituents, in particular, before we're able to bring back constituency concerns and canvass the minister in the subsequent year.

In looking at the blue book, there were a couple of things that stood out that I just would ask the minister for some clarification on. I note that the equal opportunities secretariat is included in the corporate and information programs area. I see that the budget of corporate and information programs has gone up a million dollars over last year's estimates. I'm just wondering how or if that increase in the budget affects the division of the equal opportunity secretariat. Can the minister shed some light on that, please?

Hon. S. Santori: Thank you very much for the question. First of all, the equal opportunity secretariat budget is just over $800,000, and there has been no change to that budget. The equal opportunity secretariat was under the auspices of the Ministry of Multiculturalism and has now been rolled into my ministry.

I. Chong: I appreciate the confirmation that there has been essentially no change to it. I hadn't realized it had been moved into here until I saw it in the blue books just now. I think there were some questions in the early part of June as to what was happening with that particular program. I know I had been approached by a number of people who were concerned. So that confirmation is satisfactory.

The next area I would like to move into involves the procurement services which the minister has also detailed, having to do with the newly launched waste-buster website. It's difficult to see where it falls within the blue books here, but I imagine it's under procurement services. Or maybe it's under information services.

First of all, where does it fit in? And the cost of administration of that program — how many FTEs are assigned to do that program? Does the minister have any idea of the kinds of payback that we might be able to realize? Does he think that those will be realized in the short term — say, within a year? If he can give us some information on that....

Certainly, in this area I've already spoken to a number of constituents who have been keen about this. But at the same time, they're wondering if it's not just another new program that may not actually yield results. I have assured them that there will be accountability measures. But if the minister can provide that additional detail at this time, it would benefit those who wish to review the Hansard at a future time.

Hon. S. Santori: First of all, I want to take this opportunity to once again announce that the waste-buster website will be up and running this Wednesday, August 15, and access to all British Columbians will be made effective.

With respect to the program itself, the cost to my ministry will be $108,000. That funding will be made available through the existing budget. In terms of the other ministries, those costs associated with responding to suggestions made by the waste-buster submissions will be absorbed within the ministries themselves. So we do not see this as a drain on provincial finances.

On the other hand, though, we do see some great opportunities in not only saving dollars in the long term but providing efficiencies and working in conjunction with the Minister for Deregulation, Minister Falcon. It also gives us an opportunity to work in conjunction with them in an effort to eliminate waste and regulations that are unwarranted.

With respect to results, it would be very difficult at this time for me to give anyone any idea as to what the actual savings would be in certain programs until such time as we have put those changes into effect and compared them to what it was costing us for those processes prior to that. I can comment, however, that in the province of Ontario, although they do not monitor the amount of money they have saved, it has been quite evident over the course of their program that they have eliminated a tremendous amount of unwarranted and unnecessary regulations. They have made a number of changes to regulations to make them more conducive to economic development, making life — for lack of better terms — less miserable for business.

So I think it's a very positive step. It does give British Columbians an opportunity to take part in the process of identifying waste and duplication. I think we owe it to this province. I don't think we can think for one minute that we are doing everything absolutely

perfectly. There's no one better in this province to tell us of those areas or identify those areas which need improvement or, in some cases, total elimination than the people of our province. We're leaving it up to them to bring it to our attention, as well as what we will be doing internally to ensure increased efficiencies and also maximizing taxpayers' dollars.

I. Chong: In that response, I didn't hear from the minister how many FTEs were involved. When he responds to this, I know that he'll get up and share that with us. In his comments, he indicated that other ministries will have to budget for the cost of responding to inquiries or suggestions made through the waste-buster website. I guess I compare that to freedom of information and privacy. When it was first introduced, every ministry was responsible for its own costs related to that program.

So I'm wondering the minister can inform us: will his ministry have the oversight responsibilities for monitoring all the costs of these responses? Or is it up to every ministry to, at some point, provide an accountability — "Here are all the costs that our ministry expended, and here are the benefits obtained" — so that at some point it is measured? I'm wondering who will have the summary of the measurement of the success of this program.

Hon. S. Santori: At present within my ministry there is one full-time-equivalent to deal with the waste-buster website. Also, there's understanding that at the beginning of this, as experienced also in Ontario, there is a significant influx of suggestions that are going to be coming forward, probably at a pace that it will be quite a challenge to keep up with. In terms of where those people are coming from, there are people coming on loan from other ministries to help us with that initial influx of submissions.

What we will do in the future is monitor the savings that we are realizing by some of the changes we are making in relation to the overall costs. It will be monitored and benchmarked on an ongoing basis to ensure that it is cost-effective.

I. Chong: That's sufficient information on the waste-buster website that I need at this time.

On a general area, I wonder if the minister can provide me with some information that I can take back to my constituents. That is in the area of e-government. I know this is the up-and-coming trend with our information services, our technology. Electronic government is around the corner.

I'm wondering if the minister is able, at this time, to provide an update on that and how that might affect our constituents in, I guess, accessing government services, programs and information in particular, and how soon we see e-government evolving. Is it going to go ministry by ministry? Is it going to happen all at once?

I'm sure there are still some details being worked out, just like the Y2K problem that we all had to anticipate a number of years ago. At that time there was a rollout, which meant the smaller ministries were tested first before the larger ones got to it. I'm wondering: is that the same approach you would take with e-government? Is it going to be a rollout through the ministries, or is everything going to come on line at the same time, with every ministry having to respond to the advantages of e-government at the same time?

Hon. S. Santori: ITSD, under Byron here, will be giving support to the chief information officer on the delivery of e-government. The process that is being undertaken at this time is that all ministries will be asked to provide submissions in those areas where they feel that e-government can be utilized to the benefit of our taxpayers, whether it be for convenience or cost. So we will be providing those services to the chief information officer. I also want to make it extremely clear that the initiation of e-government throughout all of the ministries is one very big priority for this government.

I. Chong: Just before the recess for the division, I began asking the minister if he could share with us the status — or the person, I guess — of the chief information officer. I think that is something new, and the minister mentioned it just before he concluded his last remarks. I am just wondering a bit more about the position and how that will affect this new ministry.

Hon. S. Santori: The chief information officer is Mr. Lee Denny, and he came on board on June 5. Mr. Denny does not report to my ministry; he reports directly to the office of the Premier.

I. Chong: I just want to thank the minister and his staff for all the information provided today. Those are all the questions I have, and I'll yield the floor to my colleagues.

Vote 37: Public Service Employee Relations Commission, $26,114,000 — approved.

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