Hansard -- Monday, March 24, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 2 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5551

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5552
	Safety Standards Act (Bill 19) Hon. G. Abbott Safety Authority Act (Bill 20) Hon. G. Abbott Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 22) Hon. G. Abbott Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 25) Hon. C. Hansen Supply Act (No. 1), 2003 (Bill 26) Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5554
	Economy in B.C. P. Bell Tourism in B.C. I. Chong Protect Our Schools campaign K. Stewart

Oral Questions		5555
	Eligibility review for disability benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell Marijuana grow operations legislation R. Nijjar Hon. R. Coleman High school graduation rate of aboriginal students B. Belsey Hon. C. Clark Development of coalbed methane resources D. MacKay Hon. R. Neufeld English-as-a-second-language programs R. Lee Hon. S. Bond Eligibility review for disability benefits J. MacPhail Hon. M. Coell

Tabling Documents		5558
	Insurance Corporation of British Columbia, annual report, 2002

Standing Order 35 Motion		5558
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Second Reading of Bills		5559
	Coastal Ferry Act (Bill 18) Hon. J. Reid J. MacPhail I. Chong Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 17) Hon. R. Coleman Museum Act (Bill 2) Hon. G. Abbott J. Bray S. Orr R. Stewart I. Chong

Committee of Supply		5572
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development Hon. G. Hogg J. MacPhail

Standing Order 35 Motion (Speaker's Ruling)		5598

Hon. R. Thorpe: Today in the galleries I'd like to acknowledge some very special guests. Mr. Speaker, as you're aware, today has been proclaimed Tourism Ambassador Day. In the galleries today are the recipients of the first annual Tourism Ambassador Awards presented by the Council of Tourism Associations to individuals from each region of British Columbia who have shown outstanding dedication to their jobs and outstanding contributions to growing the British Columbia tourism industry.

First of all, I'd like to introduce Nicole Fransen, representing the Thompson-Okanagan region, from Kelowna; Bill Sanford, representing the Vancouver–Coast Mountain region, from Vancouver; Marilyn Howard, representing the northern British Columbia tourism region, from Dawson Creek; Scott Wedekind, representing Vancouver Island, Victoria and the Gulf Islands, from Victoria; Lee Malleau, representing the British Columbia Rockies tourism region, from Golden; and Carol Clarke, representing the Cariboo-Chilcotin coast region, from Bella Coola. Also, I'd like to welcome Richard Krentz, the chair of the Aboriginal Tourism Association of British Columbia. I would also note that there are several other members of the tourism industry here today to have a number of meetings with MLAs.

Would everyone please give these award recipients a very warm welcome and show our appreciation for their efforts for tourism in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Bond: It gives me great pleasure today to acknowledge two outstanding residents from my riding, Prince George–Mount Robson. It's particularly fitting with our focus today on tourism. Irvin Leroux and Jill Moore of Irvin's Park and Campground were recently awarded the Tourism B.C. 2002 SuperHost customer service award at the fourth annual B.C. Tourism industry awards in Kamloops. This award is given annually to a front-line employee whose exceptional customer service has contributed to the outstanding travel experience for visitors to British Columbia. Each year Irvin and Jill welcome over 10,000 visitors to their RV park in Valemount and treat each one of them like one of the family. It is fitting that we recognize Irvin and Jill today as we celebrate Tourism B.C. Day. I would like to ask the House to join me in congratulating the success of Irvin Leroux and Jill Moore and the outstanding services they provide in Valemount.

Additionally, I have the pleasure of introducing three representatives from the College Institute Educators Association of British Columbia, who are in the House today: Cindy Oliver, the president; Roseanne Moran, the staff representative; and Dileep Athaide, the secretary-treasurer. I'm looking forward to a very productive meeting with them later this afternoon.

J. MacPhail: I welcome the last three guests as well, and I hope the meeting is productive too. They're excellent advocates of education, all three of them.

I have family members of my staff here today. Karen Anderson, the spouse of one of our research officers, Don Anderson, is here. Also, she is accompanied by Don's parents, Andy and Nina Anderson. They're visiting from Kelowna. Karen's mother, Elsa Bieller, is visiting from Armstrong. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. M. Coell: Visiting today is Mr. Ted Smyth, a resident of Saanich South and a former city of Victoria tennis champion. Would the House please make him welcome.

R. Visser: This is a real treat for me. Visiting us today from Campbell River are Al and Marilyn Grant. I met Al and Marilyn Grant when I was very small, because Al owns a sign painting company. He used to come, when I was a kid, and hand-paint signs on the side of my father's machinery. I've known them for a long time. They've been very supportive over the years. They have been dear friends, and they're here today. It's Marilyn's birthday today. It's their anniversary tomorrow. It was Al's birthday last week. I'm not allowed to say how old they are. I could take a wild guess, but I won't. They're here visiting their daughter, who works at Hansard, Christine Ewart. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Abbott: I have the pleasure to introduce a number of guests in the gallery today. Earlier today I had the great pleasure, at Emily Carr House, of signing an MOU for the creation of a $5 million B.C. Heritage legacy fund, along with representatives from the Land Conservancy and the B.C. Heritage Society. A number of them are in the gallery today. Maureen Arvanitidis is the current president of the B.C. Heritage Society. The society represents over 150 heritage-related member groups across the province. Rick Goodacre is the executive director of the Heritage Society. As well, from the Land Conservancy of British Columbia, Bill Turner, who is the president and executive director. The Land Conservancy has been in the forefront of efforts in B.C. in the past few years to conserve ecologically sensitive lands and properties of heritage value.

Also in the gallery today is Ian Fawcett, deputy executive director of the Land Conservancy; Stuart Stark, a vice-president of the Land Conservancy; Patrick Frey, manager of heritage programs; and Rhonda Hunter, who is the director of the heritage branch.

As well in the gallery, here to observe the introduction of some new safety legislation for British Columbia, are John Leech, the executive director of the Applied Science Technologists and Technicians of B.C., as

well as Abigail Fulton, who is the president of the British Columbia Construction Association. I'd ask the House to make them all welcome.

R. Harris: In keeping with the tourism trend started by the minister, I'd like to take this opportunity to introduce Dan Stefanson, who is the executive director of the Northern British Columbia Tourism Association. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: The White Rock Christian Warriors senior boys AAA basketball team is the provincial champion. On March 15, 2003, led by coach Scott Allen, the Warriors, using their quickness, their defence and their perimeter shooting, won their second provincial title. The schools program has made the community of White Rock–South Surrey very proud. Their commitment to excellence and to being the best they can be is an example to each of us. I ask this Legislature to join with me in extending our congratulations and best wishes to the White Rock Christian Warriors, provincial champions.

B. Lekstrom: It's my privilege today to welcome two friends of mine, two people that work very hard on behalf of the Peace country. My friends are from Tumbler Ridge, two gentlemen I've known for many years. I would like the House to welcome His Worship Mayor Clay Iles from Tumbler Ridge, as well as councillor Don McPherson. Welcome, gentlemen.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Today in the House I'd like to introduce Michael and Beth Campbell, two constituents of mine from Penticton. Would the House please make them welcome.

B. Bennett: It's my honour today to introduce the president of Tourism Rockies. The Rockies are one of the world's most recognized travel icons. Just recently, within the last few days, the region known as Tourism Rockies has added the word "Kootenay" to its name. It's my pleasure today — and I hope that everyone here will help me — to welcome the president of the new Kootenay-Rockies region, Chris Dadson.

L. Mayencourt: It's my pleasure to introduce Mr. Kevin Ridgeway, who is president and chief executive officer of Vancouver, Coast and Mountains. Mr. Ridgeway is joining the group that the Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise mentioned a little bit earlier. I would ask the House to please make him feel welcome.

I also have Mr. Colin Simmons here, who is a constituent in my riding. I ask the House to make them feel welcome.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to wish the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine a very happy birthday.

I. Chong: Today I, too, would like to acknowledge some tourism officials: first of all, David Petryk, the executive director of Tourism Vancouver Island. I also want to pay a special welcome to a longtime good friend of mine, the general manager of Butchart Gardens, Mr. Arild Solbakken. Would the House please make them welcome.

T. Christensen: It's my pleasure this afternoon to welcome somebody who's in charge of selling one of the most beautiful areas of the province, the Thompson Okanagan. Would the House please welcome Deanna Rainey, who is the CEO of Thompson Okanagan Tourism.

J. Wilson: Today I have the pleasure of welcoming Mark Nichiporuk, who is the executive director of the Cariboo Chilcotin Coast Tourism Association — and, I might add, probably one of the most unique areas in this province to visit.

Hon. M. de Jong: On a day when students across the province are returning to school, four of my young constituents have decided to extend their holiday by one day and are joining us in Victoria. Maddison, Christopher, Nicholas and Phillip Holmberg are guiding Grandpa around the precincts today — Grandpa Dave being a recent recipient of the Queen's Golden Jubilee award. Would the House make them all feel welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I, too, have a constituent in the gallery. Mr. Jim Hart from Summerland is here for meetings today, and I would ask the House to please make Jim welcome.

D. Jarvis: Not least is Mr. Eddie Wood, who is a member of my riding and also is the first vice-president of COTA. He is the manager of Mount Seymour mountain, which is on the top of my riding. If you want to have good skiing, this is the place to go. Would you all welcome him, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have 40 friends from the Cowichan Valley here today, and I would like to introduce them all to you by name. They're from the British Canadian Club, and they're here for a tour and to see the stained glass window that was a commemorative of the Queen's Golden Jubilee. I would ask the House: would you all make them truly welcome — and everybody else.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safety Standards Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Safety Standards Act. This act consolidates several pieces of legislation and allows the British Columbia safety system to be more flexible and innovative. This legislation provides for a modernized, clear and fair regulatory environment supported by effective enforcement tools.

British Columbia is one of the leading provinces in Canada in public safety. By introducing this legislation, we'll enhance our safety record while reducing red tape and modernizing our safety system. This legislation is the product of extensive consultation with industry, labour and business groups, who said the existing legislation was cumbersome and outdated. We're acting on their request to bring the safety act up to date with respect to changes in technology, products and service.

I move that the Safety Standards Act be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 19 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Safety Authority Act.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Safety Authority Act. This legislation provides for the administration of safety delivery components of the Safety Standards Act by an independent safety authority. The new authority will allow for responsive decision-making, a more efficient operating system and greater overall accountability.

The authority will operate with strong checks and balances to ensure that public safety standards are met. This not-for-profit authority will be fully cost-recovered through fees set in consultation with industry and based on criteria established by the province. The authority's control over revenues will ensure that all the funds it collects can be reinvested in the safety system. The government retains the ultimate responsibility and accountability to British Columbians for good governance of the safety system.

I move that the British Columbia Safety Authority Act be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm pleased to present the Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services Statutes Amendment Act, 2003. This is part of our commitment to streamlining regulations and cutting red tape and providing for safe, sustainable and livable communities. There are several minor amendments to four acts contained in this amending act: the Heritage Conservation Act, the First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act, the Local Government Act and the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act (No. 3).

The Heritage Conservation Act amendment will wind up Heritage Trust operations by the end of this fiscal year. Some of the funds from the Heritage Trust will go to the new B.C. Heritage Legacy Fund. The remaining funds will be distributed to honour outstanding commitments made by the Heritage Trust and to build capacity and sustainability in the heritage community.

The First Peoples' Heritage, Language and Culture Act will streamline changes to the advisory council appointments and modernize references to first nations. The Local Government Act, the Municipalities Enabling and Validating Act and the Vancouver Charter amendments respond to local government requests. Examples include local governments being able to waive development cost charges for non-profit supportive living, helping the Northern Rockies regional district better meet the governance needs of their community and allowing one member rather than the whole Vancouver police board to hear security alarm permit appeals.

I move that Bill 22 be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. C. Hansen presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. C. Hansen: I'm pleased to introduce the Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003, which will support our government's implementation of generally accepted accounting principles and eliminate unnecessary provincial controls over regional hospital district boards. Regional hospital districts play an important role in sharing the capital cost of hospital construction and equipment with the province.

Right now, regional hospital districts are part of the government's expanded reporting entity, meaning that their financial results are included as supplementary information when the province's financial statements are presented. This creates unnecessary areas of duplication and increases administrative and financial costs for both my ministry and the regional hospital districts, as well as for the office of the comptroller general.

Our amendments will address these problems and facilitate the implementation of generally accepted accounting principles for the next fiscal year. In fact, the legislative changes were recommended by the office of the auditor general as necessary in order to exclude regional hospital districts from the government reporting entity when these principles are brought in.

The amendments will clarify that the province does not have the unhindered right to appoint or remove directors from regional hospital district boards, and it gives regional hospital district boards greater autonomy, because it reduces the need for the minister to approve their annual budgets, capital expenditures, borrowing bylaws and tax requisition.

Regional hospital boards are made up of democratically elected officials of local government who should be solely accountable to the taxpayers who elected them. Our amendments to the Hospital District Act will clarify that the government does not have the power or unhindered right to appoint or remove hospital district board members so that these elected officials can do the work they were elected to do.

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

Bill 25 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Supply Act (No. 1), 2003.

Hon. G. Collins: This supply bill is introduced to provide supply for the continuation of government programs until the government's estimates for 2003-04 have been debated and voted upon in this assembly.

The bill will provide interim supply for government operating expenses for the initial two months of the 2003-04 fiscal year. This will allow the time to debate and pass the required estimates. The interim supply is required because existing voted appropriation will expire on March 31, 2003.

This bill will also provide interim supply for other financing requirements. The bill seeks supply for 50 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for capital asset expenditures and loan and investments, and 100 percent of the year's financing transaction requirements for revenues collected for and transferred to other entities. This will allow time to debate these requirements. This interim supply is also required because existing voted appropriations will expire on March 31, 2003.

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

Bill 26 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

P. Bell: Some detractors of our government have suggested that we're not looking after the heartlands, so I'd like to take a few moments today to review the history of the nineties, our record so far, and do somewhat of a comparison.

In the nineties the government of the day introduced a luxury-vehicle tax on the pickups that heartlands residents drive to work every day. They suggested a new tax on SUVs and pickups that would have made them even less affordable to operate. They built three ferries for $450 million, and we know today what they're really worth. They introduced the superstumpage that drove the forest industry into decline and sent the mining industry packing when they turned the richest mineral deposits anywhere in the world into a park at Windy Craggy.

We've taken many positive steps to correct the ills of the nineties. We've made substantial changes to the forest industry including the implementation of Bill 74, the Forest and Range Practices Act. We've raised the threshold on luxury vehicles so working families can actually buy a pickup. We've eliminated red tape and duplication for the mining sector, and we've seen that sector double in exploration since we've come into office. We're dedicating $609 million of the $650 million collected in the new gas tax to heartlands roads, and no, that doesn't include the Sea to Sky Highway.

We now have a northern caucus that reports directly to the Premier and is raising northern issues.

We've eliminated PST on equipment and machinery used in the logging and mining industry, and we've simplified regulations to stimulate oil and gas exploration in the Nechako basin.

We're doing exactly what British Columbians wanted us to do — that's a prosperous and growing economy — and we recognize that a healthy heartlands will drive the economy for all of British Columbia.

I. Chong: Tourism — what an exciting industry. Today we are acknowledging the first-ever tourism day at the Legislature, with tourism industry representatives meeting with MLAs and ministers throughout the day. Tourism is the second-largest industry in this province, generating over $9.2 billion in annual revenues.

Here in greater Victoria we generate about $1 billion of that total. Last year we saw more than 22 million tourists visit our province, of which more than five million were international overnight visitors. What did those visitors do? From agritourism to ecotourism to recreational sports tourism, cultural tourism, adventure tourism and of course shopping, B.C. truly has the best tourism products to offer.

Marketing is key to making this industry grow, and the various tourism industries like COTA, Tourism Vancouver, Tourism Victoria and Tourism Vancouver Island do this all so very well. Where does our government fit into this picture? To begin, our government is committed to doubling the tourism industry by the year 2010. By investing in transportation infrastructure, we will begin to connect B.C.'s heartland communities, where the tourism potential is phenomenal. Our commitment to work with the city of Cranbrook to complete its airport expansion will no doubt increase international visitation in that region. Improvements to the Port of Prince Rupert will help create economic opportunities for northern B.C., particularly in the cruise ship industry.

We're developing a B.C. resort task force that will help to build and promote B.C.'s world-class, all-season resorts so that we'll be able to maximize the benefits of the 2010 Olympics and beyond. In Vancouver, the Trade and Convention Centre expansion will mean that we will finally be able to attract large groups wishing to hold their annual conferences here — not to forget Victoria, where we're already planning for a promising year with the new paleontology exhibit at the Royal B.C. Museum, Dragon Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China. We're also expecting 127 cruise ship visits this summer. Every region of this province can benefit from tourism. Tourism is a renewable resource. Let us all celebrate it together.

K. Stewart: Education should be the focus of our schools, not cleanup, and right now too much money is spent on repairs due to vandalism across this province. School vandalism is a huge issue in many communities, and in my riding alone, repair costs on damaged books, broken windows and graffiti reach $450,000 per year.

Recently school district 42 joined members of our community of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to launch an anti-vandalism campaign called Protect Our Schools. This program will help save money and put it back into the classrooms. The Protect Our Schools campaign takes a multi-pronged approach to stopping vandalism, which includes community awareness, a 24-hour anti-vandalism hotline and making schools less susceptible to vandalism. Most importantly to me, the campaign involves students in combatting vandalism through educational materials and activities such as wall-painting murals, with programs as positive alternatives to just hanging around after school.

This campaign will not only heighten awareness around the costs of vandalism, it will also bring back a sense of community and pride in our schools that has far-reaching effects and benefits. Students have always been encouraged to take pride in their schools, and I believe this campaign will be another motivation for them to become actively part of the solution. I'd like to congratulate those who have put forward so much effort into getting this program off the ground, from the school district representatives and administrators to the local police, community groups, and of course parents and students. Vandalism is a community problem and requires a community solution. I encourage other school districts and communities to find out more about what our community is doing in this matter and to launch similar programs.

J. MacPhail: Last week the deadline passed for disabled British Columbians to return their 23-page review form. Already the letters are starting to go out, kicking people off their benefits. In the letter sent, disabled British Columbians are being told that they don't get to keep their benefits because their mental impairment is not severe enough.

To the Minister of Human Resources: can he tell the House what objective measure he's using to determine a person's state of mental impairment that would then give him the authority to kick them off their benefits?

Hon. M. Coell: The member fails to grasp that nothing we are going to be able to say will satisfy her or her friends. From the beginning of this process, they have chosen to misinform and to spread fear among the very people they're said to be advocating for. She should know that the review is done by doctors and

J. MacPhail: Well, it isn't me fearmongering. I'm reading directly from the letters that the minister is sending out. I expect it will come as a surprise to the physicians of these people that they're responsible for kicking them off their benefits, which is what the minister just said.

Advocates say that many of the disabled British Columbians who were being kicked off benefits face severe mental challenges. Many have problems with reading and writing. You'd hope that the minister would show some compassion, but that would be asking too much from this government.

Let me just read from the instructions for the appeal that the minister has sent out with his letter kicking them off benefits. This is a quote:

That's part of a larger letter. Is this what is actually the measure that the minister is using? If you can understand this paragraph, you're kicked off benefits; if you can't, you won't know how to appeal it, so you're still kicked off?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member would know, under the previous legislation there was no requirement for any review. There was no requirement for a medical update of anyone on DB-2.

Hon. M. Coell: The definition was changed to make it compatible with human rights case law — and I've said this a dozen times to the member — and to make it comparable to other provinces.

J. MacPhail: I'll tell you, the weak support coming from his own caucus is booming support considered out there in the community. This minister has not given any substantiation to why he's doing this, on what grounds he's doing it or even what the criteria are for being on benefits or for being kicked off benefits. Not only is the minister tying up the most vulnerable British Columbians in red tape, hoping that they'll just give up and go away, he's not even following his own rules. The rejection letter that those British Columbians are receiving says they have 20 days from the date of the letter to appeal the decision kicking them off benefits — 20 days from the date of the letter. But the minister's own regulations say that a person has 20 days to appeal from the date that they were notified. In law that means the date that they received the letter.

Can the minister explain to those British Columbians who are disabled why they should bother following instructions that go against his own regulations? He is demanding that they follow forms that will give them far fewer days to appeal. Will he immediately stand up and apologize and issue a new letter that extends the time to the people who are now having to appeal?

Hon. M. Coell: This review process was never about cost-cutting. It was not initiated to balance the books.

Hon. M. Coell: Any comment to the contrary, whether made by the member or her friends, is not based on fact. A couple of facts she might be interested in: the previous system was growing at a rate that was not sustainable.

Hon. M. Coell: From '94 to '02 the average growth rate in British Columbia — the caseload — was 11 percent. The national average was 3 percent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Vancouver-Kingsway has the floor.

R. Nijjar: Vancouver city police estimate there are approximately 10,000 marijuana grow operations in the city of Vancouver. Law enforcement agencies are doing all that they can. However, they need more assistance, and more needs to be done. I've been working on this issue very hard, and I've been watching a piece of Ontario legislation that was enacted last year. What it does is allow civil courts to freeze, seize and forfeit the proceeds of illegal activity. It seems to me that this legislation is working well in Ontario, and similar legislation has worked well in the United States for many years. Is the Solicitor General considering such legislation in British Columbia to combat the proceeds of illegal activity?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are reviewing the Ontario legislation as to how it may be able to apply in our jurisdiction. All tools that are available for us to fight back the marijuana grow ops are being reviewed at this point in time, to look at anything that we can give the police that will help them with their job. At the same time, we are in consultation with and talking to the federal prosecutors to let them know that we want them to start asking for and seeking harsher sentences in this regard. Frankly, we have to have this together as a continuum to make the whole thing work together.

We've had a pretty good record on the criminal forfeiture of crime because, frankly, in this province, versus Ontario, most of our policing at the municipal, the provincial and the federal level is all RCMP. We do have sort of a seamless relationship for how we can deal with those forfeitures of crime. Any tool that we can get, including the Ontario legislation, which we're reviewing now, we're going to be looking at to see if we can give it to the police and to the communities to fight back against this issue.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Education. The number of aboriginal students that completed high school last year went up 8 percent, from 34 to 42 percent. Although the eight-point jump is significant, the fact still remains that it's nearly 40 percent below the average number of non-aboriginal students graduating from school. As my constituency is home to a large number of aboriginal students, approximately 50 percent, can the Minister of Education tell us what she is doing to help bridge this gap?

Hon. C. Clark: That's an important question. As the member pointed out, we've done a lot better as a province for aboriginal kids than we have in the past. Aboriginal graduation rates are now up at 42 percent, which is a big increase. The member's district, in particular, has done a tremendous job of making sure that young aboriginal children do better in their schools over the last year or so.

We are the only province in Canada that measures how well first nations students are doing. We are the only province in Canada that builds those numbers into accountability contracts so that school districts are required to set goals for improvement and then put in place plans to meet those goals. We are now the only place that's going to be embarking on what we're calling enhancement agreements across the province.

Enhancement agreements are agreements between school districts and every aboriginal group in a district, where they sit down and talk and decide what outcomes they want for their kids and what kind of education they're going to be delivering. It's important that that dialogue happen in every single community. Our goal is to make sure that we have 60 enhancement agreements in place across the province by 2005. That will be an important milestone in making sure that first nations kids have the same opportunity to achieve that every other student in British Columbia has.

D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Mines. My riding of Bulkley Valley–Stikine is home to vast mineral deposits as well as one of the largest coalbed methane reserves in British Columbia. Development of these resources will provide jobs for my constituents and new revenues for the province.

The West Coast Environmental Law Association has raised concerns that in some other jurisdictions, some of the water produced from these wells can be toxic. Can the Minister of Energy and Mines tell us what B.C. is doing to address these concerns and learn from the experiences of other jurisdictions?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes, there is a huge opportunity in the province of British Columbia in the development of coalbed methane. It will bring investment and jobs and dollars to the province and to people that are living in the heartlands of British Columbia.

Water is an issue with coalbed methane development, but it's not new to the ministry. We've been dealing with water in the oil and gas industry for over 40 years. There are sections of the Waste Management Act that are under the auspices of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, and also the regulations in the Petroleum and Natural Gas Act that deal with waste water and how you can dispose of waste water. In fact, there are quite a number of sections in the regulations. We are trying to learn from the U.S.'s mistakes as best we can so we can move forward and develop this in an environmentally sound manner.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many people in my community of Burnaby North rely on institutions that offer English as a second language.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, let's have order, please, so we may hear the question. Please start over again, member.

R. Lee: My question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Many people in my community of Burnaby North rely on institutions that offer English as a second language. In January the Vancouver Community College announced that it would be reducing the number of seats available for ESL students. Can the Minister of Advanced Education tell my constituents what she has done to make English-language training a priority for British Columbians?

Hon. S. Bond: English-as-a-second-language training is important to us. What we've done over the past almost two years is allow institutions the ability to make the decisions that reflect the needs of their particular communities. Institutions around this province are very different. I'm pleased to say that my staff has met on numerous occasions over the last several weeks with Vancouver Community College, and as we delivered our budget this year, certainly every institution received either the same amount of money as last year or more money. Within the last week we've been able to announce an additional $10 million in unconditional grants to those institutions to help institutions like Vancouver Community College make decisions that are appropriate for their particular schools.

J. MacPhail: Back to the Minister of Human Resources. Perhaps this is the time, actually, where he could answer the questions. These are technical questions facing people's lives, affecting people's lives. So the rhetoric is ridiculous.

Let's just recap what the minister has told this House. The minister sends 18,000 of the most vulnerable people a 23-page form, asking them to justify their benefits. At least one person was so scared he took his own life. The coroner says that. Then, contradicting his own documents, he says his intention is not to kick people off. He says, in fact, that more people are getting assistance. So far, I'm quoting the minister directly. Soon after, letters start arriving on people's doors saying they're out of luck. "If you want to appeal, here are a bunch more hoops and red tape — if you can understand it — that you have to jump through." But the minister can't even follow his own rules and tells people they have much less time to appeal than the law gives them.

Can the minister stand up and tell us why he is subjecting the most vulnerable British Columbians to his own incompetence? Will he now send out a new letter telling people that they have the legal amount of time to appeal his decision?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said previously to the member…. She continues to misinform and spread fear amongst the very people she's claiming to advocate for. The previous legislation, as I said, had no requirement for an update on medical files. The caseload was increasing at 11 percent a year from '94 to 2002. The Canadian average was 3 percent. This review is not about cost-cutting. It's about making sure that people in need get the benefits that they need.

Hon. G. Collins: I have the honour to present the annual report for the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia for 2002.

J. MacPhail: As provided for under standing order 35, I rise to request that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating a motion to support the resolution adopted by the city council of New York on March 12, 2003, after the city council found that it had not been substantiated that all other means of disarming Saddam Hussein in accordance with the United Nations resolution had been attempted and had therefore failed. That resolution from the legislative body that represents those who were most impacted by the terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, calls upon the United States and allies not to engage in a pre-emptive strike against Iraq.

This House did not sit last week when the war started, but as the news of the war in Iraq has reached all of us over the past days, the intent of the resolution, as passed by the city council of New York, is of even greater import. This is our first and perhaps our only opportunity to add our voices to the thousands that hope to influence and halt the killing in Iraq. As per the standing orders, I have prepared a written motion for your consideration that expresses support for an end to the hostilities and support for the council of New York City resolution.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair will entertain a speaker from the government side. The Government House Leader.

Hon. G. Collins: Just to put forward my comments in this regard, I think I would be reflecting all members of the House in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with the people serving overseas, as well as their families, as well as with the Iraqi people at this very difficult and turbulent time in that area of the world. I think everybody hopes for a quick and early resolution of the conflict that exists.

The matter before the House and the motion by the member opposite to adjourn the House for an emer-

gency debate is one that comes before this House not infrequently but is rare. I think it's six times since the existence of the standing order that there's actually been a debate — something like that, about six times. It's important to note that the matter that's before the Speaker is not the importance of the issue or the importance of the subject matter but rather the emergency requirements that a debate be held immediately.

Certainly, since the changes in the standing orders that we brought in at the beginning of the session as well as last year, there are ever more opportunities for all members of this House to bring forward matters that are important to the floor of the Legislature for debate and comment. There are a number of them. I can just draw the Speaker's attention to opportunities where the issue can be raised. Certainly, private member's statements are opportunities for that. We just had that this morning. All private members of the House are able to put themselves on the order paper for debate of really any matter which they feel is urgent and important. I notice that opportunity was not taken.

There are also opportunities at the beginning of every question period for statements by members where individual members, private members, can make a statement on an issue that concerns them and may well concern the entire House. That is an opportunity that's available. As well, there are provisions for motions where members can place motions on the order paper. We now have a time on Monday mornings, this morning, where we can debate those issues that are considered important to people, and we do periodically. In fact, this morning we debated at length a private member's bill that was in the hands of the member previously.

All of those are items that are available to members. There is also the issue of whether or not there is something that has changed so dramatically that it would require the debate of the House immediately, without notice. Certainly, there has been conflict in the Middle East, in Iraq. This has been ongoing for some time. The resolutions of various political jurisdictions with regard to this matter have come forward and are all, I know, taken seriously by all members.

There have also been opportunities for members to discuss this issue in the past. Certainly, I notice on the order paper there is no motion on notice by that member opposite with regard to this issue whatsoever in the past. I think there are opportunities in the very near future, as well — as early as this morning or as early as tomorrow, as early as this afternoon — for private members who want to make a statement. I believe that while we all feel strongly about this issue, all members have the opportunity to make statements. All members have the opportunity to come forward and take advantage of the many additional….

Hon. G. Collins: All members have the opportunity to take part in the opportunities that are provided to members, many of which have been added in the last two years. I would encourage the member to do that. It doesn't downplay….

Hon. G. Collins: It certainly doesn't downplay the seriousness of the matter or the way people feel about the matter, but I think that according to the standing orders of our House, there are other opportunities for those debates to take place without invoking the very rarely used provision for an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. I appreciate the comments from both members. The motion under standing order 35 is in order, and the Chair will consider it. I will defer my decision until later today.

B.C. Ferries is being transformed into a modern, safe, reliable ferry system that is designed to provide superior service with no additional financial burden on taxpayers. This bill establishes a new, independent, regulatory framework for coastal ferry services and a new service delivery model. It also provides for a long-term contract between the province of British Columbia and B.C. Ferry Services to ensure the future of the ferry system.

I want to begin my comments by acknowledging the tremendous contribution made by the men and women of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation over the more than 40 years that the Crown corporation has served coastal communities in British Columbia. We are taking action to restructure B.C. Ferries because of the problems with its governance and structure which have inhibited the corporation's ability to operate in a sound, businesslike manner. Political mismanagement and bad business decisions in the past have meant a waste of taxpayers' money.

The vessels we rely on for this service are aging. Terminals need upgrading, and service overall needs to be improved. This major capital investment must be achieved without a huge burden on the taxpayers of British Columbia. For example, one new Spirit-size vessel alone could cost upwards of $160 million. The overall cost of the entire capital renewal program for B.C. Ferries over 15 years is in the neighbourhood of $2 billion. B.C. Ferries' problems have all been well chronicled in independent reports about the ferry system by Hugh Gordon, George Morfitt and Fred Wright.

The provincial government and B.C. Ferries board of directors examined a variety of potential solutions for the coastal ferry system during the core services review process last year. In December we announced a new future for B.C. Ferries and its role in our province's growing economy. We have determined that an authority model best meets the objectives of creating a modern, safe and reliable ferry service while protecting B.C. taxpayers from financial risk and the threat of additional debt.

We are moving forward with this new business model so that the new B.C. ferry service can operate in a commercial manner. The new B.C. Ferry Services is designed to attract private sector investment, establish innovative partnerships and, for the first time in more than 40 years, be able to respond to the marketplace and offer services that people are seeking. Just as importantly, we are moving forward with this new business model to strengthen our coastal economies that have been restricted by the lack of a responsive and dependable ferry service that is needed to move goods and people throughout the regions.

All of us here today have been customers of B.C. Ferries. We all know the spectacular marine and mountain scenery of Georgia strait. We know the trip through the scenic Gulf Islands. We all want the service to succeed; we all need it. It is fundamental to local economies, and it is one of the most prominent symbols of our lifestyle here on the west coast. In fact, coastal British Columbians very much want B.C. Ferries to succeed. Most of all, B.C. wants B.C. Ferries to meet its potential, to sail on time, to have clean facilities, a good selection of food choices and friendly services and, of course, to remain affordable.

That is why this legislation is so important. For B.C. Ferries to meet its potential, it needs to have the flexibility to respond to the marketplace without future political interference. It needs to develop a collective agreement with its unionized employees that is reflective of a contemporary commercial company. B.C. Ferries needs to have the will, the expertise and the legislated mandate to understand its customer base better and to be able to respond using state-of-the-art business practices.

Right now, B.C. Ferries falls short of its true potential. The corporation is restricted in making good business decisions. It cannot be sustained in its current form without enormous contributions from B.C. taxpayers. It cannot offer the customer-friendly and progressive service that customers are seeking.

Firstly, this new legislation sets out the terms of the corporate restructuring. This act recognizes the new company. The act recognizes the intended conversion of the British Columbia Ferry Corporation from a Crown corporation to a new, regulated, independent, commercial operating company under the Company Act that will be renamed British Columbia Ferry Services Inc. The act underpins the vision for the new company as the integrator of services, charged with planning and coordinating the delivery of services and activities in the coastal ferry system.

Secondly, the act outlines the business model and the regulatory framework. The act establishes the B.C. Ferry Authority, which is an independent no-share capital corporation that holds the single-issued voting share of the new British Columbia Ferry Corporation. The B.C. Ferry Authority governs the new, independent company.

The current board of directors will be a transition board and will serve until the end of March 2004. The new board of directors, which will be established after April 1, 2004, will be a nine-member board with professional and business expertise, with representation from B.C.'s coastal regions in order to support the mandate of the new company. The new board will include two appointments from the provincial government, four nominees from coastal regional districts, one nominee from organized labour and two appointments from the community at large. The appointment process and composition of the board are set out in the act.

Because the new corporation is structured on a commercial basis, the province must receive fair return. The government will hold an investment in the form of non-voting preferred shares and will receive a return on this investment annually. In addition, the province will also have an investment in the form of a debenture that will receive interest at a market rate. The combination of these investments represents the fair market value of the new corporation.

Government and consumers will be protected under the new business model. The authority will hold one class B common voting share, which gives it the ability to govern the operating company.

There is also consumer protection from the concern that the authority will sell its voting share without the province's approval. In the event that the authority would want to sell its common share, there is a special conversion feature that gives the province the right to convert its preferred shares on a one-for-one basis to class A common voting shares. This effectively gives the provincial government a veto over any future sale of the operating company. Should the province choose to exercise its right, the conversion will result in control of the company reverting to the province as its preferred shares become voting shares, effectively giving it the majority of votes.

The act also establishes a new independent regulator, the British Columbia Ferries commissioner, whose role it is to monitor and regulate ferry services, tariffs and the degree to which competition is fostered.

Thirdly, the act provides for a long-term contract between the province and B.C. Ferry Services to establish the ferry system. The coastal ferry services contract is a binding agreement between the province and B.C. Ferry Services with an initial term of 60 years and is subject to renewal. With regular service review terms, the contract stipulates the service to be delivered on a

route-by-route basis and the fees to be paid by the province in exchange for this service. This long-term arrangement establishes a predictable and stable marine transportation system while ensuring that B.C. Ferry Services becomes a financially viable service provider for the first time in more than four decades.

Every four years, or five years for the first term, B.C. Ferry Services and the province will renegotiate the service levels and fees for service. Routes and fundamental service levels are therefore assured for the first five years of the contract.

While designed to protect consumers, the new structure has enough flexibility to allow B.C. Ferry Services to encourage strategic private sector partnerships and entrepreneurial ingenuity that will transform our ferry services into a customer-focused, financially stable marine transportation system that will ensure the ongoing safety of its vessels, passengers and cargo. All of the routes that B.C. Ferries directly operated prior to April 1, 2003, are defined under the contract as routes regulated by the B.C. Ferries commissioner and are covered by rate caps.

With regard to land transactions, in order to preserve public interest over the long term, this legislation transfers B.C. Ferries terminal land and improvements to the province. B.C. Ferry Services and the province will then enter into a long-term lease of these facilities.

Under this new arrangement, the province will own all the land. Ownership of the infrastructure will also transfer to the province. Under the lease, B.C. Ferry Services will then be given ownership of the existing facilities and will own any new facilities for the duration of the lease. At the end of the lease term, all facilities will revert to the province. The services of ferry terminals will be diligently managed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of the terminal leases.

In looking at the relationship with employees, this legislation effectively transfers all existing employees to the new company and sets the stage for a new commercial approach to the delivery of ferry services with the operation of a new maintenance subsidiary. The independent nature of both B.C. Ferry Services and, ultimately, its maintenance facility are clearly articulated in the legislation.

Previous decisions of the Labour Relations Board have confirmed that the delivery of ferry services is an essential service. This government has articulated its view that the delivery of coastal ferry services is essential to the health, safety and welfare of the residents of British Columbia. Despite the independent nature of the new commercial company, the legislation reinforces the former decisions of the Labour Relations Board and confirms government's direction that the delivery of ferry services remains an essential service under the Labour Relations Code.

An important aspect with respect to the transfer of employees is pensions. Government and the board of directors have indicated the importance of grandparenting existing employees into the public service pension plan, notwithstanding the changing nature of the new company, in order to ensure an evolutionary transition. However, a new pension plan for future employees needs to be developed that is more reflective of the commercial nature in which B.C. Ferry Services will be operating. These details will be addressed in collective bargaining and, ultimately, with the pension trustees of the public service pension plan. In the meantime, with the agreement of the pension trustees, all new employees will continue to be covered in the public service pension plan at a minimum to April 30, 2004. All existing employees will remain under the public service pension plan.

The upcoming round of collective bargaining will be extremely important. The parties involved have the ability to effectively shape their future and the commercial nature of the collective agreements between them. Working conditions of employees will need to be aligned with the business objectives of their employer, the corporation and the subsidiary respectively. I encourage the parties to be creative in their approach.

Collective agreements for both B.C. Ferry Services Inc. and its maintenance and refit subsidiary must properly address the needs to be efficient, cost-effective and innovative. They must reach a collective agreement that ensures that the corporation can fulfil its legal and statutory obligations and its requirements under the new coastal ferry services contract. They must also reach a collective agreement that is reflective of any conditions that may be imposed on the corporation by the B.C. Ferry Services commissioner.

The new collective agreement will need to be shaped in order that the corporation can implement changes in the manner in which it conducts business. In fact, the maintenance and repair subsidiary has the ability to become a leader in ships maintenance and refit, but that will depend greatly on whether the collective agreement provides the degree of flexibility needed to operate the subsidiary as a true ships maintenance and repair operation.

As government proceeds with the enactment of this legislation, there is a significant expectation that the B.C. Ferry and Marine Workers Union will be able to make the necessary adjustments to the new environment in which it finds itself. I encourage serious reflection in preparation for the next round of negotiations and thoughtful consideration of the business objectives that will need to be met to ensure success. Given this, it is government's expectation that new collective agreements will be concluded by October 31, 2003.

Mr. Speaker and hon. members, the primary intent of this bill is to ensure that our coastal ferry service can flourish and support our economy. In doing so, we will continue to protect consumers and ferry-dependent communities through the coastal ferry services contract, which stipulates service levels and the government's contribution for services that fall outside the mandate of a commercial operation.

This legislation also provides our government with the assurance that our marine transportation system is

intact and that our ferry system is self-financing for generations to come. Ferry users have long expressed frustration with service disruptions, inefficiencies, late sailings and the lack of amenities. Industries such as tourism and trucking have also expressed concerns, as have local governments, our constituents, taxpayers and even employees of the corporation. This bill makes it possible to begin to alleviate these concerns. The new B.C. Ferry Services, with oversight by an independent authority, will have the flexibility to address these issues while ensuring that the ferry system does not present financial risk or add further to the debt burden of B.C. taxpayers. Coastal communities and ferry users will see improved service and greater customer choice. They will also see a commitment to fundamental service levels and fair rates and the protection of public interest.

Fulfilling a new-era commitment, B.C. Ferries will also be designated an essential service, ensuring that coastal communities receive the service they need. I look forward, with the passage and enactment of this bill, to fulfilling the commitment that was made following the extensive core services review of B.C. Ferries and the commitments that were set out before us in the throne speech. The Coastal Ferry Act is designed to support the needs of all British Columbians, and I encourage the members of this Legislature to support its enactment.

Deputy Speaker: Continuing debate on second reading of Bill 18, the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was outside having to respond to the Minister of Transportation somehow suggesting that the NDP turned down an offer on the fast cats. It was quite an interesting debate. I hope she is more forthright in the debate on that matter in the Legislature.

Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act, converts the B.C. Ferry Corporation to a private company, and it allows for commercial ferry services by contract with the government. I have some concerns about this legislation. I have received a briefing from the B.C. Ferries Corporation, for which I thank them, but even after the briefing, I will outline some of my concerns that can be taken up in debate at committee stage.

This legislation — let's be clear — is about dismantling B.C. Ferries, and therefore my concern arises out of that. I think the bill sets up a weak structure that lacks independence. It has weak accountability, and transparency and oversight are weak. I also think there is some concern that is not answered yet in the legislation about the rights of the people who work for the Ferry Corporation, but I will have much more to say about these matters at committee stage.

Before I begin, I would actually hope the government isn't demonstrating another aspect of arrogance by assuming that this legislation will be signed off by the auditor general before this transition, in order to…. This structure has to be signed off by the auditor general before this government can remove the debt from the books of the new structure, and to my understanding, as recently as last week the auditor general still had not signed off on this transition.

I notice from the legislation that the bill comes into force on April 1. That's just seven days from now, and of course, I can pretty much guarantee that this government is going to use its massive legislative authority to ram the legislation through the House and have it in effect by April 1. Of course, the structure we put in place now is for 60 years, so it is interesting to see how the government will actually ensure — given the fact that there's hardly anybody who debates anything in this House except for me — that the structure is appropriate for 60 years.

Let me just talk about the independence of the structures in this bill, and the areas that I'm outlining will be the areas I'll be questioning at committee stage. The new ferry authority board will be made up of the current B.C. Ferries board of directors, so that's still a board that is very much in the hands of this government. Future boards will be selected by two cabinet-appointed board members. The criteria of appointment are not spelled out in the legislation, so I will be asking questions about that during committee stage. The independent commissioner appointed by cabinet is actually funded…. The office of the independent commission is funded by ferry operators. This is the commission that will oversee the regulation of everything to do with the ferries, and yet its funding source is the ferry operator itself.

There's also a lack of oversight mechanisms in this bill. What if the authority cannot fulfil its powers or duties? What if the authority comes in over budget? What if the commissioner is found to be working in the interests of the ferry operators, who pay the commissioner's salary? There is absolutely no oversight mechanism around the commission. Of course, there is no appeal mechanism built into the bill as well.

The bill lacks accountability mechanisms. Authorities are required to have one meeting a year open to the public. That is the only accountability mechanism. The commissioner may consult with the public, but it's permissive. It's not mandatory. Even if the ferry service is being eliminated or reduced, the commissioner only may be required to consult with the public. That, of course, is a weakening of what the current circumstances are.

There is a lack of transparency in this bill. Contracts are negotiated between governments and ferry operators. The commissioner only sees the contracts after they are signed. The ferry services are exempt from the Auditor General Act, so he or she — the auditor general of the day — will have no way of looking at the contracts, even after they are signed.

The new ferry service is exempt from the Ombudsman Act. The new ferry service is exempt from the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I will read into the record the letter from the freedom

of information and protection of privacy commissioner re this act. This was sent on March 13, and it's from the FOIPP commissioner, David Loukidelis. It's to the Minister of Transportation. It's entitled "Comments on Bill 18, Coastal Ferry Act, Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act."

I was copied on that. There are questions that arise out of that from the freedom of information commissioner and his recommendation that there be consequential amendments flowing from his recommendation.

I also note that this bill makes ferries an essential service. It creates a subsidiary for maintenance and refit operations. I will be exploring at length what the procedures are for ensuring that workers' rights flow, particularly with the workers at Deas dock where there's a separate subsidiary that's now created.

There are sections of the legislation, particularly section 26, that do permit nullification of sections of the collective agreement negotiated by ferry workers. However, in the briefing at least, the officials of the minister were quick to reassure us that that would not be the case, but I want to know what the substance of that is in the legislation. So we will be having that discussion.

I also want to see whether there's a discussion about the substance between the Labour Relations Code and this bill — about the bill prevailing. Those are the questions that I have.

I see the government is smiling over something to do with the fast ferries. I certainly hope they're far more forthright on this legislation than they are now being forthright about other matters. If they're not, they will just continue what has been acknowledged as a mistake in the past.

We are in a new era with the Ferry Corporation. Many questions need to be answered about what the intent of this government is in terms of ferry service. I toured some coastal communities last week, and there are certainly many questions about what exactly the plan is for improving ferry service to ferry-dependent communities.

I'm going to reserve my support or lack thereof on the record in a clause-by-clause debate.

I. Chong: I want to take this opportunity to also add some comments to Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act, and to say at the outset that I am supporting this piece of legislation. I think it is a good piece of legislation and a long time coming.

I watched with dismay while I was in opposition the last term, when the government of the day played around with the B.C. Ferries Corporation. There was often uncertainty around, such that the tourism industry, something that we have been talking about today — celebrating tourism in our province, celebrating tourism day today in the Legislature — was highly susceptible to interruptions in ferry service, and this piece of legislation allows us to move forward.

With this new act and with the establishment of the B.C. Ferry Services Corporation, coastal communities and ferry users will now have improved service. They will have greater customer choice. What's important, as well, is guaranteed service levels, and this is how it will affect the tourism industry — guaranteed service levels, something that is dependable. Fair rates. Fair rates are important, as well, to our coastal communities.

I live on Vancouver Island, and I know that a number of my colleagues here — 13 members or so in this House — represent the Island or coastal communities. We depend on this service as our link to the mainland to transport our goods, to transport our services and also sometimes for other vital services such as health care which is only available on the mainland. We need to have a ferry service that is going to provide us with that essential link, that vital link to the mainland.

We also want to know that rates will not be politically interfered with. We want to know that our rates will, in fact, be stable. I think it's also important that our government has acknowledged and recognized this by going out four years or so and knowing the increases that will be there are, on average, less than what the previous government was going to establish.

A customer-focused, financially stable, reliable ferry system — these are the hallmarks of this new piece of legislation. This is what is important to the people. Vancouver Island and coastal British Columbia will certainly be opened up with greater choice, with more competition and a better service through this new B.C. services act.

I also want to just quickly mention something, because the Leader of the Opposition raised it and she used to be upset in our last year whenever we raised the issue of fast ferries. But because she opened it up, I just have to add my comments to that. We know today was a rather, I guess, historic day in that we are finally dealing with the legacy that they left us — the $463 million legacy they left our taxpayers, a cost that we should never have…. The dollars would have been better spent on health care and education, but the previous government, for their political reasons, embarked on that particular venture.

I recall that in my first term we had a ferries critic who was constantly, constantly asking the government of the day what the costs were going to be, what other guarantees were going to be available, what kind of service levels there would be. Never, ever were any of those facts forthcoming. We find out now that there was never truly a service plan and that it was really a "fly by the seat of your pants" kind of approach.

That's not the way this government operates. We are certainly handling our affairs in a more fiscally prudent manner, which allows us to find savings wherever we can and redirect them into those important vital services like health care and education.

On the ferries issue, it's very interesting. This certainly still resonates very much with my constituents. I have been provided with a copy of a letter that was dated March 30, 2001, a month and a half before the last election, and written by the Leader of the Opposition, who at the time had this portfolio under her purview. It's interesting. One of the sentences that I'll read from her letter indicated where they were looking at a possible disposition and possible recovery of some dollars for the benefit of taxpayers of this province, and this is what this one sentence says: "Our decision was reached after a full discussion of the contents of the memorandum and is based on the timing rather than on the substantive aspects of the agreement." That, again, leads me to wonder what kinds of decisions the previous government made which were never to the benefit of taxpayers.

I just want to say that Bill 18, this new Coastal Ferry Act, is a sound piece of legislation. There are many sections in it. I've gone through it a number of times. I've had the opportunity to read it and take a look at the accountability aspects of it and the, as I say, improved service levels being provided to taxpayers. In the end, that's what we want for our residents. Some 630,000 people live here on Vancouver Island. You add another 40,000 who are in the Powell River–Sunshine Coast area, and you know you have about 700,000 people who depend heavily on the coastal ferry system. I think today is a good day, or the day the bill was introduced was a good day. It will continue to be a good day once this act is in place, once we can move forward, once we can have those guarantees available — in particular for one of our largest industries, the second-largest industry in this province, tourism, which will now be able to move forward along with this.

Deputy Speaker: Closing second reading debate, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. J. Reid: Yes, it is frustrating that the legacy of the ferries we have been left with by the previous government, a service that is so essential and so important to the people of this province and to our economy…. As the member just quoted, the decision was reached by the previous government with regard to the Pacificats. As that member stated, the quote was: "The decision was reached after full discussion of the contents of the memorandum and is based on the timing rather than the substantive aspects of the agreement." As the member said, this was just shortly before the last election. It's a very unfortunate set of circumstances, and certainly things have changed in the world market with regard to ferries since that time.

We have looked at the system that we have. We have looked at the importance to British Columbia. We have looked at the public good that needs to be protected. We believe that in this piece of legislation, it does protect the public good and give assurances to people as we move forward that their ferry service will be there for them. They will know what rates they're going to pay for it, so they can make their plans. The industries that use the ferries will be better served. The tourism industry will be better served. I believe this will lead us into a time where we can look forward to more people travelling on the ferries instead of feeling like the ferries were a bottleneck to our economic growth and prosperity.

Hon. J. Reid: 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 18, Coastal Ferry Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

These amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act serve to transfer the compliance operations department at the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia to my ministry. Ensuring public safety on roads is a priority for this government. In 2001, 88 people were killed and over 2,000 others injured in crashes involving commercial vehicles. Due to the size and weight of these vehicles, the consequences of commercial vehicle crashes are often severe and result in higher fatality rates than other motor vehicle crashes.

The mandate of the compliance operations department is to reduce the incidence and severity of such crashes. The department does this by administering and enforcing programs related to vehicle inspections, the transport of dangerous goods and operating requirements for commercial vehicles, drivers and carriers. Moving these functions to my ministry, with its similar focus on public safety and law enforcement, will strengthen and streamline the delivery of these important programs and facilitate the further integration of law enforcement activities in the province.

Now, we do know how much I love to talk about integration and amalgamation of police operations and services, as we move forward to build a strong police agency for the province. We will move forward, as we integrate this into law enforcement, to also build an integrated traffic enforcement team across regions in the province. To accomplish that, we will need certain partners to come to the dance, including the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We need them to enter into the long-term relationships versus the short-term relationships we presently have with law enforcement, and law enforcement in general, to look at regional models so we can do this across borders to accomplish traffic safety for all of our citizens.

In transferring ICBC's compliance department to government, this bill achieves three main purposes. First, it creates a new statutory authority, the director of commercial vehicle safety, to assume all of the powers and functions currently assigned to the compliance operation department to this individual. To enable the director to carry out these responsibilities, the bill also introduces provisions for the director to delegate authority, keep records and access ICBC information.

As we move forward looking at this, the interesting aspect I found as we dealt with this legislation was the fact that we actually had to have legislation to access ICBC information for the purpose of traffic statistics and enforcement in British Columbia — from a Crown corporation that we actually own. I would hope there would be a more seamless relationship in the future with regard to the statistical information and the ability to access that information so we can do enforcement in a timely, professional and proper manner when it comes to traffic enforcement.

Secondly, this bill establishes a new decision-making and show-cause process for enforcement actions. Under the current process, compliance operations staff must submit their proposed enforcement activities to the superintendent of motor vehicles in the Ministry of Transportation. The superintendent then decides whether to approve or reject the recommended action, sometimes after conducting a show-cause hearing into the matter.

There are couple of things that have happened. One is that the superintendent of motor vehicles has been transferred to this ministry so that we can get that seamless relationship going with our law enforcement community. In addition to that, this director now will have other responsibilities that will actually take away one step that isn't necessary in order for us to enforce the law.

The involvement of the superintendent has been necessary to ensure that these critical safety and regulatory decisions were made within government, but now, with the transfer of the compliance operations to the ministry, there is no longer a need for a separate body to make these enforcement decisions. Thus, this bill authorizes the director to conduct show-cause hearings and to make final enforcement decisions. It also maintains the right to a show-cause hearing for persons whose National Safety Code certificate, vehicle licence, vehicle inspector authorization or inspection facility designation is cancelled or whose use of a commercial vehicle is restricted or prohibited. People who exercise their right to a show-cause hearing are granted an additional right to request that the director reconsider the cancellation decision. The result is a fair and efficient enforcement process, one that also allows dangerous-goods commercial vehicles and carriers to be removed from the road more quickly than is currently possible.

Finally, this bill provides authority for transitional matters such as the transfer of funds and records from ICBC to government. The changes put forward in this bill will result in a more streamlined and focused delivery of commercial vehicle–related compliance programs and a better-integrated relationship with law enforcement on traffic enforcement. In turn, this will enhance the road safety of British Columbia.

I move that the bill be referred…. First of all, I move second reading of the bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're moving so quickly that I can hardly keep up to myself.

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 17, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

I'm pleased to present Bill 2, the Museum Act, for second reading. The Royal B.C. Museum is a cultural icon of this province. The current facility, built as a centennial project in 1967, has created state-of-the-art exhibits showcasing our province's human and natural history. It also houses a gallery devoted to British Columbia's first peoples.

While we all have a vested interest in seeing our heritage preserved, we also recognize the unrelenting pressures on funding. It's necessary to find the balance between government responsibility for the treasures of the province's human and natural history and realistic fiscal requirements. Since 1996 the museum has operated as a special operating agency, allowing it to conduct business in a slightly more entrepreneurial fashion than previously. Through a public-private partnership, the museum added the National Geographic IMAX Theatre. The museum also developed and fostered market synergies with community and tourism partners.

In this vein, the Royal B.C. Museum has improved its programming and viability, going from full dependence on government funding to 26 percent self-sufficiency. This is an impressive achievement in only six years. However, fixed costs at the museum continue to rise.

Successful museums throughout Canada and around the world rely on a combination of government funding and private sector donations. It is incumbent on us to provide the museum with the necessary mechanism to achieve maximum benefits of being both a major tourist attraction and a significant non-profit cultural and heritage resource. The Museum Act is that mechanism. It proposes changing the museum from a special operating agency to a government corporation, a change the museum has actively sought for ten years. This proposed change in governance means the museum will gain the ability to raise and carry over funds for reinvestment in exhibits and programs. It will be able to grow an endowment for long-term sustainability. It will be able to respond more quickly to the competitive tourist marketplace, to increase revenue and attendance, and finally — and I think not insignificantly — to attract major donors.

In charting its future, the Royal British Columbia Museum was also asked to consider synergies with like-mandated organizations. As a result, the Museum Act proposes that the museum form a corporation amalgamating the museum, the B.C. archives, Helmcken House and the Netherlands Carillon into one entity known as the cultural precinct. These components already share a site perfectly situated to showcase British Columbia to visitors and to provide a cultural centrepiece for locals as well.

Practical opportunities will be created by the amalgamation, by integrating services, strengthening visibility, increasing on-line access and marketing the various components as a whole. The museum will unite these entities under the leadership of a single fiduciary board of directors empowered to set the course for the future. The Royal British Columbia Museum, as a government corporation, will continue its mandate to preserve and interpret the human and natural history of British Columbia.

This legislation speaks boldly to the power of partnerships, the union of private and public interests and the synergy of place and culture. With this legislation the museum can protect its reputation for excellence. This evolution is essential to engaging all British Columbians and carrying out the fundraising campaigns needed to sustain core programs and enhance collections, exhibits and programming.

The Museum Act will ensure that the museum remains a cultural institution of which we can all be proud. It will also build a strong, sustainable future for the cultural precinct.

I appreciate the support of many members as this has moved forward, and I'm sure they all have some comments.

J. Bray: As the MLA where the Royal B.C. Museum physically rests, I am pleased to rise and support Bill 2, the Museum Act. Really, one of the reasons I'm so pleased is that sometimes we forget, in our daily lives, some of the jewels that we actually have in our midst and some of the assets that we tend to overlook and take for granted. I think it bears reminding this House and the province that the Royal B.C. Museum is a world-class museum with world-class staff and a world-class collection, and I am pleased to rise and support any form of legislation that further enhances its ability to become one of the cultural anchors for our province.

As the minister has said, Bill 2, the Museum Act, will create a new Crown corporation instead of the special operating agency that the museum operated under. What this will do — and this is critical in the world of culture and in the world of museums — is increase the museum's independence through the creation of a provincially appointed board of directors that will be accountable to the financial success of the museum and be responsible for creating new opportunities.

In my many meetings with staff at the B.C. Museum and the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum, one of their great frustrations was always that while they had great ideas for fundraising and had huge support not just in this province but in fact across this country for the work they do, there is always the concern that to some extent, if you create a life legacy through your estate — if you make major donations to what is essentially an arm of government — sometime in the future your gift may actually find its way into the general coffers of government and not for the intended purpose. By bringing in this legislation, one of the key things it does is ensure that those who want to contribute to the culture, history and heritage of this province can do so now knowing that gift, that legacy, will be there for the people of British Columbia, through the museum, for generations to come. I know this is going

The other really exciting aspect around this legislation is that here in Victoria, we really have a large number of cultural assets literally within walking distance of this very building — this very building, in fact, being one of them. I know there's been a vision for some years now to actually create a cultural precinct here in Victoria. This act helps ensure that cultural centre becomes more than just an idea; it actually becomes a reality. It's a centre that is limited only by the imagination and the ability of people to get out and let the world know about Victoria.

I'd like just to quote from Pauline Rafferty, the CEO of the museum, who said: "This legislation positions us to take our place among the great cultural institutions of Canada and the world. We will do this by staying focused on our vision to inspire curiosity and wonder and to share British Columbia's story with the world."

This is really part of the vision of the staff and volunteers that work at the museum. It is recognizing that we have a vibrant history in this province, both after European contact but also prior to European contact. This museum does such a wonderful job of bringing that story out for British Columbians, Canadians and visitors from around the world to really study and understand that history, which is exciting and very diverse. Also, the museum has a huge amount of inventory and exhibits in its stores that, when properly managed, really are educational assets for the whole country.

The Museum Act will create this cultural precinct in Victoria's Inner Harbour. As the minister pointed out, it will amalgamate the museum, the B.C. archives, Helmcken House and the Netherlands Carillon. The corporation will benefit from operational efficiencies, joint marketing and streamlined processes. In other words, it will really create the opportunity for these great assets to work as one towards the marketing of British Columbia — our heritage and our history — to the world.

As I've said many times in this House, one of the great untapped areas of tourism is that of cultural tourism — in other words, those individuals who will actually travel to destinations based on culture and history as opposed to just scenery or sporting events. So, by being able to make sure that the cultural assets here in the capital of the province are able to work as one, we will see tremendous benefits for tourism, which benefits not only the region but in fact the whole province.

The amalgamation of B.C.'s museum and archives presents a tremendous opportunity to build collaborative strategies for the stewardship of the province's history. Again, I don't think we should underestimate how important that partnership between the museum and the archives will be over the next ten, 15, 20 or 30 years.

There's an incredible amount of work that's gone into those collections that are now housed there. There's a great wealth of history and information that will now be able to be used in a joint way for education and research purposes — again, I think, not only for the benefit of British Columbians but really for the benefit of anybody in the world seeking an increase in knowledge.

As I mentioned earlier, the whole aspect of tourism should not be underestimated. Ian Powell, who chairs the Tourism Victoria board, recently said: "The tourism industry welcomes this opportunity to showcase B.C.'s heritage in the heart of the province's capital city." That, I think, is an exciting opportunity for those in the Victoria community to band together around our history and our culture and actually promote the capital and the province to the world. Certainly, if and when we're successful with the 2010 Olympic bid, I look forward to the opportunities for the Royal B.C. Museum to really showcase our incredible history here and the history of our first nations peoples when the world comes and visits.

The other thing that's really exciting about what the museum has done in many years and what will be enhanced by this act is some of the permanent special exhibitions that the museum has done, for instance, the Leonardo da Vinci presentation, the current Dragon Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China attraction. They've brought nearly one million people to the Royal B.C. Museum each year. That's a huge number of people that come into that museum.

This is an interesting statistic. These visitors contributed an estimated $63 million to the greater Victoria economy — $63 million. In fact, history, culture and the museum not only are great for those aspects of education, but quite frankly, they're also very good for the local economy. They provide excellent opportunities for employment. We have a large number of archivists and specially trained people who work out of the museum, and the ability for them to operate with better budgets, with stronger finances over time, simply means that their work and their opportunities for research and education will be further enhanced.

I'd like to speak briefly about the museum to highlight why this is so important not only for Victoria but, really, for the whole capital region. The Royal B.C. Museum contains detailed information on all the province's natural and human history. It houses a collection of over ten million objects and specimens valued at approximately $600 million (Canadian), so it has a significant catalogue of information.

The museum was founded in 1886. It was originally developed in the wings of the provincial legislative buildings until its current building was erected as a Canadian Centennial project in 1967. In fact, some of the members have their offices in what used to be the Royal British Columbia Museum. The museum building comprises a research and collections tower named for John Fannin, the museum's first curator.

In its present location, the museum creates state-of-the-art exhibits of the province's natural history and human history and devoted another gallery to British Columbia's first peoples. Open Oceans, the last large permanent exhibit, was added in 1987. Also on the site

is a first nations carving studio and big house as well as Thunderbird Park, famous for its totems. These areas are programmed and interpreted through a partnership with Victoria's Native Friendship Centre. St. Ann's Schoolhouse on Elliot Square dates back to 1843 and was used by the Sisters of St. Ann.

The museum not only represents a collection of history. It is, in fact, part of the history of this part of the province and part of the capital. By creating this cultural precinct, it brings those entities together for a more formal process of interpretation, education, cultural awareness and tourism opportunities. In 1996, as the minister mentioned, the province granted the museum special operating agency status, thereby allowing it to conduct its business in a more entrepreneurial fashion.

I can tell you that those involved with the museum took that opportunity to heart. They have worked very hard and very creatively to provide opportunities to raise additional funds for the purpose of the museum, for the purpose of education and for the purposes of tourism. In fact, one of the most creative events I've been to since I was elected to this House was when the Premiers conference was held in British Columbia a year and a half ago. The opening night reception was actually catered and held in the museum.

It was really a tremendous opportunity for the museum to engage in the catering business but also to bring people in a social atmosphere to actually see the history of the province. It's this type of creative thinking that the Royal B.C. Museum is demonstrating that really means its ability to become a world-class fundraising organization, the same way that it's a world-class museum, is already in place. Bill 2 will ensure that it can actually fulfil that mandate.

I want to just review very quickly that this has been a long process. The museum has identified the need to become a separate entity for some years. We became government only in 2001, and I know the minister directed the museum to review its operations in the fall of 2001 and examine ways to improve service.

In November 2002, in an open cabinet meeting, the government approved the museum's recommendation that the Royal British Columbia Museum become a Crown entity and that the British Columbia archives, Helmcken House and the Netherlands Carillon, previously under the purview of four separate ministries, be amalgamated with the museum to form a cultural precinct. I'm very pleased to see that the minister has moved quickly and thoroughly on this issue to actually enhance the ability of the museum to be the cultural centre that it is.

When we're talking about the Museum Act, Bill 2, I think it's important to quickly review what the mission of the Royal B.C. Museum is: to explore and preserve British Columbia's human and natural history, to inspire curiosity and wonder and to share our story with the world. This vision embraces three complementary objectives that reflect the museum's mandate and mission: (1) to maintain and disseminate the knowledge that resides in the collection, (2) to be a significant tourist attraction and (3) to be a place of discovery, scientific study and education. I think those are wonderful targets, and I believe that Bill 2, the Museum Act, will help ensure that all those who work and support the museum now will be able to take the museum to the next level. The next level will be a world-class museum. It'll be a world-class educational centre and research centre. I think that certainly for us here in the capital region, this is very exciting. In fact, it's exciting for the whole province.

The Museum Act will successfully target the Royal B.C. Museum's investment to attract and expand its collections, its customer base and financial revenues through ancillary commercial operations, new products and services, innovative branding and marketing strategies, admissions revenues, licensing opportunities, corporate sponsorships and fundraising campaigns. In other words, it will give it the freedom to operate in a commercial way while still ensuring that it, in fact, is a cultural and heritage entity.

As a corporate entity the museum will receive stable funding from government and will be able to raise additional revenue through donations and partnerships with corporations, companies, associations and private donors. The act will also lengthen the distance between the museum and government, thereby shifting the Royal B.C. Museum's reliance towards private sector partnerships. According to Pauline Rafferty, who I've quoted before and who is the museum's CEO, it has been 15 years since any large permanent exhibits have been added, and the Royal B.C. Museum is in need of major renewal and redevelopment to protect its collections and ensure it long-term success. The act will give the Royal B.C. Museum the independence it needs for diversified fundraising campaigns and P3 partnerships.

I am very excited and very supportive of Bill 2, the Museum Act. I feel that this is going to move Victoria's cultural tourism ahead, and I think it's exciting for visitors to the museum, for researchers who utilize the museum and the archives, for the staff that work there and for the volunteers. I wholeheartedly support this, and I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.

S. Orr: It's with great pleasure that I stand today in support of this act. The previous member, for Victoria–Beacon Hill, covered an awful lot of very good details — good technical details, good details about the operation of the museum — so I'm going to try and not repeat all of that. Everything he said is true, and I support that.

Where I'm coming from in support of this act is a very personal point of view. I have been involved with the museum for a long time. Don't go by my age, but it has been a long time. I've been involved with the players in the museum. I have helped fundraise. I have bought many, many fundraising event tickets. I have watched it go through its evolution, and I can tell you, this is coming straight from my heart.

The minister introduced this, and we will be putting this act through. I can only thank him, because I

spent quite a few days padding down these long hallways to his office, and he was incredibly patient listening to me extol the virtues of what we need to do in order to do this. He totally agreed. I have to say that this minister is a good visionary. He does some really good stuff when it comes to arts and culture. For that, I thank him. This is a part of that.

The Royal British Columbia Museum and the archives have a long and very proud history. It is a jewel. It's a jewel not just for people who live in Victoria, although I must admit we tend to think it is, because we do a lot of fundraising personally. It is a jewel for the province. I know that when all our guests come to town, the first thing we do is all go down to the museum. They also have a fabulous restaurant — just for a little bit of advertising, they do great catering too. They serve all British Columbians throughout their research and their education and on-line access.

What this act does more than anything is enable the board to make decisions that respond to the marketplace. I'm going to give you a little story about how that will now work as opposed to how it was working. The Leonardo da Vinci exhibition, as we all know, was a huge exhibition that came to town and really helped tourism, and everybody would say that we would love one of those twice a year.

But what happened was that the private sector, which was at that point the Gray Line bus tours, had wanted to do a deal with the museum. They had wanted to bring more tourists to town and sell it with a package — the museum ticket to the exhibition with a bus ticket. This was a package tour. Really, a decision could have been made on that in a day. That didn't happen. What happened was that it had to go through this long process, it had to go into government, and a whole bunch of people had to decide if it was going to work. The private sector doesn't wait for that. You make your decisions now, you run, and away you go. That was a really good example of why we needed this act and why we need this change.

Now the museum can respond. It can also respond to the bigger stage. The larger exhibits throughout the world don't really like to deal with government. They like to deal with private sectors. The big exhibits that go to all of the national museums throughout the world don't like to deal with government. This is going to really change that whole attitude. This is going to give the CEO of that museum the opportunity to go out there as a Crown corporation and sell the museum like a private sector museum.

As I said earlier, what I have to say really comes more from personal experience, and it comes from the heart. This is an extremely good decision. It is extremely good for tourism, and it is extremely good for the museum.

I'm going to end. We've been quoting Pauline Rafferty a lot, but I'm going to quote her again, because as far as I'm concerned, she is a fabulous CEO, as was her predecessor, Bill Barkley, who also was a wonderful CEO. Pauline is a visionary, she is a personal friend, and her passion for what is going to happen to this museum is wonderful. She said something that I thought resonated in me: "Today we have been given the opportunity to create a cultural centre that is limited only by imagination."

With that, I will end. Again, I thank the minister for his vision, for his forward thinking, for finally getting this through after a decade. We will all benefit from this, especially the citizens of this province.

R. Stewart: I rise to support this bill today. I rise as a representative, perhaps, of all the people in the lower mainland who grew up in my era knowing the highlight of our class's trip to Victoria was going to be our visit to the Royal B.C. Museum. It characterizes so much of what we learned about British Columbia.

As a young boy, we would make these trips to Victoria, and we would see the Legislature. It would interest us to some degree, but the museum carried our interest. The museum had, for us, what was British Columbia and what was the history of this province. It brought it so much to life that I was excited to read our act and the reasoning behind it, and to discuss with my colleagues from Victoria primarily, who knows much more about this issue and much more about the history of the museum itself, about the history of the workings of the people who put together the museum, the people who volunteer their time for its betterment and the people who benefit most from the museum — the people here in Victoria.

It certainly brought to mind the amount of trouble government often has in making the changes that I think government ought to make. In many cases you'll find things that government wants to do and has been trying to do — perhaps even succeeding governments — for many years, and no one is against them, but they don't get done. No one is against them, but it simply isn't possible to move forward in many circumstances.

I applaud the minister for putting this act forward. I applaud him particularly on behalf of the students of today who are going to be making their trip to Victoria, perhaps this month and next month, and they'll be seeing a museum that's second to none. It's a museum that speaks to the history of this province in such a personal way, and such an important way, that those of us who were born here in this province can look and realize that long before we came — long before my parents were born, long before my grandparents came to this province — there was a history of the first nations people and a history of the geology of this province all represented in a first-class museum. I want to thank the minister for this bill. I want to thank the people of B.C. for the vision and foresight that brought us the Royal B.C. Museum.

I. Chong: I feel that today I'm going to speak on nothing but tourism, starting from my two-minute statement earlier and speaking to Bill 18, the Coastal Ferry Act, and now to Bill 2, the Museum Act, which definitely has an impact on tourism in this region.

I first want to go back a number of years when I was first elected in 1996 and was appointed critic for

Small Business, Tourism and Culture. Shortly after my election, I was paid a visit almost immediately by the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum who, I think on urging from the CEO, requested a meeting with me. They came forward at that time with what appeared to me to be a new idea, and that was to transform the existing Royal B.C. Museum from what it was, which was a special operation agency or authority — it had just received that designation — to a Crown corporation. The reasons that they presented were sound. My colleagues before me have already stated those reasons. That was to allow this jewel of a museum, this provincial asset, to have an opportunity to grow, to diversify and to have the ability to enhance its current financial resources to provide yet more opportunities for the people who will be visiting this particular museum. It makes a great deal of sense to me.

While I was the critic for Small Business, Tourism and Culture in that term before this one, I canvassed this on a number of occasions and always received responses from the ministers then responsible that it wasn't a bad idea, but they were just having to work on it — to work on it again and then, thereafter, work on it again. I recall the last time I spoke on this was in the spring of 2000. The then minister responsible was Ian Waddell, and I was almost tired of asking him when they would finally move on this legislated corporation and allow it to move forward. He indicated to me that, in fact, the government had finally seen the light. It was time. They were actually looking at drafting it. They were in the final stages of it, but it would likely be in the fall that it would be ready.

I was hopeful that in the spring of 2001, even knowing that an election was right around the corner, they might have had the gumption — that they might have fought for one legacy that they could have left behind, a positive legacy. Unlike the fast ferries, of course, but a positive legacy they could have left behind was in fact the transforming of this into a Crown corporation or a legislated corporation, one that would allow the Royal B.C. Museum to capitalize on its existing resources. But they didn't do this, and an election was called.

Shortly after the election — in fact, I think, a week after the election — I received a phone call again from the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum who asked what had happened to the proposed legislation by the NDP and where it might be. Of course, at that time I was not in a position to share anything with them. It was too soon. Cabinet had not yet been sworn in, and I didn't know who the minister responsible would be. Once the minister was sworn in — that is, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services…. I think it was within that week that I paid him a visit and asked him where this legislation might be and how soon we can move on it. I very much wanted to see it come forward. I very much would support legislation allowing the Royal B.C. Museum to become a force unto its own, to be a Crown corporation. He indicated to me that yes, amongst his many other obligations that he had responsibility for, he would look at this. I took him at his word that he would look into it. Shortly thereafter he indicated to me that he did and that the previous legislation did, in fact, have some problems, but he was certain that they could work those things out and move forward.

I know, as well, that my colleagues in the Victoria area had gone to see the minister, so he was getting pressure from, I would say, a number of areas. We paid him regular visits, and I know he listened to us. The fact that we have Bill 2, the Museum Act, is proof that he listened to us.

Establishing the Royal B.C. Museum as a legislative corporation means that we're going to have a new board of directors — one that I think is going to provide a sound business approach, and that's important to me. The board of directors will consist of both government and community representatives. That, too, is important, because it means that government will still be able to maintain some control over this provincial asset, this jewel. At the same time, community input will be there at the table making these very important decisions to ensure that this museum continues to survive, to be sustainable and, in fact, to be quite profitable. I think that's a very important feature with the setup of the board of directors.

I want to also briefly state and read into the record a part of the bill. While the bill was introduced, I don't expect many people will pull the legislation for it and read it. I think it's important, while I have the opportunity at this time to speak on this bill, to read into Hansard the purposes of the corporation, so all those who may want to review what is said at the second reading debate understand the reasons why I so wholeheartedly support this legislation. It states here in section 4 of Bill 2 the purposes of the corporation. They are as follows: (a) to secure, receive and preserve specimens, artifacts and archival and other materials that illustrate the natural or human history of British Columbia; (b) to hold and manage the archives of the government; (c) to increase and communicate knowledge of the natural and human history of British Columbia by research, exhibits, publications and other means; (d) to serve as an educational organization; (e) to develop exhibits that are of interest to the public; (f) to manage, conserve and provide access to the collection; (g) on the request of the government, to manage cultural and heritage facilities designated by the government; (h) to perform functions usually performed by a museum and archives.

I think that sums it up quite well. It sums up what we do expect our Royal B.C. Museum to do. That is what they have done in the past, but this again confirms it. This reinforces in legislation what they are to do and, in fact, makes it that much stronger. The Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum have been asking for this legislation for years, as the minister indicated. It's finally here, and I think it's good not only for the greater Victoria capital region area but also for the entire province.

I recall the exhibits that have come through that museum and the limitations that were there. I recall

one of the first ones — the Genghis Khan exhibit. I think that was the first major exhibit that the museum procured for one of its showings. It was learning, at that time, how to market that kind of an exhibit. While it was still learning some of those things, I think it was also restricted very much by government, because they weren't able to look at other avenues of increasing what could have been a substantial increase to their budget, which would have allowed them to make improvements not only to perhaps their building but looking at other smaller exhibits that they could bring here.

It's already been mentioned: the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit — a hugely successful exhibit. Right to the very last weeks and days people were lined up around the block. People from Seattle…. Again, tourism potential was very much brought to light. The Leonardo da Vinci exhibit allowed other businesses throughout greater Victoria to also highlight the exhibit — to do a play on the Leonardo da Vinci exhibit within their businesses and to promote it that much more.

We recently had the Emily Carr exhibit, one of British Columbia's own personalities — very important as well. To be able to showcase her life in the Royal B.C. Museum was a natural fit, another successful exhibit. And now, today, we have Dragon Bones: When Dinosaurs Ruled China — as has already been said by many people — an outstanding exhibit that is going to bring tourists from all over. I even think our Asian and international tourists will perhaps pay us a visit here in Victoria. When this exhibit was back in their homeland, perhaps it could have been in a region that they were not able to visit. Coming to Vancouver and coming over to Victoria, paying an extra day visit or an extra night visit here, is certainly going to benefit our local economy and community.

There is huge local support here. There are financial donors who have already made it known that they want to support this as well. The mandate of this museum is not going to change based on the purposes, as I've outlined, in the legislation. I think everything that is important to this corporation will now be able to be solidified. One thing I do want to say that's important to me, as a local area MLA, is that the head office of the corporation will be here in the city of Victoria, and that is good for all of us who represent this museum.

With that, I thank you again for the opportunity to offer my comments on second reading of Bill 2, the Museum Act, which is very much supported by this member and her constituents.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope my voice holds up here for a little while. I do particularly want to thank my colleagues — the members who have spoken on this bill — for their very generous comments. I'll do my best to weather the current storm of appreciation and tuck it in my pocket for perhaps more difficult days in the future, although, hopefully, we won't have very many of those.

I think what's clear in all of the comments that have been made by the members is the enormous pride that these members and all British Columbians feel in the great institution of the Royal B.C. Museum — that great jewel in our provincial crown. It is a point of pride not only to the city of Victoria but to every corner of British Columbia. Certainly, it's a great point of pride in my own constituency of Shuswap. People love this institution. Many have, as one of the members noted, fond memories of visiting the museum as a school child and coming away from that with a much greater appreciation of British Columbia's rich history and rich heritage. I do want to thank the members very much for their comments. This legislation, Bill 2, before the House right now, will put the Royal B.C. Museum on a sound and responsible footing to meet both the challenges and the opportunities that it will see as the twenty-first century unfolds.

We have been very fortunate…. I think it's important that I make a note of this. We have enjoyed outstanding leadership at the Royal B.C. Museum both from the Royal B.C. Museum board and from the Friends of the Royal B.C. Museum as well as its executive director, Pauline Rafferty, who has done an outstanding job.

Of course the museum would not be what it is today were it not for the hundreds and thousands of volunteers who help out at the Royal B.C. Museum and make it the very special place that it is. I've actually had the opportunity, on a few occasions now, to enjoy the most recent exhibit at the museum — clearly a world-class exhibit — Dragon Bones, the Chinese dinosaur exhibit. It's a beautiful thing to see the kids there and see the absolute fascination and joy in their faces as they see one of the more remarkable exhibits that has ever taken place in this province or this nation. It's a great place to celebrate British Columbia's heritage and history, a great place to currently celebrate that very rich paleontology history that comes to us from China.

As a number of the members have noted, the changes contained in Bill 2 are ones that have been sought for years now by the Royal B.C. Museum. I'm very proud that I had the good fortune to be the minister responsible at a time when the museum was able to take this very important step forward. We have, in the Royal B.C. Museum, a great institution that by every measure has a great future in our great province of British Columbia.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 2 be placed on the orders of the day for committal at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Hon. G. Abbott: I call estimates debate of the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

Perhaps we'll take just a very brief recess to allow members to enter the chamber to join in the debate.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'd like to introduce to you Janice Aull, who's the executive director of strategic management services with the ministry; Deputy Minister Chris Haynes; and the legendary Les Foster, who is the assistant deputy minister for management services.

I am proud to support the budget of which this vote is a part and the direction in which it will take our province and our citizens. The government of British Columbia continues to build a new era of economic and social strength for the province. Much emphasis is being placed on repairing B.C.'s economy, especially in the heartlands, in rural and regional British Columbia.

Within this overall context, the Ministry of Children and Family Development has immediate and specific challenges to meet. The rebuilding of community capacity is needed to accompany and reinforce the economic strategy. This ministry is already transforming its structure to meet new and emerging challenges. Regional and community governance offers parents and communities the resources and decision-making authority they need to build flexible, innovative, responsive services to vulnerable children and adults in their communities. As we continue to move from a centralized to a community-based structure, we recognize that new governance structures are not an end in themselves but, rather, a way in which to achieve our strategic shifts.

Today I want to give a report on the progress the ministry has made in the last year and then move to more detailed discussion of the ministry's budget. First, however, I want to deal with the issues of accountability and standards, particularly in the area of child protection. A few critics of the government and the ministry have suggested that the reductions in the number of children in care or the move to community governance itself or the projections of lower costs are putting vulnerable children at risk. This is not true. There is no evidence to support that.

What is true is this: we are moving to a system that has a greater focus on improving the outcomes for children and families. How does it do this? These are some of the ways: by moving from a system that protects children by removing them from their families and communities to one that keeps them safe in partnership with the community; by involving children, families and other community members in designing services that build on existing strengths of communities; by giving communities real power and authority in decision-making about at-risk children and families; by supporting child protection workers, who must make the inherently risky judgments that their profession demands; by giving those workers a wider range of tools and options that they can use to bring about the best possible outcomes for the children and families they work with; and by investing in programs that improve the parenting strength of families and improve the outcomes for their children.

These are the kind of objectives the ministry has been pursuing. We certainly haven't been making any secret of that. Nor have we made a secret of the results so far.

The number of children in care in British Columbia climbed by more than 60 percent from the mid-1990s to reach a peak of 10,775 in June of 2001. Since then the number has dropped by more than 1,000. Last month there were just over 9,600 children in care.

The paramount principles of the Child, Family and Community Service Act are safety and well-being of children. In the previous decade the ministry focused on the concept of child safety but largely dismissed the concept of child well-being. The current approach of the ministry is to restore that balance.

Much of what the ministry does remains unchanged. There have been no reductions in the number of child protection workers on the front line. The ministry has filled a significant number of vacancies, especially in the hard-to-staff northern and remote regions of the province. All reports of children or youth at risk are followed up. Investigation, risk assessment and case-by-case analysis remain unchanged from previous years. Accountability to the director of child protection and the courts remains unchanged.

Several things, however, are changing profoundly. Caseload demographics are changing. A large cohort of the caseload that grew so quickly in the 1990s is aging out. That is, they are reaching 19, the age of majority, and leaving government care. Adoptions of children in care are increasing. Two years ago, in fiscal 2000-01, the ministry placed 163 children for adoption. For fiscal year '01-02, the target for the number of adoptions reached 244. This year we placed 250 children by the end of January and are confident that by year-end, we will reach the target of 300. There were 360 homes available for adoption, of which 270 were willing and approved to adopt children with special needs.

The number of child protection reports that come to the ministry has dropped since June 2001 from about 100 per day to about 90. Strategic investments in early childhood development are identifying at-risk children early, so the potential problems can be addressed before they become crises. Fewer children are likely to

Professional child and family workers are being encouraged to utilize the full range of their knowledge and experience, including supporting and developing families, community outreach, etc.

Bill 17 provides kith-and-kin provisions and family group counselling to give courts and ministry workers for the placement of children after they have been removed from the home. This means that when it is in the child's best interests and following the making of a custody order, the child's extended family, friends of the family or other community members who have a significant bond to the child may be considered as potential guardians.

By focusing on outcomes rather than regulations, we've also reduced overlap and red tape. The ministry has eliminated over 4,500 regulations so that social workers can spend time with children and families rather than with paperwork. Five bodies formerly oversaw the delivery of services to children and youth: the child, youth and family advocate, the Children's Commission, the office of the ombudsman, the B.C. Coroners Service and the ministry itself. The Office for Children and Youth now integrates the key functions of the commissioner and the advocate. The coroner and the ombudsman continue to be responsible for their mandated services.

Finally, research in many jurisdictions has shown that sensational media coverage of controversial child protection cases can boost the caseload of children in care. The past months have been a period of relative calm in the media around issues of child protection. Those are some of the factors behind the drop in the ministry's child protection caseload, and they will continue to apply in the years to come.

They in themselves won't provide a smooth transition of caseload management to the new governance authorities. That requires careful analysis and planning, which has been taking place in the ministry and among our community partners. Under community governance, the roles and responsibilities of the ministry and the authorities will be separate but complementary. In general, the ministry will establish and maintain the parameters of the service delivery system and monitor and report to the minister on the performance of the system against agreed-to expectations.

The authorities will be responsible for operational management and delivery of services for the monitoring and reporting of their performance. For child and family development we are working to adapt the internationally accepted council on accreditation standards for the delivery of child and family services. The adaptation will reflect the specific requirements of British Columbia's legislation and government priorities for child protection, family development, guardianship, resources and adoption service delivery. This will be fully developed in consultation with the emerging authorities and will form the basis for their accreditation. It will be accompanied by a comprehensive set of criteria covering other measures of organizational readiness, and each authority will have to meet it before it can take responsibility and resources for program development and service delivery.

All of this is being done under the full gaze of clients, stakeholders, ministry staff and the public. I am sure every member has seen the reports and media across the province about public consultation and planning meetings. There have been hundreds of these meetings in the last six months, all designed to give individuals and organizations a way to be part of the future of child and family development in their community. These meetings have been well advertised, well attended and very positive. They have been supported by the ministry's Internet system, which now includes sites for the regional and aboriginal authorities.

Our website traffic will total more than 600,000 site visits by more than 130,000 different visitors in the current fiscal year. Those visitors will have viewed and downloaded more than two and a half million pages of information about the ministry and its activities. These numbers are growing by 30 percent a year or more and are steadily adding to the range of information that is on the site.

The ministry is living up to its first strategic shift which commits us to open, accountable and transparent relationships. We want everyone to know what we are thinking, where we are going and how they can be a part of that process.

When I spoke in estimates debate a year ago, we were in the early stages of laying out our plans for community governance. In the last year we not only have defined our goals but have also moved approximately halfway to meeting them.

By one measure, the greatest progress has been made in the area of community living. When the House passed enabling legislation last October that allowed me to establish an interim community living authority, the Community Living Transition Steering Committee had already delivered a comprehensive report to me. As a result, we were able to move quickly into a period of comanagement between the ministry and an interim authority that was created in December. Since then we have done an expert review of the transition committee's plan, and a joint budget working group has developed a plan to reduce the cost of services while maintaining the current level of resources to individuals with developmental disabilities and their families.

The ministry and the interim authority have been involved in a new round of public consultation to help bring agreement to the new budget and the service plans. During this time, the interim authority's powers were restricted to transitional, advisory, planning and development activities. It is not empowered to provide direct services to clients. It uses staff who are seconded from the ministry or other areas of government or who are retained on an independent contractor basis.

The authority expects to be able to meet the ministry's readiness criteria and start providing services to

adults with developmental disabilities, children with special needs and children with autism spectrum disorder and their families by the fall of this year. To do that requires further legislation allowing the minister to establish a permanent authority, and I expect that to be before the House later in this session.

The remarkable work that has been done by dedicated people in the community and the ministry has been inspired by a vision that allows for the personalization of environments and the true inclusion of people with disabilities. I believe the new authority will promote and enhance choice, innovation and shared responsibility among everyone involved: families, communities and caregivers. Together we will work towards a system based on people's contributions, not their deficiencies.

As members know, Children and Family Development is moving toward a five-region governance model that reflects the boundaries of the five health districts. Interim CEOs and regional planning committees were appointed last year, and extensive community consultations have been going on for months. Most of the planning committees are now writing their reports for submission in the coming weeks. The next step will be the appointment of interim authorities and boards. This will take us into a period of comanagement that will last until the interim boards have met all the readiness criteria and can give way to permanent authorities that take on responsibility for service delivery. That was originally scheduled for April of 2004 but may be as early as next fall for one or two of those regions. As with the community living authority, this will require further legislation later in this session. Each regional authority board will be expected to integrate its service delivery planning with the boards of other regional authorities.

Boards will be given basic parameters and flexibility to carry out activities, with key performance measures in place to ensure accountability. Accountabilities will be clearly set out within empowerment agreements. Empowerment agreements will promote shared responsibility among government and the regional authorities. These agreements will focus on realistic goals and will embed benchmark and outcome measurements. Funding agreements will identify budget targets and encourage communities to be innovative. Collaborative planning will allow the authorities to make their own decisions in the planning of community projects and regulations. Authorities will identify stakeholders and invite their participation, gain agreement among participants and call for consensus planning and decision-making.

It is a much longer road to travel, but in many ways the most impressive progress has been made towards aboriginal governance of child and family development. When I spoke in estimates last year, I could only discuss the prospect in very broad terms. There was no agreement within the ministry or the aboriginal communities on what the solutions might be. There was only consensus on the need. While the total number of children in care has dropped by more than 1,000 children since June of 2001, the number of children of aboriginal origin has held steady at more than 4,300 children. This means that the proportion of the caseload that is of aboriginal origin has jumped from 30 percent in 1997 to 45 percent today. One in 20 of all aboriginal children and youth in B.C. are in care, while less than one in 100 non-aboriginal children is in care.

There are too few aboriginal foster homes, agencies and other caregivers. When there is trouble in the home, too many aboriginal children in care become separated from their families and their communities. Research tells us that the outcomes for children removed from their communities and their culture are likely to be poor.

We are now in the process of changing that in a new and historic partnership between the government of British Columbia and its aboriginal communities. This new collaborative relationship is being made possible by the mutual agreement among the aboriginal leadership as expressed in the Tsawwassen accord created last June. It was followed by the memorandum of agreement signed in September by the Premier; myself; the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; and aboriginal leaders and service providers from across British Columbia.

Together, government and the political and aboriginal leadership agreed that the system has not worked well in the past for aboriginal children and youth, that there are too many aboriginal children in care in British Columbia and that outcomes can be improved for these children if they can be safely returned to their communities. First nations, Métis, Inuit and other aboriginal peoples have an inherent right to and jurisdiction over the safety and well-being of their children and families.

We have begun a respectful ongoing relationship and dialogue on all issues relating to the safety and well-being of aboriginal children and families. Our relationship is based on mutual trust and mutual respect. To help manage this process, we've created the joint aboriginal management committee, which includes all the major aboriginal organizations and aboriginal service agencies in B.C. I am a co-chair.

This management committee will establish priorities and monitor progress on reducing the number of aboriginal children in care and returning them to their communities. It will advise on the best allocation of resources within the ministry to address the issues affecting aboriginal children, families and communities. It will be a forum for dialogue and exchange of information among the member organizations, the regional aboriginal authorities and their communities. It will ensure that the full range of perspectives is examined. It will ensure that the committee will meet at least four times a year.

The ministry will fund the joint aboriginal management committee, its secretariat and any working groups or subcommittees that are necessary. Meanwhile, aboriginal planning or transition groups have been appointed in each of the five regions of the prov-

ince, and they are working on community consultations to begin to sketch out the future of aboriginal governance of services to children and families in parallel with the non-aboriginal CFD authorities.

There is some progress to report in the care of aboriginal children. The number of children in care of delegated agencies has grown from fewer than 600 in June to almost 1,000 today. VACFASS in Vancouver is one of the largest. It has become Canada's first delegated urban aboriginal agency. We expect the kith-and-kin and family group conferencing provisions of Bill 17 to draw on traditional strengths of the aboriginal cultures. This will help to keep more children safe within their extended families and within their communities.

With that, I'd like to move the budget numbers for the coming year. The budget presentation has been reconfigured to reflect the new shape of the ministry with the current years restated in the same manner. There are several additions and changes from previous budgets and service plans.

Service for school-age children with autism disorder are funded at $9 million for 2003-04, at $11.6 million in '04-05 and at $9.5 million in '05-06. Restatement of the school-based programs with a new community link is funded at $37 million for '03-04, and the systems capital budget as it relates to new authorities becomes an operating expense from '04-05 onward. The community living services budget goes down from $630.8 million in the current fiscal year to $553.3 million in '03-04.

It's important to remember that the current year's spending includes approximately $50 million in one-time restructuring costs that are intended to help achieve future service efficiencies. The interim community living services authority is working with the contractors, clients and the ministry to implement a more responsive and efficient service delivery system. Innovations being considered include individualized funding in family homes or apartments. A hundred current residents of two-to-four-bed group homes and semi-independent living could exercise this choice this year.

Savings of about $4.3 million could be achieved in further years. Longer-term full implementation could be about 270 clients for annualized savings in the range of $15 million. Cluster homes of six to seven apartments in a building or complex with appropriate service to provide supports…. If 100 residents of the two-to-four-bed group homes and semi-independent living clients exercise this option, we could generate further savings, and savings of about $11 million are possible within the estimates of about 250 clients at full implementation. Adding one bed to four-bed group homes, it is estimated that 50 who currently live in one-to-three-bed group homes may choose this option.

Alternatives for people with significant needs at Willow Clinic include looking at more complete personal planning for about 25 of them, and I believe that with a community-based alternative, there could be a more responsive and more effective service delivery model. Currently, there are about 50 adults — costing an average of about $250,000 — living in Willow Clinic and in agency-operated homes in service provision which we think can be improved.

Group homes with six or more beds. We see housing in excess of five beds somewhat inconsistent with the long-term vision, and we think we can achieve those as well. With those introductory remarks, I'm prepared to answer any questions that may come forward.

J. MacPhail: I've notified the minister and his staff of the order of questions. I'll be doing social equity, community governance, child protection, special needs, aboriginal issues, mental health for children, foster care, group homes, youth justice, the service plan and then early childhood development.

On social equity. Social equity programs are funded by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. The funding for the social equity programs provides school meals, inner-city initiatives, funding for community schools and funding for youth and family counsellors. The budget for school-linked programs is $37 million for this year — '03-04. Last year's budget for the social equity programs was $43 million. Where is the $7 million to cut going to be found in those programs?

Hon. G. Hogg: We have, over the past number of months, initiated the first — that we can find — evidence-based review of the programs which are taking place within this province and ensuring that they go to those who are most in need. We have developed a model that is a social equity model — a model based on sociodemographic factors — to ensure that we look at and are involved with those students who are most in need.

To do that, we have looked across the province. As the member is well aware, there are about 705 schools in this province which have over 10 percent of their students coming from families on income assistance. That goes up to…. I think the highest one is about 64 percent of the students on income assistance. So as we've looked at this, we've wanted to ensure that there is greater equity, because the current allocation process sees a number of school districts receiving far more money, on both a per-capita basis and a need basis, than any of the other school districts. We're wanting to move forward into a model that reflects more accurately and appropriately the funding going to those who are in need.

We're also looking at a delivery system which is dramatically different — a system which would see the funding go to the social service authorities, with the authorities entering into accountability contracts with each one of the school districts for the services. To complement that we also are entering into a contract with Breakfast for Learning, which is a national non-profit society that works with and assists in the development of food provision programs; the B.C. School Trustees Association, to look at ensuring that there is a comparison of best practices, that each of the school

districts receive international information with respect to the best practices, as well as the best practices which are evident within this province; and the B.C. CPAC, the parent advisory councils.

The research that we've looked at internationally says that for programs to be successful, the most important criteria are that they be delivered locally, and that they have the participation of the parents and of the community involved with them as well. We've also been talking with the Association of Community Educators and looking at how they can participate in terms of cooperative, community-based response and programs for this.

We're moving into partnership programs and reallocating those dollars based on needs. The $37 million, which the member has referred to, will be allocated based on greatest need — based on the set of criteria that have come forward. Fifty percent of that allocation will be based on the way it has been traditionally done, and the other 50 percent will be allocated based on the socioeconomic modelling which has been done across the province.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister somehow suggesting that the previous money was being improperly spent, like not being spent on poor kids, and that's why they had to cut $7 million? It sounds to me like there's a greater need than what's currently being served.

Hon. G. Hogg: There are examples of the money not being used as effectively as it certainly could. We have now compared ourselves with other provinces in Canada, and with the strategies which I've outlined, I believe we will have the most accountable, responsive service delivery in terms of this. Saskatchewan, I believe, will be very close to us, but there are no other provinces which have entered into a program that demands the same type of accountabilities and outcomes that this program will.

With respect specifically to the member saying, "Has some of the money gone to children who are not in need?" I'm sure there are different levels of need, and we want to make sure that the money is focused on those who have the greatest need. That's why we've entered into this system and entered into partnerships: to ensure that we can focus the dollars on those who have the greatest need, because the evidence is very clear that a number of the students with the greatest need have not been receiving funding under the current model.

J. MacPhail: There was a huge list of criteria that had to be met by the school boards in term of applying for inner-city school funding. It wasn't a political exercise. It was a rigorous application where schools had to keep track of all their socioeconomic circumstances — number of aboriginal children, number of English-language training children, services in the area.

I'm just curious, though, because I've heard the minister do this in question period as well — to somehow allude to the program being rife with need for change because the right children weren't getting the funding. Now, that's different than saying not enough children were getting the funding. But I'm just wondering if the minister…. I'm very familiar with this program, and perhaps the minister could give examples. He doesn't have to name the school, but he can name the type of program and the inappropriate expenditure of dollars.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm sure there may well have been criteria, but certainly there has been no rational application of those criteria that we can find. There's no increase in the funds since 1996. By any model that we've looked at, the distribution of funds, as it has existed in the past, seems to have been based on a first come, first served basis — those criteria applied against.

Certainly, if we look at the income assistance families, it clearly does not reflect that. If we look at a set of criteria that are based on the socioeconomic modelling, the money has not been distributed based on that type of model. Clearly, we've had our staff and other professionals look at the modelling, trying to determine what, in fact, may well have been the basis. There is not any sound evidence that suggests that there's a rational approach to how that money has been distributed over the past number of years.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm sorry. That's exactly wrong. There was a rigorous application that school boards had to fill out — rigorous. I participated in that not as an MLA but as a parent. There was a rigorous application. It took into effect the number of people on social assistance, because I remember principals saying to me: "Why are you making us go through all this? Look around. We're poor." The minister is wrong — flat-out wrong.

He also didn't answer my question. Give me examples of where it was inappropriate funding, because I guess that's the only thing that could justify a cut. If the minister is correct — and I take him at his word — that the funding hasn't increased since 1996, how is it that he's now cutting $7 million from the budget? Just give the explanation about where there was $7 million of waste.

Hon. G. Hogg: Again, there may well have been criteria. But certainly if you look at income assistance and the list that I've reviewed, the list of 705 schools, there are schools in the top 20 of that who did not receive a cent of funding, schools that had over 40 percent of their students coming from families on income assistance that did not get a cent of money.

That suggests to me, firstly, that the rationale…. If income assistance and poverty was one of the criteria being employed, it was not being employed universally across this province. That's why the information I've continued to receive suggests there may well have been criteria, but not everyone used them or applied them, because in some jurisdictions of the province it is

clearly disproportional in terms of the amount of money they were funding compared to the amount of poverty that existed.

Secondly, the office of the comptroller general did a report on a segment of the school-based programming, and that was to do with the school-based child care workers, and said that there were no clear outcomes, no ways of measuring whether or not there was any impact or effect with respect to how that program was functioning. In fact, the comptroller general was very critical of the operation of that section of the program. I think that represents about $16 million worth of the overall provision of services. Clearly, within that section alone there are other ways to look at managing and delivering those.

Ultimately, when we looked at the research from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries, and looked at those around the world, the criteria which seemed to be important in terms of the effect of this program were how it was delivered, the participation and the involvement of parents of children in the community. It didn't seem to matter as much whether or not it was a hot lunch program or a breakfast program, child care workers assisting at the school or a community school. The fact that there was an involvement and commitment by people in the community seemed to have the outcome which would change and affect the educational outcomes.

It has been very clear in comparing the educational outcomes in those 705 schools that have over 10 percent of their students on income assistance that the performance of all children in the school tends to drop off when the quantum reaches 10 percent. If you come from a family on income assistance and you attend a school that has over 10 percent of the students on income assistance, you're in double jeopardy in terms of that performance. We want to ensure that we're able to focus on those schools, those areas that have the highest percentage of students on income assistance, so that we can accrue a benefit to all of them in terms of their educational performance.

One specific area is the $16 million that has been applied there. If these criteria that the member was referring to were applied in the 1990s, the sociodemographics since the early 1990s have changed dramatically across this province. The criteria we're looking at are very current and up to date, the best sociodemographic data we can get. Certainly, if the original formulas were put in place in '91 or '92, they have changed dramatically since then.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to get at here is: what justifies a $7 million cut? That's what I'm getting at. Is it like what you're doing in assisted living, where you have to have the highest level of complex care in order to get service? Will there be more children funded with the $7 million less? What happens to the program now that they have to operate with — let's see — a 1/7 cut? Perhaps the minister could actually tell me what this auditor general's study actually is — is it on the youth and family counsellors? — the date of the study and what the ministry's response to the auditor general's investigation was.

Hon. G. Hogg: The report was in '97. It is on the website, and we can provide a copy of that for the member. The response of the ministry at that point in time was that the issues would be looked at and the program would be tightened to ensure that there were more specific outcomes. To date that has not taken place.

J. MacPhail: Well, my gosh, I guess you can blame the public service for everything, blame the public service for the cuts the minister and his government are making, but that's simply not true. I was wondering whether that was the study the minister was referring to, from back in 1997, that he's trying to use to justify a $7 million cut six years later. It's just like relying on the salmon aquaculture review. This government will take anything in order to justify its cuts to programs. Come on, let's have a legitimate discussion about this program.

I'll stop asking questions if the minister will stand up and just simply acknowledge: "We had to cut money. I had to take X percentage from my budget. I had to cut" — because the minister has cut all across his budget — "and I had to take $7 million from this program." I can't figure out, for the life of him, how he's justifying that a $7 million cut to poor kids is better news. I can't figure it out. Maybe he could help me by saying what schools of the 705 won't be getting as much funding as they did before and what new schools will be getting funding.

Hon. G. Hogg: I'm advised there were no changes in the delivery system since the report of the comptroller general. That's why we've looked at those recommendations and the changes that were requested and are trying to implement those in terms of a more effective service delivery system and model now.

The funding, which is available, will be delivered in a different system. Last year all of the money went to the school districts, from the ministry directly to the school districts, who then applied it in methods they felt were the most effective and responsive.

The B.C. School Trustees Association has been able to look at and develop, along with the ministry, a compendium of best practices, which has not been available in the past. They're now in the process of circulating that so school districts can look at programs which are more effective, the primary criterion being educational performance and the improvement of educational performance. That information is being circulated.

We have a commitment from the Minister of Finance that as we go through this process and find more effective ways of service delivery, if there are more funds which are needed to look at and to move into this program, he will look upon that favourably. We are in the process of developing a system of delivery which is more effective, as I said earlier. I'm comfort-

able and confident now that the system of delivery and the methods by which we're doing that will be the most effective, most responsive and most accountable in Canada. We need to get on with that. We need to be able to do it in ways that make sense.

Certainly, across this ministry we would be pleased to have more money to be able to respond to more needs, but we believe that the funding we have should go to those who have the greatest need and to the areas which will have the greatest impact, in terms of educational performance for those who are at greatest need, of having an educational playing field levelled as much as we possibly can.

Hon. G. Hogg: One study done by Dr. David Hay is a set of studies where he's looked at the OECD countries, as well as the United States, in terms of these types of programs. That is a study which was done for this ministry, and we can make a copy of that available, should the member so require.

Dr. Clyde Hertzman has been involved in the work of putting together the sociodemographic modelling, and there has been a study with respect to outcomes. One of the things we needed to do was show the actual educational outcomes and how we could improve educational outcomes through school-based programming, through a program such as community link. We were able to look at comparable schools in terms of size and sociodemographics, some which had functioning school-based programs which were deemed to be effective and others that didn't have any.

You can watch on the graphing that is done for that and see that for the educational performance in those schools that have over 10 percent of the students from families on income assistance, the educational performance across the board of the school falls off; whereas if you can put effective school-based programming in, you can see the performance of those comparable schools come back into line with those that would have less than 10 percent. We're able, through that modelling, to show specifically that particular types of school-based programs have a definite positive impact on the educational outcomes of the students within them. That was part of the modelling that was done; that was the part of the study that was done.

To find out what was most effective, we contracted with Dr. Hay to be able to review all the research, do a meta-analysis of the research that is out there to give us the specific outcomes in terms of what was effective. When we apply those effectiveness criteria to the types of programs that are functioning today, they don't all meet those. That's why we want to enter into a different service delivery model system that works with each of the school districts and with the authorities around an accountability contract for service delivery, which I'm confident will be able to support the improvement of educational performance for those students who come from more socially disadvantaged homes than some of the other students that they compete with in the educational system.

J. MacPhail: Did this study come to the conclusion that you could afford to spend $7 million less?

Hon. G. Hogg: The study concluded that the money that we have been expending could be spent more effectively and more efficiently and that we could probably, through a different service delivery system, provide better outcomes than we are currently receiving for the amount of money being spent.

J. MacPhail: But you're cutting it by $7 million. You're cutting it by 13 or 14 percent. By 14 percent, you're cutting the funding. Did the modelling show that you would be able to attain better educational outcomes with 14 percent less money?

Hon. G. Hogg: Modelling suggests that we can provide services which will attain the same type of outcomes for funding levels less than we've been expending in the past, which have not been getting the type of outcomes that we wanted to get. We can get better outcomes for less money than we're currently expending.

J. MacPhail: Well, I'm familiar with Dr. Hertzman's work. Maybe you can tell me how you're able to judge those educational outcomes in the course of one fiscal year.

Hon. G. Hogg: Because there has been a lot of stability within the program since 1996 in terms of the funding that has been there, because we've been able to look at the foundation skills assessment to look at grades 4, 7 and 10 and the performance levels against those, we've had that period of time to be able to study it. We've been able to look at the performance levels of schools that have programs that were deemed to be effective, those that have not been as effective and those that don't have any programs at all. Those types of comparisons have allowed us to look at it. It's not just been a snapshot. It's actually been a historical review that has gone back to 1996 looking at those types of comparisons.

J. MacPhail: And this is what Dr. David Hay or Dr. Hertzman did for you. I'd appreciate those studies, if I may, please, and I'd appreciate them before I conclude estimates as well.

Hon. G. Hogg: The allocations will be based on school districts. As a result of this modelling there will be less funding, and therefore there will be some schools which will receive less funding than they have in the past year.

J. MacPhail: What programs are you targeting? There are school meals, inner-city initiatives, commu-

nity schools, and youth and family counsellors. What direction are you giving about any or all of those programs in terms of their continuation, enhancement or cuts?

Hon. G. Hogg: Those decisions will be made by school districts, who will want to choose which programs they feel are most appropriate and most effective, the ones they have the resources for within their communities to respond to the types of needs that are evident and existent within their school districts. We won't be providing a blanket "here are the programs which you must provide," but we expect that the Ministry of Children and Family Development's staff, in conjunction with the school districts and in conjunction with the data we have from the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Human Resources, will be able to make decisions around which programs are most useful and most effective for any given program. They have the ability to adjust those in ways that make the most sense.

I gave the example of one school that has 64 percent of the students coming from families on income assistance. They may well choose to fully fund that one and look at reductions in some of the other schools within that district. That'll occur out of the dialectic which will take place between the ministry's regional authority and the given school district.

J. MacPhail: The minister has just said the past program hasn't worked. Why is he now leaving it up to school board to decide how to spend less money?

Hon. G. Hogg: I also said to the member that there are a number of other criteria which are also in place. One of those is that we have the involvement of the Ministry of Children and Family Development's regional authority working with the school districts, which has not been there in the past. Hopefully, we can bring the resources of the ministry to look at the broad-spectrum needs of any given community. That's the first change.

Another change is based on the evidence that we've been able to glean through the research work which has been done and which will be provided through the B.C. School Trustees Association, which is prepared to look at, compile and provide that to school boards across the province. Next is the work with the BCCPAC, the parent advisory councils, who have also been able to compile information and are prepared to participate and ensure that their parent advisory councils around the province are aware of the criteria which are effective, and they are utilizing those at the schools to ensure that that happens in a concerted and effective way. The Association of Community Educators is also involved in and looking at and working with the development of those types of services.

There are many more resources in place, many more accountabilities, which include an accountability contract between the ministry and each school district and the service deliverables which will be there. Through this system of evidence-based research, of the application of best practices from around the world and an accountability contract, we will be able to ensure that we are focusing…. That, combined with sociodemographic data, will make sure we're focusing on those in greatest need, and we'll have a system in place for accountability and deliverance to those people of greatest need in a way which we will measure and be accountable for.

J. MacPhail: I take it that school meals, inner-city initiatives, community school funding, and youth and family counsellor funding will all be available to school boards.

J. MacPhail: Let's just take an example of two school boards that I'm familiar with on this matter. The Victoria school-based program coalition is fearful about the cuts. Certainly, I didn't get any sense from either of these school boards that they've been involved in the minister's studies. Maybe the minister could clarify: have the school boards been involved in the revamping of this program?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, there has been a school-linked program steering committee that has had a number of meetings looking at and reviewing the data to make recommendations. Sitting on that are representatives of the BCCPAC, the B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils; the B.C. School Trustees Association; the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association; the Association of Community Educators; and the B.C. School Superintendents Association as well as our ministry participants. They have reviewed and made recommendations with respect to what they felt was the best method of distributing the funding, and we're coming forward with a model which is consistent with the principles reflected in the recommendations they've provided.

Hon. G. Hogg: I can make a copy of the minutes available to you from the…. I guess this is the minutes of their final meeting, which we can provide you with a copy of.

Did this steering committee group say the budget could be managed with $37 million as opposed to $43 million?

Hon. G. Hogg: The mandate of the committee was to look at, whatever the quantum may be, what was the best and most effective way of ensuring that was

distributed in ways that reflected the greatest need to students. That was their mandate, not to deal with the overall quantum.

J. MacPhail: I'm still trying to figure out the source of the minister's recommendation that these programs could be delivered for 14 percent less money. Was the source the Minister of Finance, or was it based on some sort of model about what are better outcomes for students?

I know for sure — well, I don't know this Dr. Hay; I'll be happy to see his report — that Dr. Hertzman wouldn't recommend less money. He wouldn't recommend more money either, but he wouldn't recommend less money. I don't think this steering committee would recommend less money either. Who came to the conclusion that this could be done with less money?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, these funding allocations and distribution are very challenging and difficult. The overall budget for the ministry being set within the context of the budget for government resulted in us being able to look at those allocations across the ministry in ways that we think are the most effective, responsive and sensitive to the needs of the people that receive services through this ministry. Through that type of breakdown and allocation, that's how the distribution was determined.

J. MacPhail: Okay, let's be clear. Distribution, in this case, is a cut. The minister has refused, along with his government, to admit that they've cut the social equity envelope and that they've cut the funding to programs for poor kids. They're trying to justify it, to say: "Oh, the previous funding didn't cover all poor kids, so we're cutting overall funding." The minister may be exactly right that the program didn't cover all poor kids. Yet to actually then say somehow, "We're going to cut the overall program funding by 14 percent, and that's good news," is like Alice-in-Wonderland logic.

The Victoria school-based program coalition, which involves trustees, parents, principals and community educators — the same people the minister said were on his steering committee — says that if there's a cut to their funding, they may no longer be able to provide social equity programs. They fear that with any less funding, they'll lose their school lunch program, and their community school projects will have to be shut down. Has the minister or any of his staff discussed this matter with the Victoria school-based program coalition?

Hon. G. Hogg: Any discussions which may have taken place will have taken place at the regional level, and I'm not aware of what those discussions may or may not have been. I should also point out that it's not just the ministry which funds a number of these programs. There are active volunteers who are involved in it. There are foundations that provide money to it.

I visited four or five schools in Vancouver that are funded through a private sector program that provides hot meal programs to, I believe, four or five elementary schools in the Vancouver area.

There are a number of programs which are out there and are a part of this process as well, which contribute to wanting to ensure we do focus on and try and level that playing field for some of the socially disadvantaged children. It's not just this ministry, although this ministry is the largest player in it. Certainly, the Ministry of Education provides a number of services as well.

J. MacPhail: If the minister is arguing that the government should get out of the business of helping poor kids and turn it over to the private sector and charities, then come right out and say that. It's sort of like when a mom who had her child care funding cut went to a local MLA, and the MLA said: "Well, have you tried your church?" That was his answer — "Have you tried your church to see whether they can help you with child care?" — after the government had cut her child care funding.

Maybe we are going back to the days of the charity model in this province, but I don't think that's what people paid their taxes for, and I don't think that's what people thought they would get for a tax cut.

Well, let's go through it, then. The Breakfast for Learning program the minister is looking at — is that a charity-based program funded strictly out of charity?

Hon. G. Hogg: Breakfast for Learning is a non-profit society that receives funding nationally from a number of large corporations and other donors who participate in and are a part of that.

I want to emphasize that this is about partnerships. I give an example of when I was up in Campbell River — the community school program there. The traditional amount for a community school is $75,000. In the Campbell River area they're able to leverage that $75,000. I think it's about $15,000 that they provide for a community school coordinator, and they provide the remaining $20,000 to three different schools. The Rotary Club leverages that. It's that type of partnership I'm talking about. It's that type of partnership which the research reflects is the most effective in terms of being able to ensure we improve the educational outcomes for students within those programs.

The partnership is about how we can leverage participation, involvement and commitment from local communities to be part of a better service delivery model, to be part of a sense of community that ensures we do a better job. That's not saying we're turning it over to churches or someone else. That's saying we have an active and important role and a vibrant role to play in ensuring we come together as communities to support and work together in ways that have the very best outcomes for some of our most vulnerable children.

J. MacPhail: However, there's one flaw in that argument about partnerships. The entire charitable sector

in British Columbia is on its knees right now because they're having to pick up so much of the downloading of public services by this government. They're all on their knees. I just met with a group of them. To somehow suggest that the partnership group outside of government can pick up a 14 percent cut in school-based programs is simply wrong. They can't do it.

The reason why the program worked in Campbell River so well is because there was adequate funding for the foundation of the program, and the community added to the foundation to make it successful. The community could not pick up the foundation funding.

Let's just look at this Breakfast for Learning again. Does the Breakfast for Learning program have any participation by government in it — government funding?

Hon. G. Hogg: My apologies. I was receiving a sheet of paper being passed to me, and I missed the question.

J. MacPhail: I asked whether the Breakfast for Learning…. Does it exist in Canada?

Let me just tell you…. I think it might have even been this government. It was certainly in the last 18 months or so. There was a person brought in from the United States extolling the virtues of partnership in the community, especially when it comes to inner-city kids or poor kids. She went on at length about partnerships. It was something like an $11 million program. It was just in one district, and it turns out that the partnership money she was extolling was $300,000. All of the rest was government money. Perhaps the minister could tell me how Breakfast for Learning works in terms of government funding and what this Breakfast for Learning partnership will replace that's currently funded by the government.

Hon. G. Hogg: I have for the member the minutes of the meeting we made reference to and the study of the effect of the school-based programs — if that could be provided to the member, please.

The Breakfast for Learning…. The small contract which we will be entering into with them will provide evidence-based research from across Canada on best practices for the delivery of food programs. They have a number of nutritionists who are a part of their service delivery model, a part of the programs they provide. They will enter into a program to assist us in ensuring that best practices in terms of nutrition, food delivery and participation at the local and community level are put in place. Their experiences from other parts of Canada will be instrumental in ensuring that our programs are more effective and more responsive and more accountable.

J. MacPhail: Well, I understand that the funding is now in place till the end of June. What happens after June 30?

Hon. G. Hogg: Actually, the notification to school districts will go out within the next couple of weeks, and school districts will be apprised of the funding model. The member is correct that the school-based programs will be funded at the current level till the end of the school year. Starting as soon as that notification goes out, within two weeks, they will be meeting with ministry staff. They will be apprised of the services which are being made available to ensure that accountability, best practices and service delivery do take place, and there will be some transition funding which will assist them in terms of staffing to move towards models which are more effective and responsive to the needs of students, to take place starting in September.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me just go over some of the impacts it might have on my school board. I'm sure other members will be able to stand up and advocate for their school board. This letter was actually delivered in December — December 4. It was written by Adrienne Montani, the chairperson of the board of school trustees, and signed by Don Goodridge, who was then the superintendent of schools for the Vancouver school district.

They raise their concerns about the impending changes to the ministry priorities and the potential impact on the school-based services funding they received from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. That means the social equity envelope we've just been talking about.

Here's what they currently spend money on: community schools, $717,501; school meals, $2,881,210; social equity inner-city program, $2,198,800; Step Up — you know what Step Up is — $126,871; rehabilitation services, $2,118,331. Then it goes on to say what the programs are. Then it says:

I notice that the steering committee has several Vancouver representatives, but what can the Vancouver school board expect in terms of funding? Will they be taking a 14 percent cut from this government?

Hon. G. Hogg: The final allocations in terms of that breakdown have not been completed as yet. We have, as this debate has evidenced, the overall formula, the

overall amount of money to be allocated. The member is looking at the funding and breakdown as recommended by the steering committee and the allocations we're building from that, but in terms of the overall breakdown for each school district, that has not been completed as yet.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering whether the minister is concerned about community school funding in this social equity envelope. What is the minister's view on community school funding in this social equity envelope?

Hon. G. Hogg: As I said earlier, there are a number of criteria which the research suggests are the effectiveness criteria — the evidence which suggests that programs are most effective. Community schools, if they have those elements as a part of their development and delivery, can be as effective as any other model — again, the main criteria being locally generated involvement of parents, involvement of the local school, involvement of the community. A community school can do that extremely effectively.

As the member will see, there were members of the Association of Community Educators who were part of the review. They certainly kept that evident and in the forefront of that review. It's those criteria that come out of the study. If they are a part of any one of those programs, the programs can have the type of outcomes and the impact which we desire.

J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering. I haven't heard the Premier come in and talk during any estimates, but in his own riding there are schools — Bayview, Carnarvon; I saw one other here in his riding as well — that have community-based programs that are incredibly successful. I'm surprised the Premier isn't in here asking these same questions I'm asking about possible cuts that would affect his own constituents very negatively.

I assume that by partnerships, the minister means outside of the regular stakeholders in the education system. Does he? Partners have been at the table from day one on these programs, the partners that are on his steering committee, and have done an excellent job.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, by partners I mean all of those. I mean the expansion, including Breakfast for Learning, and I mean a new relationship with some of those partners. This means the ministry would provide them with a small contract to ensure that they start to focus on those issues of outcomes, accountability and performance that have not been at the forefront of the decision-making that has taken place in the past.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry to say this, and I mean it with the greatest of respect, but that sounds like just gobbledegook. I know the minister knows these programs extremely well, and he actually has a ministry that is incredibly dedicated, among the most dedicated I've ever seen. I don't understand a word he's saying about how it's going to look in the future with partners, so give me an example. Tell me what it is. How is the minister going to work out the details of allocating funding? Is it going to be by each school board getting a percentage? Will there be new school boards added, perhaps, to the funding? Is that one of the things that may happen?

Hon. G. Hogg: Actually, there are three school boards in the province that are not currently receiving funding. Those are, I believe, Revelstoke, the francophone authority and Nisga'a. They will become part of this funding formula, so they will receive funding in a new model that is based on this socioeconomic model. So, yes, there will be new ones added.

Specifically, what will happen is that the overall amount of funding will be allocated to school districts based on a formula, and that money will then go to the region. We'll maybe use Vancouver Island as an example. Vancouver Island, as a region, will receive their allocation, which will be a rollup of each of the school districts.

Then the members of the ministry will meet with the school boards in each of those districts and say: "Here is the amount of money. Here is the evidence-based research we have. Here are your resources through Breakfast for Learning, through the community educators, through the parent advisory councils, through the B.C. School Trustees Association, through the research we've done. Here is the evidence that suggests best practices."

It includes a $25,000 grant to each school district to have a staff member provide that coordination and put the accountability steps in place to develop a contract with our ministry for service delivery, so that they can be ready to provide those services in a new way and in a new fashion as we go into the new school year.

Hon. G. Hogg: The amount is about $3 million. We're certainly still reviewing our budgets, looking to see whether or not we can locate more funding to go into this, but at this stage it's $3 million.

J. MacPhail: So that means the funding for this year may be $40 million or more?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, if we're able to locate more and put it into that model, that's entirely possible.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for providing me with the minutes of the school-linked program steering committee meeting summary, Monday, February 17, 2003. Thank you very much for this. I'm wondering if the minister agrees with the assumptions of the committee, which is that the focus on outcomes and subsequent reporting will provide an opportunity and strong rationale to request additional funding from a variety of sources in the future.

J. MacPhail: Second assumption: ongoing funding will be consistent with the school year, not the province's fiscal year.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, I agree that that's an assumption we certainly should work toward. We don't want to have the interrupted sense we went through this year, where we came to the end of a fiscal year and the school year is different. We need to have it coordinated so that there is some degree of certainty for school districts.

J. MacPhail: The last one on assumptions is that the steering committee will have an ongoing role in overseeing the transition to the new model.

J. MacPhail: There's one decision here that I simply don't understand. It's my fault, no one else's. It says: "Full implementation of the funding allocation model will be effective September 2004. Funding for September 2003 will be 50 percent of the difference from the current allocation."

Hon. G. Hogg: There was a debate, or a discussion, at the committee as to whether or not the funding should go to the socioeconomic modelling immediately, in September of this coming year — so it would be totally to the socioeconomic model — or whether or not there should be some amount of that funding which stayed in the more traditional way it is currently being allocated. Their recommendation was that we look at a 50-50 allocation. Coming into the next year that 50 percent of the funding come from the way that it is being allocated today, and the other 50 percent of the funding go to the socioeconomic model. That would start shifting school districts to a socioeconomic model but would not go all the way to that. Their concern was that might be too dramatic a shift.

That was their recommendation, and that's what they referred us — that 50 percent of the funding allocation be allocated based on the way the funding is there today and 50 percent go to the socioeconomic model to provide some greater stability to those who might see a further reduction if you went to a full socioeconomic model. Those school districts, which are currently receiving less per pupil on the modelling that's there today, will not receive as much on a 50-50 model, and those who have to go down will not go down as far. It's trying to provide some balance. So that's what they meant by 50-50. Is that clear?

J. MacPhail: I just have a couple more questions on community school funding.

Thank you for this report. It turns out that my staff did have a copy of it, but I appreciate it. I hadn't had a chance to read it yet. How much did this report cost?

J. MacPhail: It was a very interesting report. I notice that there are two recommendations in it. The first recommendation is that there has to be partnerships to pursue the development of an information management system, and that's a pretty practical suggestion. It doesn't necessarily talk about…. It's just a practical suggestion. But the next one says that the Ministry of Children and Family Development, in partnership with relevant ministries and stakeholders, should examine a broadening of the current community schools model to include the integration of related human services.

This report actually talks about a broadening. Then I read the entire report to see whether that took on new meaning — broadening really didn't mean broadening — and it turns out it means broadening. So how does one broaden community school support with the 14 percent funding cut?

Hon. G. Hogg: That is the reason that the recommendations, which the member will find from the advisory committee, refer to the delivery system going from the ministry's regional authorities to the school boards directly. In that fashion the resources which are available to the ministry, both on contract and directly, become more available, and the school boards become more aware of them. The local schools become more aware of them as there's a more active interaction which takes place between the schools and the services provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. MacPhail: I feel badly because it's only Monday, and I'm having trouble understanding what the minister is meaning. Could he explain that in English?

Hon. G. Hogg: The method in the past has been that the ministry has directly funded to school boards from Victoria. The money has gone directly to school boards. The process, as we move to community-based governance models, will be that there will be an authority.

Giving Vancouver Island as an example, an authority on Vancouver Island will have responsibility for the delivery of services — statutory, non-statutory and contracted services across all of Vancouver Island.

They will meet with the greater Victoria school board, and they will look at and provide for them the issues of the numbers of children they have in care, all the data and information that we have through the Ministry of Human Resources and the Ministry of Education to try and develop the models. They will now be more actively involved in a complete, coordinated and integrated service delivery model, rather than separating the service delivery for school-based programs away from the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There's an attempt to bring those together so that we have a more coordinated, integrated service delivery model at the school level than just the ministry providing money and not being involved in an active utilization of that money and the other services which the ministry has. Is that making sense yet?

J. MacPhail: Yes, but it's a bit disappointing, because then the two recommendations are, like, terribly bureaucratic. It's disappointing, I have to confess that this report has a recommendation that doesn't in any way do anything other than say that people should talk more amongst themselves, but it certainly doesn't in any way suggest a different model for how we achieve that.

Hon. G. Hogg: The health authorities are also coming into this, because our boundaries are consistent with the health authorities. The chairs of the interim authorities for social service have been meeting with the chairs of the health authorities and meeting with the service delivery model to be integrated. There are services within the health authorities, within the social service authorities, as they will be constructed, and within the school districts, which through this process will become more coordinated and focused on the service delivery, thereby broadening the model and the model's access providing — the member referred to it as bureaucratic — a contact point, a coordination point, for the broadening of services and their availability to schools.

In some parts of the province, as an example, the ministry is looking at placing offices and/or contracted offices within schools. As an example, in the Grand Forks area, with the shrinking student enrolment there is the availability of some classrooms for the provision of space for service providers, and the school district has said: "We can provide that space at little or no cost — heated and lit space — and the ministry can move into it and be a part of it."

That's the type of broadening we're talking about. They'll be broadening their presence, broadening the services in the context of both our ministry and the Ministry of Health Services so that there can be a better understanding and coordination of services at the local level.

J. MacPhail: What will be the time line for…? Is there a monitoring and evaluation process built into the change?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, there will be one person in each of the ministry's regions and one person in the government central who will be responsible for the full evaluation, monitoring and ongoing supervision of those programs — the coordination, the broadening of the model, as the member has referred to. That person will be developing, with the school districts, the evidence-based practices and the best-based research to both ensure that they're accountable for the service delivery expectations which are laid out and ensure that we continue to compare those against best practices and studies that we've been able to gather.

J. MacPhail: The minister knows that I'll be asking my series of questions, and then government MLAs will carry on, so I'm going to move on to governance now, away from school-based programs. But it does tie into what the minister has said, because he's using sort of the broadening of the school-based programs to say that the move toward the new bureaucratic structure of the community governance model will enhance the school-based programs.

As I understand it from his opening remarks — perhaps the minister can just clarify this — there will be over ten new authorities, but they will make up five service delivery regions. By him saying that they match the health authorities, is it the five service delivery regions that match the health authorities, but the ten new authorities are different?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, the service delivery regions — the five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal — are basically the same boundaries as the Ministry of Health regions. There's one variance in that to respect the traditional territories of one of the aboriginal communities in the interior. Prior to the reorganization there were…. As I'm sure the member is aware, the ministry had 19 regions and then 11 regions. With this model of service delivery and governance, we'll be going to five aboriginal, five non-aboriginal and one for community living B.C. That's for the community living sector, which will cover the whole province.

J. MacPhail: The ten new authorities are one aboriginal and one non-aboriginal authority for each service delivery region. How much money is this costing? How much of the minister's budget this year is allocated to the new community governance model?

Hon. G. Hogg: It's $11.5 million in this year's budget and $13.5 million in next year's budget. Those are both for the purposes of developing the service plan and the planning functions that grow out of that. Those would be services which are responsibilities which would, under the old system, have been the responsibility of the ministry specifically. These are transition funds allocated to doing the planning and service provision planning that would have to take place in any event. That's money which has gone to the regions so that they can effect that planning and that transition rather than it being done centrally.

J. MacPhail: I assume government isn't doing this model for cost efficiencies as they claimed they were doing under the health regions.

Hon. G. Hogg: The assumption is correct. I think the member is well aware that the ministry currently is the largest bureaucratic service deliverer of child and family services in Canada. As such, the member is well aware that decisions which are made closest to children and closest to families…. The closer those decisions can be made, the more effective they will be in terms of ensuring positive and appropriate outcomes. In large bureaucracies, when things go wrong, we tend to have inquiries, and we tend to appoint another central agency to look at and review the issues. But we really, in the end, have very little impact upon the service delivery and the actual social workers who are in communities doing that work.

Social workers tell me that over the past number of years, they've had more and more of their time occupied sitting in front of computer screens justifying the work they're doing rather than being able to be out into communities being community development officers. They're much more spending their time responding to bureaucratic needs and issues rather than doing the things they were trained for and, I think, which most of us would want them to be doing. As a result of our large bureaucracy and the model we've had, we haven't been able to provide the same degree and level of service delivery which I think we can.

I think we can free up our social workers, the talented and skilled men and women across this province who are out there in communities, if we have them starting to do that. We've started to collocate some of them. Some of them are actually now working out of different non-profit service providers and agencies across the province and are getting a chance to work with them.

Again, it's the broadening of that scope, the broadening of the sense of participation and community, where they're responding to and looking at the nuances and needs of their local communities rather than the responsibilities and needs that may effectively be responding to what Victoria, the capital, is pushing them to do. They're becoming more empowered within the context of their own communities with the other service providers in those communities to actually provide a service which will, ultimately, be more effective and more responsive to those communities rather than to Victoria and the bureaucratic structure and layers which are a part of that.

One of the great ironies that I think we have is that child protection workers, social workers, are given enormous power and authority in a free and democratic society to actually go into a home and apprehend a child, yet they don't have the authority to spend $25 to actually make a difference in some of the circumstances that might exist there. By having them involved and by decentralizing, we expect that they're going to have much more authority, much more ability to respond much more quickly to the needs of a family in a community across this province that may need some financial support — to assist and support them being able to manage some of the issues there may be in the context of a family in a community, in a way which will be much more responsive to the overall needs of both the families and the community than a large bureaucratic structure is able to be.

I think that's why most social work practices and virtually every province of Canada have gone to different models of service delivery. As we've looked at different studies and different experts around the province, around the world, talking about what service delivery should look like in the best of all possible worlds, that is the model they continually refer to: one which is community-focused, integrated, coordinated and community-based. That's why we're moving to it.

J. MacPhail: The reason I asked the question about cost efficiency is — I meant administrative cost efficiency — so that there would be less of a cut in budget to actually deliver the services the minister talks about. I have no idea whether the community model will be better or worse — the regional model, I should say. This isn't a community model; this is a regional model. I leave it up to the minister to decide. I only wish him the best in that area.

Perhaps the minister could tell us what portion of…. There's a cut to his budget, I think, an overall cut of 23 percent. What's the cut in funding for the regional authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: Because we're just now going to five authorities, there hasn't been money allocated in the past, so there are no cuts associated with that. It's an allocation which is coming now. The administrative cut across the province, in terms of the administrative delivery, is about a 42 percent cut as we're trying to shift more of the available resources we have to actual service delivery within the context of communities.

If I can play a little bit with what I think the question is, the 23 percent is allocated across our different service delivery sections. The community living sector is about 17 percent. The youth justice area is pretty consistent with the standard it's at. I don't think there's much cut to it at all. The child and family development model is in the neighbourhood of 30 percent, and then the administrative side of it, primarily out of Victoria, is about 42 percent. All of those rolled together, when you put the quantum in each one of those sections together, come to the 23 percent.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so the cut to this area is 30 percent. This is the child and family development program delivery that's going to a regional model, so there is 30 percent less funding.

Is the $25 million it's going to cost everybody to convert to the regional authorities then taken out of the money left after the 30 percent cut?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, it is included. I've been corrected that since the school-based programs have been

added back into the overall child and family development budget, the figure is now reduced to 25 percent, as opposed to 30 percent, by the adding back in of the $37 million for the school-based programs. It is now 25 percent as opposed to 30 percent.

J. MacPhail: Okay, so we have a 25 percent cut in funding for the children and family programs. Then after the 25 percent cut is made, $25 million of that reduced funding is going to bring about the change in structure — over two years?

Hon. G. Hogg: The figure for '02-03 in Children and Family Development was $814.724 million. The estimate shown for '03-04 is $769.507 million. Included in that is the $11.5 million restructuring.

Hon. G. Hogg: None of that money is for severance. The severance costs, through the early retirement packages and retirement packages, are all paid centrally and therefore are not reflected in this budget.

J. MacPhail: Yes, that's right. I'm sorry about that. How much is the restructuring of the Ministry of Children and Family Development going to cost the severance fund?

Hon. G. Hogg: We don't have the actual breakdown or cost of that, but since September there are about 300 employees who have taken the ERIP and the voluntary departure. We can find out the exact cost associated with those 300 if the member wishes.

J. MacPhail: So since September…. Why is the minister using the date of September?

Hon. G. Hogg: That's the date on which the ERIP program was open for people to apply to.

J. MacPhail: So 300 people in the Ministry of Children and Family Development have opted to leave — out of how many employees?

I'm just curious: is it the 5,000 people that are converting…? Would this number the minister is using be the part that is restructuring, or is that the whole ministry? How many people are affected by this restructuring in one way or another? Are the 300 that have left government from that number?

Hon. G. Hogg: The figure of the number of staff members who will be transferring to the social service authorities is approximately 2,800 out of the 5,000. The member asked for a breakdown of where those 300 come from. The 300 actually have come from across the whole ministry. That'll come from admin support, from social workers, from supervisors — the full range. Anyone was open to the ERIP program; anyone could apply to it. That 300 came from across the full spectrum of job descriptions within the ministry.

J. MacPhail: So the 2,800 current employees' work is being transferred to the new structure — the new regional authorities. How many employees will the new authority employ when it's up and running a year from now?

Hon. G. Hogg: Approximately 374 staff members will be taking the ERIP or voluntary departure programs. The estimates for staffing in '03-04 are going to about 4,274. Then those staff who will be working for the ministry specifically — not in the region, but in the central support to the ministry — will be about a thousand.

J. MacPhail: Is there any way the minister can tell me how many fewer people will be working in the regional authorities than were providing those services before?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is a way, but that way will take some time for staff to compile. It can be done, and it will be done.

J. MacPhail: You see, while I'm holding back to see how the new community governance model will work, believing very strongly in community-based programs, I also am incredibly suspicious that the regional model is the cover for massive cuts — a 25 percent cut in funding and a substantial reduction in staffing. I don't think you'll have a social worker in this province who will say: "My workload was light." In fact, if indeed social workers were doing a whole bunch of unnecessary bureaucracy, you can change that. Instead, what this government is doing is changing a model, incurring substantial administrative costs in doing that — $25 million over two years in administrative costs for the new model — and at the same time there will be hundreds fewer social workers delivering community-based programs with a lot less money. So how will it work?

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the new model, I believe the community-based model is, as the member has said, the right model. If we had twice the budget we have today, I still believe it's the right model

to go to, and if we had half the budget, I still think it's the right platform, the right service delivery model to be out there to be most responsive to the needs of communities.

In terms of the specific question the member asks around what the numbers are and how the comparison will be, there are about 2,500 social program officers now. As we go through this process, we identify cuts at headquarters and cuts in admin support and administration so we can ensure that we're protecting the front-line social workers through this process. The actual numbers are the ones the member referred to previously.

We will get a breakdown of that by tomorrow morning in terms of what…. Am I being ambitious saying tomorrow morning? We will get that as quickly as we can, given that I'm having the staff sit here later this evening and be back in, in the morning. They will work on that and get that figure for us as quickly as they can.

The focus, the principle, is to protect front-line staff, protect social workers who are doing the work. The legislation remains the same; the investigations remain the same. We're wanting to look at community-based responses to those complaints or allegations of abuse and neglect. To do that in a community-based model, we need to have front-line staff who are freed up, away from their computers, to be involved in communities, to be involved in service delivery and to be involved in community development. Our intent is to keep that figure as whole as we possibly can through this process.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I'm pursuing this line of questioning is because there have been other jurisdictions, one with which I'm very familiar, that made budget cutbacks at the same time as they introduced dramatic restructuring. That was Quebec, but there are other examples as well. The studies showed that it had devastating results. Child welfare budgets in Quebec were cut by 10 percent. A new governance model was introduced, and agencies were merged. Studies showed that it produced a serious crisis. This budget is being cut by 25 percent, two and a half times what the Quebec budget was cut. Is the minister familiar with the Quebec situation that occurred in the nineties?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, I've looked at that and, in fact, have looked at Ontario and Alberta. I've talked with social services ministers across Canada about the issues around restructuring. I'm aware that in Alberta, when the restructuring took place, there was an increase in the number of children in care. In Ontario the same thing took place, as there was social restructuring. I'm aware that there are a number of issues we have to manage and mitigate.

We have strategies in place to do that. We have meetings of our ministers looking at the issue specifically. One example of that was the concern that the Ministry of Human Resources was cutting the program for children in the home of a relative. Obviously, that has a dramatic impact on this ministry. After pointing that out and working out some strategies with them, they were able to keep that program intact. We have to keep being aware of the issues as they occur.

I'm also aware that in New Zealand, when they went through some major restructuring, there were concerns with respect to the impact it was having on the poorer, more vulnerable people in society, both families and children. There were recommendations that they look at and manage reviews with respect to that. It is incumbent upon us to ensure that we stay on top of those numbers, that we look at the impacts they're having and that we do everything we can to mitigate any unintended or negative consequences that come out of the whole process of restructuring.

Certainly, in the best of all possible worlds I wouldn't want to be entering into restructuring at a time when we're also looking at some changes to the budgets and reductions in budgets. In the best of all possible worlds, you have those parallel, put your structures in place and then are able to transition to them. We're in a position where we don't have that possibility at this stage, but we do have the chance to put in place a much better service delivery model.

We're doing that sensitively, and we've had great response from the community, from our interim service providers, interim service boards around the province, who have been holding meetings. There have been hundreds of meetings held around the province. There have been a number of organizations who've come forward and looked at it and expressed the ways they think this can best happen. I met last week with the chairs of the aboriginal and non-aboriginal regions, and they are confident with respect to the programs they're putting in place and the structures they have for this next fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: I remember the minister championing the programs of his ministry last year, and it all sounded very good. I'm sure the minister was absolutely telling the truth. In fact, I know the minister was telling the truth about how everybody was pitching in, and they were going to do a great job, and he loved the community input, etc. — the same thing he's saying right now. The fact of the matter is that communities are struggling unbelievably, but they know they don't have any choice except to move in this direction not of the model but of making massive cuts while moving in this direction.

I know the minister doesn't mean to be disrespectful and to somehow use the goodwill of people under the gun as an example of why his government is doing so well. It's simply not correct to do that. People are actually sending me e-mails. There are already e-mails that have come in about the minister's opening comments, which I need to read into the record.

We don't need to mislead…. We don't need to b.s. each other about how this is all wonderful and the community embraces it, because they don't. But they

The minister cites provincial examples where there have been cuts and restructuring that have led to devastating results for children and families, but there's one difference. Not one of the governments he mentioned has cut as deeply as this government — not one. Where are the models that the government is relying on, which show cuts and restructuring make for good results?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, my intent is not to mislead the member with respect to the response from the community. I think it's pretty clear that the community organizations have embraced the model and want to move to a community-based model of governance. There are challenges with respect to the fiscal demands that are associated with that.

The differences with respect to the other organizations or the other provinces which have been referenced are primarily associated with the numbers of children in care. This province increased the number of children in care by about 60 percent over about a six-year period. The average cost of a child in care is about $40,000. We are above the national average. The national average of children in care is, I think, just over nine per thousand of population. We have been well over 11.

We also have a number of children who are aging out. As the early childhood development programs and the family development programs are working, if one looks at a graph of the age of the numbers of children in care, you can see that it peaks right up at the ages of 16 and 17. In two years there will be a large percentage — about 2,500 — who will have aged out of the model.

Part of this system is based on the national averages of the number of children in care. We'll be able to focus on and get back to those numbers, which more accurately reflect the traditional numbers of the percentages that have been in care in this province. By getting to those numbers, we will also be able to see a reduction in the overall cost with this ministry. Our target is to get to the national averages of the number of children in care, which are historically the numbers that this province was at a number of years ago.

That 60 percent increase has taken the cost and the quality of service in a different direction — the quality of service because we know all the social work practice outcomes tell us that if we can keep a family together, whether an extended family or the nuclear family, the outcomes for them are much better than if we take them into care and place them in any number of institutional settings. We know that the outcomes in terms of their mental health, their educational outcomes and their chances of getting employment are all reduced when we take a different strategy.

We want to look at and move towards a strategy which supports and looks at…. As an example, in New Zealand about 50 percent of the foster care that they provide is provided through kin care, through extended families. We have virtually not used that within the children-in-care population in this province. There are a number of strategies that we have to look at and employ, which are going to mean better outcomes for children. It's going to be fiscally more responsible, but more importantly, it's going to be morally the right way to go in terms of service delivery for children.

J. MacPhail: We'll certainly get into the discussion around foster care children in care. The minister is correct, in as far as he goes, to say that in each of those provinces that restructured and cut at the same time, there was a huge crisis in the protection of children. We'll get into that discussion when we talk about children in care.

Let me ask this. There was a very specific…. I don't have my New Era document here. I've almost got it memorized. There was a new-era promise that said the government was — and I know this is the quote — going to "stop the endless bureaucratic restructuring" of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. What say you now?

Hon. G. Hogg: Because the ministry, to some degree, continually exists at the pleasure of different governments, I believe that this restructuring, this move into community by entrenching service delivery within the context of communities where communities take control and manage it…. It will be beyond the scope of any government to come back and look at restructuring, because it will be vested in and be a part of local communities and local community service delivery. That's where it should be. It shouldn't be a whim to the many restructuring changes that exist as governments change. In some cases, as governments do not change, they start to change ministries.

My belief is that as it becomes into community and becomes a part of it, it will be entrenched in community and will no longer be subject to those changes and whims that various governments may choose to put in place at various points in time.

J. MacPhail: I've just been told that the House Leader has said I have to stay until 9 tonight, so the government members won't be doing their business. The House Leader insists I stay here until 9, so I certainly will. Thank you for the cooperation of the government — unbelievable.

Let's talk about the transition costs then. What will the money be spent on this year? What is the breakdown of the transition costs?

Hon. G. Hogg: The $11.5 million in transition funding will go to the 11 interim authorities, and they will be responsible, with that funding, to develop their service plans and to meet the readiness criteria. There is a set of readiness criteria which has been developed, and those readiness criteria must be met by each of the authorities before they are given responsibility for service

delivery and moving into the next phase of the authority, which is actually the provision of services.

Hon. G. Hogg: Approximately $11 million was spent in '02-03 for the planning authorities, for the provision and the writing of a number of position papers and the research that was done, and for the transportation and costs associated with the development of the interim authorities. So, it's gone from the planning to the studies to the planning groups to the interim authorities.

J. MacPhail: So over three years, $36 million will be spent on moving to the new authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: No. The total is $11 million and $13.5 million, so it's a total of $24.5 million over two years, and that's it.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, I had asked the minister the figures for '03-04 and '04-05. But you're saying '02-03 is $11.5 million and '03-04 is $13.5 million, for a total of $25 million?

J. MacPhail: I want to refer to something. I'm getting e-mails on the minister's comments about transition, etc. In the introductory comments that the minister made around community governance, he referred to a joint budget working group that has developed a plan to reduce the costs as you convert the community living services to the new community governance model. Has that budget working group's proposal been made public?

Hon. G. Hogg: The review is not complete, and consequently it's not been made public. The funds and the one-time restructuring that the joint committee has been looking at, around such things as I made reference to earlier — like adding a bed to an already existing group home, individualized funding in a family home or apartment setting, setting up cluster homes in apartments, phasing out homes in excess of six beds, giving residents a choice of individualized funding or moving into a cluster home setting, returning adult children to their family with additional funding for in-home supports and respite care…. These measures have already been used successfully in some parts of the province by some parts of the CLS sector, and they are now being looked at more broadly across the whole province.

J. MacPhail: The proposal was made in October of '02. Is there something else that's been going on?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they initially met, and they have met on an ongoing basis. They're actually meeting with agencies and with service providers and looking at the proposals that various service providers have. The service providers have been applying the criteria, or principles, which I mentioned. They've been meeting on an ongoing basis with a myriad of those service providers looking at what those service providers can do — specifically, to restructure their service provision to be consistent with the expectations and goals of the joint budget working group.

It's a continual work-in-progress to work forward to get to those figures, and I think they're within…. For the fiscal year '02-03, they were able through that process to hit the targets, and they're now working on the '03-04 figures. We're not sure at this stage how close they are to those percentages, but we can certainly find that out. We have staff that sit on that and are part of that process.

J. MacPhail: I'll have further questions that have been sent in to me on individualized funding and program transition, etc., particularly as it relates to community living. The reason why I'm asking about the joint budget working group proposal, which the minister referred to in his introductory comments, is that nothing has been made public about the work they've done from the ministry, but there are all sorts of rumours circulating around about what commitments are being made. Is there any commitment around unspent funds that will be used as transition funds when you move to the new community living model? I'm trying to get a handle on what the costs are associated with all of this.

Hon. G. Hogg: The question specifically was on any commitment around unspent funds to be eased in as part of the transition or part of the process. Certainly, we are working to try and ensure that any unspent funds will remain in the sector to mitigate any further costs that will be associated with the restructuring that occurs in the next fiscal year.

The answer is that we are working at doing that. We don't have a firm commitment on it, but we believe we're going to be able to find a way to ensure that any unspent funds will be able to be maintained within the sector through whatever methods we are able to come up with that meet the needs of Treasury Board.

J. MacPhail: I think it will come as great news to the people who are watching TV that they have the commitment now that those unspent funds will be spent — a credit not to the Liberal MLAs who were sitting on their butts not asking a single question but to the people who are watching TV and sending questions in here that are legitimate.

The minister has answered it — that if he can get it through Treasury Board, he will make the commitment on unspent funds going to transition for community

living. I guess it's a credit to the work that's being done in this House and the fact that everyone else is sitting doing absolutely nothing. Shame on you. Absolutely shame on you. There will be other questions sent in from the public, and I hope they keep them coming so that we can actually get commitments from this government about proper funding for people who are part of his ministry.

The transition money. You didn't tell me how it was being broken down amongst aboriginal authorities, the community living authority and the regional authorities. Could I have that breakdown, please?

Hon. G. Hogg: For '03-04, it is approximately $1 million to each of the aboriginal and each of the non-aboriginal authorities around the province and approximately $2 million to the community living sector — the interim authorities. That comes to roughly the $11.5 million we spoke of.

J. MacPhail: Who manages these funds? Do the interim boards have their own budgets, or is it done out of the ministry? What's the legal authority for all of this funding?

Hon. G. Hogg: It is the budget of the interim authorities. The authority for that was granted in the legislation that was passed last year, the interim authorities legislation. They are subject to the Financial Administration Act as well, so they have those checks and balances built into their process and practice.

J. MacPhail: What's the guarantee that there will be no reduction in the quality or quantity of…? Well, there's probably going to be a reduction in the quantity of services to families, but what's the monitoring for making sure there's no reduction in the quality of the actual services that are provided during this transition period and then after the transition period?

Hon. G. Hogg: We've had a number of "experts" from around the world looking at the modelling we're developing in terms of accountability frameworks, readiness criteria and the whole issue of accreditation. Some of those are in draft form, but I'm happy to make those available to the member if she's interested in looking at the accountability frameworks and the readiness criteria.

Part of the whole process of moving to community governance is also moving to an accreditation model so that we can ensure that we have international standards applied to the services provided within this province, so we can assure the people of this province that we do meet accreditation standards that are internationally recognized and accepted. As we go through this process, we still have the ministry's service quality and service quality advocates looking at and managing the processes. We have in place the structures which the ministry has now, and it's moving into a comanagement model before we go to the full authority. So we have all those checks and balances that are in effect in the ministry today, which will be a part of that transition process as well.

J. MacPhail: Accreditation model? Can you give me examples of where it exists?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a number of agencies and service providers in this province which are accredited through either COA or CARF. As we move to more and more community governance, we're asking that agencies become internationally accredited through the Council on Accreditation, which is the primary model being utilized. So we get international standards applied to our social services, and we get assurances that they meet those standards through that model.

As I say, there are…. I don't know how many, but I know that I was on the board of one non-profit society seven or eight years ago that was the first in this province to become accredited through bringing in the international accreditation committees to look at and review all the services being provided. They do a very exhaustive review and provide accreditation to societies. That is a process of community-based modelling, community-based accountability and community-based standards that are internationally recognized and an active part of us being able to assure the people of this province that we are meeting internationally accepted standards in our services.

J. MacPhail: So who gets accredited — the regional authorities or the agencies? Sorry, this is a concept that the minister needs to explore further. And who bears the cost of accreditation?

Hon. G. Hogg: The accreditation expectations will be for the authorities, for the service providers and for the ministry. We're asking all of us to go through that. The first round in terms of service providers will be any service provider that has a contract of over $350,000 in the first phase, and then we're going, in the second phase, into contracts which are smaller than that. The authorities will be responsible for doing that, as will the ministry, so we will ensure that we're all meeting those standards.

Hon. G. Hogg: There is an allocation within the budgets for the accreditation process to take place.

So where does that fit in the budget? Is that part of the $25 million of transition costs, or is that over and above?

Hon. G. Hogg: It is part of the ongoing funding. It's not too terribly dissimilar to the processes that hospi-

tals go through to get accreditation or that schools go through for an accreditation process, only this is an internationally developed set of standards which applies.

J. MacPhail: In fact, his government has ended accreditation in the schools as being bureaucratic and unnecessary. I was just curious. I didn't think the minister would actually bring up that topic. Upon close questioning of the Minister of Education, she was just completely dismissive of accreditation. I don't share that view.

It is interesting — the inconsistency of this government as they change things around. One kind of wonders whether the right hand knows what the left hand is doing. But I guess when you have change in the Premier's office and all of that, it's hard to keep track of all the major bureaucratic changes.

What's the proposed time line for the transition to the permanent authorities? What's the real time line?

Hon. G. Hogg: The expectation is that community living B.C. may meet the criteria in the fall of this year and, therefore, be eligible to be up and running. The CFD authorities — there may be one or two of those which will also be able to make it in the fall, but certainly our expectation is that they will make it by the end of March '04. The aboriginal authorities are working at building their capacity, and all of them, of course, have to meet the readiness criteria before these responsibilities are delegated to them. So the aboriginal authorities have asked for some more time. They're working very hard at trying to get there more quickly, but the outside figure we've given them is '06-07. Our expectation is that a number of the aboriginal authorities will be able to make it there more quickly than that and be able to meet the readiness criteria.

J. MacPhail: This is the readiness criteria that the minister is going to give to me — is that right? — that is in draft form still? Is this what the minister referred to earlier that he was going to give to me?

Hon. G. Hogg: That is correct. I mentioned, I think, both the accountability framework and the readiness criteria, which are not complete yet. They're both in draft form, but I'm happy to provide the draft form of those if the member is interested.

J. MacPhail: Yes, please, because the service plan says that it will be this fiscal year that you'll have, I think, five authorities, as the minister just said. It's interesting to note given that the criteria aren't ready yet. What are the five authorities? Can you actually list the CFD authorities that will be ready — the five of them — this year?

Hon. G. Hogg: It will be the five regions — the five CFD authorities and the five regions of the province.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So then the aboriginal authorities will take longer, and the community living will take longer as well.

Hon. G. Hogg: The community living may well be ready to go this fall. They're well on their way in terms of their planning and organization. I expect that they may well be the first authority to go provincewide, community living B.C. Then the CFD authorities. Our expectation is that they will meet the criteria before the end of March '04.

J. MacPhail: What happens as authorities are staged-in? How does that work? Does the ministry stay…? These are real children, who have the potential for falling through real cracks, and frankly, that is an awful experience to have to go through — a terrible one.

Hon. G. Hogg: The reason we have the interim authorities is so they can develop and get everything in place so there can be a turnkey, so that they can actually take it over. We're actually in a comanagement model. The interim authorities are doing planning and working, as is the ministry. As they come together and meet the readiness criteria, staff are transferred to work in and for the authorities and the services being provided there, and the transition should, in that sense, be seamless. It'll be the same people providing the services, the same organizations.

The social workers who are now working for the ministry will be the same people who will be providing those services as they transition to work for agencies and societies in communities. That transition should be a relatively seamless transition in terms of families who are receiving the services. The organizational model two and three levels above that is actually shifting to give more authority to the communities to respond to that.

It is my belief that families and children should not see, in the initial stages of that shift organizationally…. They should not be impacted in terms of their services. There should be consistency in terms of those, and they should see an improvement in those as social workers get more authority and more ability to work with and respond to the issues within their communities.

J. MacPhail: It's the very studies that have shown that's where trouble is created — in the transition from old models to new regional models at the same time that there are budget cuts. That's exactly what all the reviews and the auditor general reports from various provinces have shown leads to crisis.

I'm not sure that any province has actually staged-in regional authorities at the same time. Who has legal responsibility for the well-being of a child as you're staging-in regional authority responsibility?

Hon. G. Hogg: Under the legislation the minister is responsible. Through this process there are agents who

will be providing those services on behalf of the minister, and the minister is ultimately still responsible as we go through this staging. In fact, when the authorities are set up and functioning, the legal responsibility will still exist with the minister for the provision of those services.

The minister is setting in place a structure that allows and provides for agents to provide those services which are now the direct services of the ministry. Social workers currently work directly for the ministry. Youth justice workers and mental health workers work directly for the ministry. They will now be agents working through an agency and an authority to provide services to the ministry but on behalf of the ministry, and legal responsibility under the act will still be vested with the ministry to do that. The ministry will be providing standards, setting accountabilities and providing funding for that, and the minister will still be held responsible for the overall provision of those services.

J. MacPhail: Well, it'll be interesting to see how the model works, then. I wish the minister well. It is going to be a time of incredible pressure. Boy, at the same time that one is cutting budgets and going through this huge, huge administrative change, I certainly hope the minister has every aspect of watchdog possible in place so that children don't fall through the cracks. If indeed the minister achieves this, it will be the first jurisdiction to do it. The cuts — other jurisdictions have not seen cuts this deep.

I have no idea whether or not my questions are comforting the rest of the members of the Legislature about children in their ridings falling through the cracks. I am left, actually, after this debate with a feeling of anxiousness in my tummy about how this is going to take place.

I actually don't believe this comes from the minister personally — the minister taking comfort in the fact that the communities are all participating and everything is going along swimmingly. I don't think the minister is doing this personally to kind of misrepresent what's going on, but there are concerns like you wouldn't believe out there — not even about the structure but about the cuts this ministry is experiencing.

Of course, it's not just cuts to this ministry. It's cuts to the school-based programs; it's cuts to child care; it's cuts to programs for seniors in the Ministry of Health and the fact that there are hardly any multicultural family–sensitive programs left in this province. It's cuts to parenting programs. All of those are leaving communities with a great sense of angst. It's cuts in the Solicitor General's ministry for program delivery. There is not one single addition of programs to the communities. They're all cuts. I wish the minister the best of luck on it, and I am very worried about it.

The transfer of employees. The minister says it will be seamless. He just stated it will be seamless. One day they'll work for the ministry, and the next day they'll work for the regional authority. Well, it may be seamless in terms of workload, but what does it mean for rights and responsibilities for workers?

Hon. G. Hogg: I've had a number of meetings with George Heyman and with representatives of, I guess, the three other unions that are involved and that our employees are members of. There will be a transfer of the rights and responsibilities and wages and benefits through this process. We're working on how that will be achieved.

Mr. Chair, if I may propose a short recess which will allow me to accommodate for the fact I've had too much water to drink, that would be appreciated.

J. MacPhail: How will we know the arrangements about the transfer of members in terms of their collective bargaining rights? Does there have to be more legislation around any of this change in regional structure?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, there is more legislation necessary to give legal authority to the minister to transfer staff to the boards.

It is pointed out to me that earlier I may have made reference to the number of children aging out. I may have said "over two years," and my staff is anxious to correct if I in fact did that. It is actually over three years, not over two years.

J. MacPhail: I assume this legislation will be coming this session; I'll just assume that. Do I need to wait to ask questions around benefits and rights until that legislation is introduced?

J. MacPhail: Well, I just caution the minister, if I may, that there's already enough disruption in the system. Legislation that in any way erodes the benefits or the working conditions of your front-line workers will ensure that the transition is not a smooth one. That's not because the employees are mean-spirited or ill-directed. It's very hard to go through this, and then to have to cope with reduced circumstances in terms of benefits and working conditions will just simply be unacceptable.

What's the nature of ongoing consultation as the community governance authorities are put in place?

Hon. G. Hogg: The ongoing consultation is a requirement laid out in the interim legislation. There is

ongoing consultation which is also required. There have been a number of meetings. Each community has been made aware of the process. I'm familiar with some of the consultation meetings in the Fraser Valley. I understand that there have been over 300 consultations that have taken place provincewide.

There has been access to the Internet, as well, in terms of our site, and a number of contacts were there. The whole process started with the presentation of a discussion paper on the website. We asked for further submissions. I think there were something like 430 submissions that were also posted on the website. I think I made reference in my opening remarks to the number of hits that that site has had, and the comments.

There's been an ongoing consultation process in each of the regions, including the development of the people who are sitting on the boards. The north had a meeting with the aboriginal community to determine who is going to be sitting on their interim board. Similar meetings have happened in different parts of the province to help establish the names that were being recommended and brought forward. Community living B.C. has recently held 16 consultation meetings around the province, in various areas of the province, as well as having representation from all over the province to sit on their interim board to provide that information.

There has been active and continuing, ongoing consultation taking place. That has been a requirement of the interim legislation. The requirement has not been laid out saying that there must be X number of meetings, but there has to be an ability to satisfy, in the process, that they have made available the opportunity to comment on all of the processes taking place. Certainly, I am regularly receiving comments, as well, with respect to the process and how it's being carried out in different parts of the province.

J. MacPhail: When the minister said the aboriginal authorities will be up and running, he gave me the time line for it. Does the transfer of programs occur at the same time? The reason why I ask is that I assume the regional authorities will be given a budget and will be responsible for allocation of moneys within that budget. Some services are under contract. Do all of the contracts expire at the same time the authority is transferred? How does that work?

Hon. G. Hogg: At the point in which the readiness criteria are met, if it's in mid-contract, then the contracts will be transferred to the authorities. That will provide for the seamless transition of services by those service providers. If it is at the end of a contract year and there are further contract negotiations or different service providers that the authorities may be looking at, then that will have to fit into the time frame they're dealing with. The main part of the process is that all of those contracts will be transferred to the authorities to maintain the continuity of service.

J. MacPhail: This is where I'm curious to know, for instance, if the aboriginal authority isn't set up…. Not all programs are separated so that they are programs delivering services just to aboriginals. There's a mix often, particularly in the urban area. How will that work?

Hon. G. Hogg: The CFD, the aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities — the chairs — are working together. I've had two meetings with the chairs, most recently last week, and they are working at that type of coordination and the service delivery model as it comes about. If one authority is up and meets the readiness criteria — if it happens to be an aboriginal authority that meets the readiness criteria prior to a non-aboriginal authority — then the services would be transferred to that entity to be functioning and then would transition to the non-aboriginal authority once they meet the readiness criteria.

It's a comanagement model we're trying to enter into now, so the ministry is working with the interim authorities about the operations and how they function. As one of the authorities in a region reaches the readiness criteria, then they will have that transferred to them. Anything that is contained, if it is an aboriginal authority, and anything that touches on aboriginal children will be contained in a part of that. In fact, where it's intertwined, all the services will go to the aboriginal authority and then will be transferred into the non-aboriginal authority as soon as they meet the readiness criteria.

The minister himself referred to New Zealand as being an area of massive change in this area. Now, in the one report I read on the New Zealand change that massively restructured services to children and family at the same time as there were budget cuts…. The report I read surveyed that dramatic policy change in New Zealand. Here's one of the conclusions they came to: "The New Zealand experience demonstrates the importance of having effective mechanisms to monitor, protect and promote the interests of children, especially during times of major change, and how governments should carefully consider how their actions will impact on children, the most vulnerable and valuable members of any society."

That's why I'm asking at length about the mechanisms the ministry has in place to protect the interests of children during this major reorganization. One of the areas that I am concerned about is transfer of information on children. This is a tough situation at the best of times. Now we have this situation where we will, at least for a period of time, have a hybrid between the ministry being responsible for programs and regional authorities being responsible for programs.

As we talked about earlier, out of the David Hay report, one recommendation was on the transfer of information. I see there's a $15 million budget item for

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, the report which the member refers to I have also read. It has provided greater poignancy to the need for us to ensure we do have models in place. I think that report also refers to the overall impact. We should be constantly looking at the impact of all services across the social service sector in terms of unintended consequences that may fall out of that as many ministries are looking at different forms of restructuring and having information systems that provide that type of feedback.

With respect to the infrastructure system, we have in the ministry a common infrastructure system and a client registry which will continue to be run by the province. Children who are registered in this client registry will not be able to slip through the cracks, because they will be held within a client registry that is centrally monitored and centrally contained and controlled and from which authorities will be able to get the information as well as an infrastructure.

I know that when I was talking with the authorities in Ontario, one of their amazements was the fact that in British Columbia we're actually able to tell them how many children are in care at any given point in time. We're actually able to tell them how many children are eligible for adoption and ready for adoption. A central information system doesn't exist to that level of sophistication in a number of other provinces.

It's important that we do maintain that level of information and sophistication so that we can protect against a child moving from one region to another and being lost through the cracks. By having a common client registry and a common infrastructure system for all of the service providers to be plugged into, we are able to protect against that happening. Of course, we have to build into that all the necessary requirements for freedom of information and for the protection of privacy issues that are associated with this, and particularly those associated with children who are in care and who are particularly vulnerable and therefore in need of extra protection within that. We're achieving that through the province maintaining the client registry and the common infrastructure system that any service providers will have to be a part of for the information-sharing system.

J. MacPhail: Will all authorities have access to the same information and be required to use the same information system?

Hon. G. Hogg: The common infrastructure and client registry is in place, but we haven't built in the secure conductivity necessary for the sharing of client information with all of the service providers. That part is being worked on so we ensure that we can develop the secure exchange and sharing of information with the regional authorities and the community-based service providers through that process. We have the initial foundation in place, and we have to expand it to be able to accommodate those needs within the communities.

J. MacPhail: All the information system infrastructure will be paid for by the ministry and not the agencies?

Hon. G. Hogg: There will be a percentage of the information system which will be the responsibility of the service providers. Our expectation is that will be provided for by the funding which the ministry or the authorities provide to the service providers to do that. It's a model being set up where there will be an exchange of services, and the resources necessary to buy into that process will be made available in the allocations from the authorities.

J. MacPhail: Agencies now, who will be providing services for the authorities, are going to have to have a common information system, and their budget will be cut. You can't cut the ministry budget by 25 percent when the vast majority of their work is contract — not the vast majority, but there's hundreds of millions of dollars of contract work done — and not have the agency budgets cut. They're going to have to pay for information systems on top of the cut to their budget. Is that right?

Hon. G. Hogg: All of the service providers now have information systems of one sort or another with hardware that complements and supports them. We have been working with them for almost two years trying to look at how we can transition that.

They already have certain requirements within their budgets regarding software, information-sharing and infrastructure. By bringing in a common platform for that, our expectation is that the information will be more effective, more easily available to them and certainly better in terms of protecting the issues of children — being able to prevent them from falling through the cracks.

J. MacPhail: Again, I expect that this will be a very difficult transition period for agencies. It's a wonderful idea to have a common information base, especially when it comes to children or families receiving services from the ministry and now the regional authorities. The fact that the minister is guaranteeing its security is good, except that all of this conversion is taking place at a time of budget cuts. I can't imagine where an agency is going to find money for information systems when they've got children who need care or families who need services. I have very, very deep concerns about how this is going to work.

I wanted to ask the minister about how authorities will get up and running and make sure that everybody has the same amount of information. We talked about CFD boards up and running, but the aboriginal authorities will be later. Is there an aboriginal authority for community living?

Hon. G. Hogg: No, there's not. There is an aboriginal representative on the interim board of community living B.C. to ensure that the aboriginal needs are addressed with respect to that.

J. MacPhail: Why is the community living regional authority treated differently? Did the first nations not want a separate aboriginal authority for community living?

Hon. G. Hogg: The issue in terms of separation is based on the percentage of aboriginal children in care of the state. I think the member, I'm sure, is well aware that about 8 percent of the population of this province — children and youth — are aboriginal. About 45 percent of the children in care are aboriginal, whereas the quantum in terms of the services to the developmentally disabled in the aboriginal community is much, much less than that.

There was not an expression of a need to have a separate authority for that, but there was a need to ensure that the sensitivities to the needs of the developmentally disabled within the aboriginal communities were being addressed. That has been part of the ongoing responsibility of the interim authority. I believe it's George Watts, who's the aboriginal representative on that board, who has brought a great deal of insight and sensitivity to the service needs of the aboriginal community to that table and to that board.

J. MacPhail: Did first nations not want a separate board for community living?

Hon. G. Hogg: They have not expressed any desire to…. I've gone to them and said, "Do you want to have a separate board?" but they certainly haven't. We've discussed with them the presentation and the representation on the board, and that's been a part of the ongoing process. There has never been an expression in terms of that. In fact, I think the board has been very inclusive as it's developed the services, ensuring that it touches across a number of cultures and the needs of various cultures. It has sensitivity to that. The board has that type of representation and that type of responsiveness and sensitivity to those types of needs. I have full confidence in their ability to address the needs of all cultures.

J. MacPhail: My information is different, but if the minister is answering it that way, then it's just my word against his.

Hon. G. Hogg: It has not as yet gone to tender, but it will be going to tender. It is being worked on to ensure that we have the RFP appropriately designed, and response on that will be going out sometime certainly early in this next fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: These things always take a lot of time. Information systems always take longer than they should. The only thing that takes longer than anticipated are house renovations. When will the information systems be in place for the authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: The full system containing all of the elements, including the security and privacy issues, is expected to go through the tendering process and be up and ready to function by the end of March '04.

The client registry part of it, which is now part of the ministry operating, is available for the part with respect to protecting children from falling through the cracks. The provincial registry is up and running in the ministry now. We'll be able to use that as the need arises and as authorities start coming on line, but the full functioning of it won't occur until the end of the fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: I just thought of this as the minister was talking about when the information systems will be ready. The minister has explained the consultation as this process goes on, but are there going to be reports out? I mean other than this debate and an annual report, what other methods will there be for us to monitor this as the transition takes place?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is the provincial service plan for the ministry, and over the course of the next few months I expect to be receiving the service plans for each of the regions. On our website already are a number of measurable outcomes. Outcomes will continually be added to that, and we will be monitoring and monitored by the ability of the authorities and the ministry to address the expected outcomes that we have as we go through this transition process. So there are measurable, observable outcomes to be tested against the process we're going through to see whether or not we're meeting the criteria.

Part of that, of course, is that the ministry readiness criteria have a number of measurements and outcomes that must be reached. The accountability framework has a number of outcomes that are tested and measured as well. There are a number of accountabilities that have been built into the process. They are measurable, observable outcomes which will test and monitor, on an ongoing basis, the success of the transition and the success of the service delivery that comes out of that transition.

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, that's one place that it's being monitored, because on the website we have

listed the outcomes. Anyone in the community can look at it — can see what those outcomes are. Certainly we have, within the ministry, as I said earlier…. As we move staff out into the authorities, there will still be about a thousand ministry staff who will be responsible for the accountability, the meeting of standards and meeting all of the provisions that exist within the readiness criteria and accountability. There will be ministry staff who will be constantly monitoring the success of the authorities and the service providers to meet the conditions and standards that have been laid out in legislation, in practice and in policy.

J. MacPhail: Where will we be able to find these selection criteria for the appointment of the board members?

Hon. G. Hogg: The selection criteria will become apparent to the member when the legislation is introduced.

J. MacPhail: So we don't have interim authority appointments yet. We do. Okay, that's what I was asking about — the criteria for the interim authorities.

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a set of skills and abilities which have been developed for the appointment of the interim authorities. Those can be made available to the member, should she so desire.

J. MacPhail: And yet it won't be the same. The criteria for board appointments for permanent authorities will be contained in legislation. Is the minister anticipating that they will be different?

Hon. G. Hogg: I don't anticipate they will be dramatically different. However, the permanent boards will have a slightly different responsibility, inasmuch as they've gone from the planning phase into the operational phase. They'll be responsible for service delivery, which the interim authorities are not responsible for. There will be some specific skills which will be slightly different as we move to permanent authorities.

J. MacPhail: I noticed from the interim authorities — just at a glance — that they were certainly more broadly representative than the health authorities, which are all business people. Is the minister satisfied that the representation of interests on the interim boards is broad enough?

Hon. G. Hogg: I am quite satisfied that we have a broad representation on each of the boards, and certainly they also have committees they've been meeting with. If there are any skills or any understanding they may lack, through the consultation process that has been required, they have certainly been involved with a number of community meetings, which have provided them with any other information they might need to have in terms of the development of their plan.

I've been in each of the regions, and I've had meetings with both staff and service providers in the regions, talking to them about their issues and constantly receiving letters and e-mails with respect to that, as a reference point for that. I am quite satisfied that the interim authorities have been very open and responsive and quite prepared to hear different perspectives and ideas in terms of what services should look like in various parts of the communities for various needs that different children and families and adults may put forward.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, there will be a public call, and there will be advertisements for two weeks seeking interest from prospective board members across the province.

J. MacPhail: Where are the offices going to be located for each of the authorities?

Hon. G. Hogg: That will become evident as the various authorities submit their plans, and each one of them is looking at different ways of addressing that issue. I've spoken with some of the people in the interior. They have some ideas with respect to where their regional offices should be and where their support offices will be. Each region will be addressing that in a slightly different fashion, wanting to be sure they are responding to the nuances of the geographic areas they're responsible for.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask this question: how much is the ministry spending on office relocation or office changes?

Hon. G. Hogg: I don't have an answer for the cost of office relocation, but certainly as a principle we'll be wanting to maximize the use of existing leases within the province. There's also a central government fund — the government accommodation, restructuring or relocation initiative fund — which is available to assist and support those where there are transfers to leases or to accommodation which will, in the long term, be more effective and more efficient than some of the leases which may be in existence today.

J. MacPhail: Yes, there's a fund the Minister of Finance is responsible for, for accommodation cost changes as a result of restructuring. It's the same area where severance costs are allocated as well. What I was curious to know is how much of that fund will be used by the Ministry of Children and Family Development

in this restructuring. I would appreciate that. Surely, that information must be available.

The reason why I'm asking these questions is because we're months away from all of this being in place for five or perhaps six of the authorities. The computer system hasn't been tendered. The office locations haven't been chosen. The boards haven't been appointed. I can anticipate great legislative changes to the employees' rights and responsibilities and compensation. It does seem there's a lot of work still to be done.

Does the minister expect that existing child and family services offices will be closed in some areas?

Hon. G. Hogg: The service plans from each of the authorities are coming in. Some of them — I expect two or three of them — will be in this month. That will, in fact, be within the next two weeks. Those are the service delivery. It would be presumptuous of me to assume what their service plan is going to look like and, therefore, what offices they will need to address and support the service plan. We've delegated to them, within the communities, the ability to develop a service plan. Then they have to have the infrastructure to support the delivery of that service plan. Until we've received the service plans and approved those plans, we don't know what the model of service is going to look like. Therefore, we don't know what the office infrastructure necessary to support that is going to look like. Those are all a part of what we expect to receive within the next couple of weeks from the majority of authorities, to start building upon that.

They're well aware. As I say, most of them are looking at the offices they have in place, how they can maximize the use of existing leases to continue that. But I assume that in the process, there may well be some offices which will close as they look at amalgamation and look at other ways of ensuring that they have the offices to support whatever that new service model may look like, which may not be the same as the service plan we currently have.

J. MacPhail: Are the CEOs for the regional authorities permanent? If so, who are they?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are interim CEOs in place. When the boards are up and fully appointed, they will select their own CEOs.

Hon. G. Hogg: Vancouver coastal is Fred Milowsky, Fraser is Les Boon, Vancouver Island is Jane Cowell, the interior is Wrenn Weston, and the north is Doug Heyman.

J. MacPhail: What about the aboriginal interim authorities? Do they have interim CEOs?

Hon. G. Hogg: The CEOs I just listed are also providing services and support to the aboriginal authorities.

Hon. G. Hogg: Currently, the senior government representative is Elaine Murray. They will be going through a selection process sometime in the next number of months.

J. MacPhail: So there's one community living authority to cover all of the province. Will the provincial community living authority have one central office? If so, where will it be? This one is going to be up and running, we hope, by September.

Hon. G. Hogg: The central office will be in the lower mainland, probably in the Vancouver area. They will also have a number of regional offices. They've identified a number of centres around the province to look at as the regional centres.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's good to hear. Of course, while the provincial community living authority may be supported if it were a single office, it would be difficult for people — particularly in the rural communities, the interior and the coastal communities — if they didn't have geographic access to an office. It's good to hear that there will be regional offices.

The one regional authority for the north — how many regional offices will go into that one regional authority for the north?

Hon. G. Hogg: I assume that's for the Children and Family Development side of it. There will be a regional office in Prince George and then community offices spread out across the north, covering both the east and the west.

J. MacPhail: No, sorry. Maybe I didn't make my question clear. More than half the province, as I understand it, is in one regional authority now, called the north. Prior to this regional authority being set up, how many regional offices were there — just ministry regional offices — that would now make up that one regional authority?

Hon. G. Hogg: There was just one regional office for what was the north, and the expanded north will still have one office. There was a regional office, and there were some district offices in the past.

J. MacPhail: I have one last question. The minister partially answered it by saying that one regional authority will differ from a health authority by taking into account the needs of a first nations community. Are all the other regional authorities that are aboriginal regional authorities identical, save that one?

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they are, but obviously that region affects two regions as they overlap, so one expands

into it to respect the traditional territory of the aboriginal community. It's part of the Cariboo, so it's part of the interior region that is slightly different in the interior into the north.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply B, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, earlier this day the Leader of the Opposition sought to move adjournment of the House to discuss a matter of urgent public importance under standing order 35 — namely, a call for the halting of hostilities in Iraq and endorsement of the resolution adopted by the city of New York, March 12, '03, regarding substantiation of all attempts to disarm Saddam Hussein in accordance with the United Nations resolutions.

I note the hon. member followed the procedures outlined in standing order 35 in making her application and thank her for the courtesy of having given the Chair advance notice. The Government House Leader commented that there exists a number of opportunities for the House to debate the matter raised. The Chair has considered the matter in light of representations made. There is no doubt that the Chair recognizes the seriousness of the events occurring in Iraq. Such terrible events conjure up strong feelings and emotions on both sides of the debate. War in any theatre is always a matter of great concern, generating a sense of urgency.

In dealing with applications under standing order 35, the Chair must consider the urgency and public importance of the matters, but paramount to this urgency of debate. The words "urgent" and "public importance" as stated in standing order 35 suggest a sudden and unexpected occurrence — hence the presence of the essential elements of suddenness. The unfortunate events that came to a head last week in Iraq had in fact been evolving over a period of months and had been the subject of widespread debate. Hence, the matter raised under standing order 35 is substantially the same as that which has been the subject of public debate for months. The matter has been ongoing for some time, culminating in hostilities in Iraq. The ongoing nature of the matter raised by the member has the effect of taking the matters outside the scope of standing order 35.

The Chair is also satisfied that there do exist ordinary parliamentary opportunities for raising and debating this matter. Additionally, while the matter generates global interest and concern, it is clearly not a matter involving the administrative responsibilities of any minister of the province of British Columbia but, rather, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the government of Canada. Jurisdictional issues precluding standing order 35 were noted in Speaker Barnes's decision of May 24, 1994. It is noted that matters in the House that have proceeded to debate under standing order 35 were all under the jurisdictional umbrella of the province of British Columbia.

For these reasons, the member's application does not qualify under standing order 35.

In addition to providing transcripts on the Internet, Hansard Services publishes transcripts in print and broadcasts Chamber debates on television.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY