Hansard -- Monday, March 31, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 9 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5741

Tributes		5741
	Milton Wong Hon. G. Hogg Ed Macgregor B. Kerr Hon. G. Abbott

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5742
	Life-saving award recipients R. Lee Sandy Merriman House J. Bray B.C. Human Rights Tribunal L. Mayencourt

Oral Questions		5743
	Emergency care availability and handling of SARS cases J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Independent power project proposals D. Chutter Hon. R. Neufeld Forests ministry recreation site management contracts J. Wilson Hon. J. Murray Sex offenders registry B. Locke Hon. R. Coleman Home invasions T. Bhullar Hon. R. Coleman Review of ICBC c.a.r. shop program B. Suffredine Hon. G. Collins

Point of Privilege		5746
	J. MacPhail Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House		5748
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong P. Nettleton

Point of Privilege		5764
	Hon. G. Collins J. MacPhail

Committee of the Whole House		5764
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong W. Cobb

Point of Privilege (Speaker's Ruling)		5780

Committee of the Whole House		5780
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28) (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. M. de Jong W. Cobb

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5788
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

Royal Assent to Bills		5789
	Forestry Revitalization Act (Bill 28)

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		5789
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development (continued) S. Orr Hon. G. Hogg L. Mayencourt J. Nuraney R. Nijjar B. Locke R. Lee Hon. L. Reid E. Brenzinger B. Suffredine J. Bray R. Sultan I. Chong W. McMahon S. Brice V. Anderson

Hon. C. Clark: I had the privilege today of presenting the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal to two civil servants in the Ministry of Education. As you know, Her Majesty represents the highest ideals of community service and public service, as do the two individuals I was able to present this award to today.

While they've been singled out for their tremendous service over the years, they are just two civil servants amongst many, many at the Ministry of Education who've devoted much of their lives, energy and passion to making sure our education system is the best in the world.

I'm delighted to be able to introduce all of you to them today. In our gallery we have with us Peter Owen, from the Ministry of Education, and Heather Walker as well. I hope the House will make them welcome.

P. Wong: Joining us in the House today are Ms. Marita Luk, the business development manager, and Mr. John English, the dean from the BCIT school of construction. Would the House please make them most welcome.

Hon. G. Hogg: Last week, the week of March 24, was Social Work Week in British Columbia, and we, through that week, celebrate the sacrifices and contributions that social workers make across this province. The Premier and I had the privilege last Friday of making one person an honorary social worker. That person is Milton Wong, the chancellor of Simon Fraser University, who is now an honorary social worker. I would ask the House to extend our congratulations to him for the work that he's done on behalf of the people of this province.

E. Brenzinger: Today in the House I have joining me two young gentlemen from my riding of Surrey-Whalley. I have Rick Kraushar and Rudolf Sokolovski. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: I have two introductions to make this afternoon. First, we are joined by a couple of concerned IWA members in the gallery today, Darol Smith and Gary Kobayashi. Would the House please make them welcome.

Then two young post-secondary students from Malaspina College, Margo Dolling and Josh Dolling. Would the House please make them welcome.

W. Cobb: Mine is not an introduction, but a recognition. For the first time in the 50-year history of minor hockey in one of my communities, a Williams Lake team has won the B.C. hockey title. The Williams Lake McDonald's midget Broncos captured the B.C. AAA rep minor hockey crown at the seven-team provincial championship playoffs.

The Williams Lake boys, coached by Sid Davis and Jason Smart, compiled a five-win, one-tie and one-loss record at the Kelowna tournament against Kamloops — 4 to 2. The Williams Lake squad will now represent B.C. in the B.C.–Alberta regional Air Canada Cup. The best-of-three series will be played against a Calgary team in Williams Lake this Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Please join me in congratulating them and wishing them well this weekend.

B. Kerr: It's with sadness that I announce the passing of Sooke's first and only mayor. Ed Macgregor was a tremendous administrator as he guided Sooke through its incorporation process, and then as mayor for two terms taking it through the growing pains of being a new municipality.

One thing that Ed Macgregor was not: he was not pretentious. Ed would be just as comfortable or probably more comfortable in his cutoffs and T-shirt working in his garden than wearing a jacket and tie. Ed is going to be dearly missed by his community, and our condolences go his wife, Linda, and his family.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to join with the member in paying tribute to Ed Macgregor, as the minister responsible for municipal affairs in the province. I had the pleasure of meeting Ed on several occasions. He was a very fine gentleman and a tireless champion for his community. He'll be very much missed by everyone in the municipality affairs realm, as well as in his own community obviously. Again, we mourn his passing.

Hon. G. Hogg: Consistent with my practice of reporting on basketball excellence in this House, last week I reported on the fact that White Rock Christian and Earl Marriott Secondary won the provincial basketball championship.

This week's report is from the provincial master's basketball tournament, a championship held in Abbotsford this past weekend, where a Victoria team performed well above their potential and came home with a sixth-place finish in the C division.

This gritty group was led by the legendary, lanky and loquacious Les Leyne. Would the House please join me in extending congratulations to this group who exceeded all expectations and finished….

L. Mayencourt: I was just looking up in the gallery, and I noticed that a very good friend, Wilf Hurd, is

here in the House — a former member of this Legislature. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. K. Falcon: Many members will know that there was a terrible tragedy in my community of Cloverdale last week. Four young people died, and one was critically injured in a horrible motor vehicle accident. Having attended the memorial service for one of the young people over the weekend, I can tell the House that this tragedy has deeply affected not only the family, friends and classmates of these young people but the entire community of Cloverdale.

I would ask that the Speaker, on behalf of all members of this House, please send a message of condolence to all the families of the young people involved in this tragic accident.

R. Lee: Last Saturday I had the honour to participate in the ninety-first annual Commonwealth honour and rescue awards ceremony at the Hotel Vancouver. I brought greetings from the Premier to welcome the recipients and guests.

This year many members of the Lifesaving Society of Canada, B.C. and Yukon Branch, have received the Queen's Golden Jubilee medal for their contributions and achievements benefiting their fellow citizens and community. Recipients of the medal included Jon MacKinnon, branch governor, and Jean Lathwell, who began her volunteer involvement with the Lifesaving Society in 1944.

Again, we heard many meritorious actions of British Columbians in saving lives. For example, Vernon Botkin saved the lives of two young motorists from a water-filled Richmond ditch. Jeff Chapman and Keith Sterling-Pither saved Keith Fuller from his partially submerged boat off Port Renfrew. David Davis pulled a man without a life jacket off the water near Gonzales Bay, and Jack Macdonald brought a little girl's — Char Cook's — life back when vacationing in Christopher Lake, Saskatchewan.

Other rescues involving significant acts of bravery over the past year included a group of students and their teacher Alyson King and parent Bill Balakshin from the Chilliwack Middle School at Stave Lake; Doug Bray at Hemlock Valley; Kelli Deering in Smithers; Beckie Harcourt on Pender Island, Reginald Lehman and John Mayr at Three Valley Gap Lake, and Alishia Muehlfarth at Waterfront Park, Burrard Inlet.

Many of these people put their lives in danger. Their heroic and selfless action is an inspiration to us. Would the House join me to honour the life-saving actions and services of these outstanding British Columbians.

J. Bray: Today I would like to advise this House and my constituents about recent developments concerning a vital service in my community: Sandy Merriman House. Sandy Merriman House is a hostel facility for women operated through the Victoria Cool Aid Society since 1997. Sandy Merriman House operates as a shelter hostel for women in crisis. Women also receive two meals, access to shower facilities and laundry service and access to telephones, etc., and, most importantly, a safe place with caring staff that understand the needs of the women who use this facility.

Until November of last year Sandy Merriman was also open during the day as a drop-in centre for women to come in for information, support, a warm cup of coffee and a safe haven from the streets. In the fall Cool Aid was not successful in its contract application to continue the day program, and thus Sandy Merriman House was only open from 5 p.m. to 9 a.m. Concurrently, the city of Victoria, Vancouver Island health authority and Victoria city police issued a joint strategy on how to deal with illicit drug use, homelessness and mental health as it pertains to our community.

I have spoken in this House about the cooperation among the local authorities to deliver immediate as well as long-term solutions and the need for the provincial government to partner in these solutions. My Victoria-area colleagues and I have continued to work with ministers to ensure that we do our part to support this collaborative approach. Earlier the province contributed funding to assist in the needle pickup and disposal program.

I have also spoken about the need for a safe place for women at risk. Some of those that were caught in the downtown situation were clients of Sandy Merriman House. This is why I'm so pleased that in bringing Cool Aid together with Ministry of Human Resources staff, funding is now available through June 2003 to once again offer the day program at Sandy Merriman. This safe haven for women will again be open 24 hours a day and will provide another provincial contribution to the Victoria downtown strategy. By working together, we can make a difference for our communities.

L. Mayencourt: Friday was a historic day here in British Columbia, when I attended the Attorney General's announcement regarding the new Human Rights Tribunal. This fresh initiative by our government will begin a new era in British Columbia human rights and how cases are handled. The new model will focus on mediation and resolution and will promote education and greater access to information. As of this morning a single body will handle all human rights complaints from start to finish.

The human rights tribunal has been given a clear mandate to provide improved accessibility and to help

make its processes and procedures clearer. They have created a system that is straightforward and easy to understand. As the Attorney General stated, not all human rights cases are the same, but each person equally deserves to be treated fairly and with dignity and respect. The tribunal will now be able to effectively monitor each case accordingly and help people solve their problems in a speedy and efficient manner. Legal support will be available to those who need assistance through a clinic run jointly by the B.C. Human Rights Coalition and the Community Legal Assistance Society. It's important that every individual fully understands the process involved in a human rights complaint, and this initiative will achieve that.

Another important aspect of this system is the emphasis on education. Our government has taken on the important role of educating employers, employees and the general public regarding the Human Rights Code. Education is our most effective tool in making the code a success.

That we require a human rights tribunal is an unfortunate fact in our society today. Each of us needs to champion human rights and provide services to those that need them in a timely, affordable and practical manner.

In conclusion, this is a step forward for all British Columbians, because they will know that this government respects every individual's right to receive fair treatment and find justice. I congratulate the Attorney General and all those involved with Friday's announcement for launching this important initiative.

J. MacPhail: Last week a young man died while physicians at Mission Memorial Hospital scrambled to find him an intensive care unit bed. The young man couldn't be treated at Mission Memorial Hospital because its emergency services had been severely cut back by this government. It took over three hours for doctors to find him an ICU bed. By that time, it was too late, and the coroner is now investigating.

Can the Minister of Health Services tell this House what additional steps he is taking to investigate this tragic event, and will he now share with the House whether he thinks that shutting down emergency services in major population centres like Mission may have been a serious mistake?

Hon. C. Hansen: I certainly share the member's concern for this very tragic situation. I think it was very difficult for any of us to relate to the loss of a son or a daughter, especially a young person being taken in tragic circumstances.

I can assure the member that in this circumstance it really had nothing to do with the ICU. It was not an ICU that this young man needed in that circumstance but rather a trauma care, and the efforts…. The Mission Memorial Hospital has never had trauma care, so that would not have been a factor at all.

I can also assure the member that there is 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week emergency room coverage with physicians there. That has not been decreased, as the member implied in her question. Certainly, the health authority is working closely with the coroner. There will be full cooperation, and we will welcome a thorough review of the efforts that were made to save this young man's life. If there is anything to be learned from the report of the coroner's inquiry…. We will certainly ensure that those measures get implemented, if there are recommendations.

J. MacPhail: I assume that, like me, the Minister of Health Services will await the coroner's report before reaching any conclusions.

Mission Memorial Hospital is just one of the many hospitals in the lower mainland and around the province that have had their emergency care, trauma care and acute care facilities cut back by this government. In the Fraser health authority alone, up to 335 acute care beds are now being cut. Doctors, as of this weekend, are raising the alarm about the possible effects this might have on treating a potential epidemic like SARS. Today Dr. Tom Koch, of Simon Fraser University, says that B.C. will be unable to handle a similar outbreak of SARS like the one that's occurring in Ontario.

Again to the Minister of Health Services or the Minister of Health Planning: what assurances can either of them provide to British Columbians that B.C. is prepared to handle a SARS outbreak despite these severe cuts to emergency care, acute care and trauma care?

Hon. C. Hansen: First of all, I would like to point out that there has been no reduction in trauma care in the province. We have centres of specialization in trauma care in the province, and indeed those are being strengthened around the province. The member should know from her time as Minister of Health in this province that the demand for the number of acute care beds is dropping considerably — and during the time she was minister, the number of acute care beds in this province dropped — because so many more procedures are being done as a result of day surgery.

When it comes to the SARS epidemic, I read the letter to the editor this morning by Tom Koch, and quite frankly, he's totally wrong. He's totally off base. We in British Columbia, with the health professionals we have, have done an absolutely first-class job of dealing with this challenge that has come to the health care system of British Columbia.

I am extremely proud of the work that was done by the front-line workers at Vancouver General Hospital when they had the first case put into isolation so quickly. I am extremely proud of the work that is being done by our medical health officers and our provincial

health officer. I am extremely proud of the work that's being done at the Centre for Disease Control.

It is a challenge, and we are trying to deal with it in a very deliberate way. It's certainly one of the highest priorities that we have in the system today. I am also fully confident that our acute care system in British Columbia is better able to deal with this challenge than almost any other province in Canada.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition has a second supplementary question.

J. MacPhail: There's no question, as the minister says, that the B.C. Centre for Disease Control has done an admirable job of containing the spread of SARS so far. I'm not quite sure why the minister feels it's necessary to attack Dr. Koch. The point he was making is about the capacity of the health system to cope with an epidemic once an outbreak has occurred. Dr. Koch points out that as a result of acute care bed cuts, which is a reality, it's much more difficult to transfer patients between facilities — whether it be a trauma bed or an acute care bed. That was the situation that faced the tragic circumstances of the man in Mission. The capacity to transfer between facilities is essential when faced with an epidemic. It's what Ontario is faced with right now.

Everywhere I went this weekend, British Columbians are concerned about the recent outbreak of SARS. They want assurances from the government that the government has made allowances for all circumstances, including a huge number of emergency admissions to hospitals. They want assurances that emergency room care will be there even when there's reduced capacity.

All I'm asking the minister for is information. I think that was the tenor of Dr. Koch's letter as well. Can he table the government's analysis of the effect of emergency room changes and acute care bed changes on the province's preparedness for the outbreak of an epidemic like SARS? It is nowhere to be found in information yet.

Hon. C. Hansen: The redesign of the health care system that we announced a year ago this month was all about building a network of care. It was something that has never happened before in this province, where you actually can have emergency rooms in hospitals communicating with each other in a very effective way, and where we have an ambulance service that is actually properly trained to deal with the kind of transfers that the member is talking about. For the first time we're actually getting paramedics trained up to a level to deal with a lot of those kind of circumstances.

I can give the member 100 percent assurance that everything is being done that needs to be done to make sure that our hospitals and our acute care system are ready to deal with any eventuality and any kind of emergencies they might be faced with.

D. Chutter: My question is for the Minister of Energy and Mines. In my riding there are very good opportunities for independent power producers to set up clean power projects. Capitalizing on this potential would create jobs for my constituents and economic growth. Last December B.C. Hydro committed to releasing a list of qualified and eligible bidders by February or March. It is now the end of March, and a list has yet to be made available.

Can the Minister of Energy and Mines now provide that list or update the House on the status of the bidding process?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Yes. Our energy plan that we released last year said we were going to depend on the independent power producers to provide the incremental growth going forward. In that vein B.C. Hydro called for generation, some 800 megawatt-hours, last fall. It was oversubscribed by seven times — 5,500 gigawatt-hours of electricity. B.C. Hydro has narrowed that to 30 proposals, which will now move forward into some better planning stages. It's still about 3,300 gigawatt-hours and will hopefully be awarded by the end of the fall — sometime in September or October. The project should be in commercial operation by September of 2006.

J. Wilson: My question is for the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. I've recently heard from a constituent who is quite concerned that the contracts for recreational sites in the provincial parks will not be settled in time for the upcoming tourist season. Specifically, I refer to the Ten Mile Lake Provincial Park just north of Quesnel. This park is a great asset and hosts a number of activities for both residents and tourists.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection comment on the status of the RFP procedure for park services and tell us if the contracts will be in place for the rapidly approaching tourist season?

Hon. J. Murray: I'm happy to report to the House that the request-for-proposals process is going very well. We will have qualified operators in our parks and our campgrounds for the camping season, and that includes Ten Mile Provincial Park.

J. Wilson: As I understand it, a contractor does not simply bid on a single park, but rather they bid on a series of park contracts. However, Bowron Lake Park is being treated differently. It has been left out of the package process.

Can the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection tell us why Bowron Lake Park has been left out of this process, and how will this affect the RFP process?

Hon. J. Murray: The Bowron Lake Provincial Park is being treated as its own bundle, and that's related to the size of the park, the number of day-use and camping areas, and the very special canoe trip circuit in Bowron Lake Provincial Park that requires specialized service. I can assure the member that this park also will have a qualified operator in place in time for the camping season.

B. Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. The federal government has committed to a sex offender registry. My concern is that the registry does not include offenders that are currently serving sentences or those that have been released into the public. My constituents have expressed concern that this makes the registry almost ineffective.

How effective will a registry be without people like Paul Bernardo or Clifford Olson on it? Can the Solicitor tell my constituents what his office is doing to encourage the federal government to make the sex offender registry retroactive?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, last year the federal government announced that they would be doing enhancements to CPIC which would include a sex offender registry. At that time we made it very clear that there were a number of things we wanted this registry to be able to do — basically, the search ability of the engine that we would be using on the system; that we would have photo capability and that we would have geomapping. We think that we can also incorporate those areas into PRIME to actually deal with it in British Columbia.

One of the issues that's on the table and that we've made very clear, as have Alberta and Ontario, is that retroactivity has to be part of the sex offender registry. We want everyone that is a sex offender retroactively put on the registry for the protection of our communities.

T. Bhullar: Given the rash of home invasions that have taken place in the lower mainland, can the Solicitor General tell the House precisely the operational plans that law enforcement agencies have put into place to combat home invasions so that seniors can feel safe in their homes?

Hon. R. Coleman: Law enforcement continuously has strategic plans that they're working on with regard to any movement of crime or information or difficulties with crime. As the member knows, there were a number of rewards put up with regard to home invasions a couple of years ago. It had some minimal effect on the issue. It seemed to die off when we were able to actually catch some of the people with regard to it.

The bottom line, though, for crime is that the big step that law enforcement needs is what is before this House today: the bill with regard to PRIME-BC. The ability to actually track crime and track people and move that information seamlessly across jurisdictions in order to fight crime is the absolutely important tool that you can give to law enforcement today. It's the most strategic tool we could probably give to law enforcement with regard to any of these issues. In addition to that, we are looking at how we can regionalize and manage our policing and our movement of personnel relative to crime statistics across the region better, which we're doing with some formulas and plans that we're putting into place with both the RCMP and our municipal police forces.

B. Suffredine: Last year the Minister of Finance announced a review of ICBC c.a.r. shop accreditation. To become accredited, ICBC requires businesses to meet certain requirements before it guarantees them work. Many of these requirements have little or nothing to do with quality of service, the skill of the employees or safety in the workplace. They are things like the size of the waiting area or the number of parking stalls.

Government should not be deciding where people get their cars fixed. That's a consumer choice. To the Minister of Finance: when will this review be complete, and what can we expect from it?

Hon. G. Collins: I want to thank members who brought that issue to my attention both prior to the election and since the election, when I've had responsibility for ICBC. It was very clear to me and, as well, other members of the House that the c.a.r. shop program, as put in place by ICBC, was overly bureaucratic and overly prescriptive and left very little for the consumer to decide in choosing where they wanted to go.

We asked ICBC to do a review of the c.a.r. shop program, keeping in mind our goal of deregulation and reducing the burden on people. I'm pleased to say that ICBC has completed that process and that many of the items causing concern to businesses — i.e., a prescription on what their hours of business needed to be, the number of parking stalls, whether they had toilet paper in the washroom, whether they had such-and-such a size of waiting room — have all been taken out.

As well, any regulations that were over and above or in conflict with some of the other regulations they operate under relative to the Workers Compensation Board, for example, have been streamlined. ICBC is now accepting new applications for the c.a.r. shop program as well as working, as a priority, on the backlog that exists.

I'm also pleased to say that they've reduced the renewable annual fee for the c.a.r. shop program from

$750 to $150 and have also reduced the fee for the initial applications from $750 to $470. I think that's good news to all those people trying to operate their small businesses across the province.

J. MacPhail: This morning I rose to give notice of my intent to raise a point of privilege. I rise now on that matter, of which written notice has been given to the Chair under standing order 26, practice recommendation 7, to put to you that there is a prima facie case that the Minister of Forests is in contempt of this House.

I offer up as evidence the following: the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act, which states under the heading, "Payment of 1/2 of holdback for achieving individual responsibilities,"

The second part I offer to you is the Hansard of my exchange with the Minister of Finance on March 5, 2003, wherein he anticipates that the additional expenditure of $275 million, provided for in Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, will put the Minister of Forests well over budget for 2002-03.

I also offer to you Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, which states under the heading, "Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act":

Sections 9 and 10(4) refer to the total of $275 million in expenditures. This section 11 says that the Minister of Forests will get his 10 percent takeback because this bill exempts that ministerial expenditure from holding him accountable under the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

On March 26 the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman — the Minister of Forests — rose in his place, introduced and moved first reading for Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, which was then placed on the order paper in his name. On March 27 the Minister of Forests again rose in his place and presented his bill for second reading. At the conclusion of that debate the Minister of Forests voted in its favour. Today, March 31, we are advised by the Government House Leader that the first and primary order of business to be called just moments from now is committee stage on Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, and again the Minister of Forests will be taking the lead on his own bill.

Section 11 of Bill 28, should it pass, will not change the bottom line for government. It will not impact on how the ministers in general will be compensated under the scheme of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Section 11 of Bill 28, if passed, will grant the Minister of Forests, the very sponsor and quarterback of this bill, the sole and unique benefit of a financial gain — a financial reward worth 10 percent of his ministerial stipend — approximately $4,000 directly into his own pocket.

I encourage members of this House to consult the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, section 2, for a definition of conflict of interest, which reads as follows: "(1) For the purposes of this Act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to further his or her private interest." It's the end of the act.

I also assume that all members are familiar with section 3 of that act, which states: "A member must not exercise an official power or perform an official duty or function if the member has a conflict of interest or an apparent conflict of interest." Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forests gained a personal benefit, a unique benefit, as a result of Bill 28, and he stood in this House and voted in favour of that.

I now turn to the question of contempt and offer select references on the matter, including the following.

1. MacMinn, third edition, 1997, who notes under Standing Order 26, which identifies the collective privileges of the Members of the Legislative Assembly to include the power to punish for contempt.

2. Maingot, second edition, 1997, and specifically under the heading of "Contempt of Parliament," the following: "…one of the corporate privileges of the House is the power to punish for contempt." And further, I continue to quote: "…there is no restriction on what may constitute a 'contempt of parliament."' It goes on to offer some description of what might constitute a contempt, as:

3. Erskine May, editions 19, 20, 21 and 22, under the title of "Contempts": "On June 22, 1858, the House of Commons resolved 'that it is contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of this House that any of its members should bring forward, promote or advocate

in this House any proceeding or measure in which he may have acted or been concerned for or in consideration of any pecuniary fee or reward.'"

4. Finally, I will recommend to you the report from the Select Committee on the Conduct of a Member, House of Commons, December 18, 1940, which found that even though the evidence might have been inconclusive as to the expectations of pecuniary benefit, the conduct of the member in question was still "contrary to the usage and derogatory to the dignity of the House, and inconsistent with the standards which parliament is entitled to expect from its members."

This House has not ceded its authority to find one of its members in conflict. Indeed, as members will know, any penalties recommended under section 21 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act must be approved by this House as the ultimate authority. But no one, other than this House, has the authority to determine and punish a contempt against it.

The evidence is irrefutable that the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman and Minister of Forests has — by sponsoring, defending in debate and voting in favour of Bill 28 — sought to derive a financial benefit. His conduct was disrespectful of the authority and lawful commands of the Legislative Assembly. It was also an assault on its dignity and inconsistent with the standards which the Legislative Assembly is entitled to expect from its members.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your patience and submit to you, if I may, a motion. This is a motion that I am prepared to call should you find a prima facie case for contempt. I also seek your advice on the propriety of the bill in question, Bill 28, proceeding as it appears on the order paper under the name of the Minister of Forests while the matter weighs upon your mind. I also seek your advice, should you find a prima facie case, whether that bill should proceed at all until the responsible committee has reported back to this House.

Hon. G. Collins: First, I want to reserve my right to raise other matters on this issue, because I have not had the same time to go back and canvass the 1858 and other references, so I'd like to take my opportunity to reserve my right to do that. On the surface, however, I think the member has created a fairly elaborate superstructure with not much in it.

We have in existence in the province of British Columbia something called the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which was passed, according to my recollection, somewhat after 1858. It was passed in this Legislature, and it deals with potential conflicts that members may or may not have. I can only assume the member opposite is aware of it as well, because she refers to it in her presentation.

The Conflict of Interest Act lays out a number of things where a member can be held in conflict for raising matters or voting on matters where they have an individual interest. However, this House, both in passing and voting upon the initial Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act — all members in this House — voted in favour of it. I think two members voted against it, but other members voted in favour of it. Those members sitting in the cabinet, if the member's argument were to stand, would have been in breach of the Conflict of Interest Act at the time that that item was raised, debated and voted upon in this House. I believe I would have been as well. I think I was the sponsoring minister, to use the same reference that the member opposite raises. So I clearly would have been in conflict of interest.

Also, every year, when this House votes on vote 1, members vote in favour of their own salaries. If they were to not vote on that or to vote and amend it somehow, they would in fact be impacting their income. As well, there is an act that has passed this House previously, the Members of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and…. I can't remember what it's called. It has to do with our allowances, our pensions, etc. — privileges which all members in this House voted upon. And I do recall seeing responses from the conflict-of-interest commissioner to various members of the public who have written to the conflict-of-interest commissioner at various times alleging that members voting on their own remuneration was a matter of conflict and him being clear that that was, in fact, not the case. There's no one else who can vote on it; there's no one else who can bring it up; there's no one else who can debate it. It is the one area where members are entitled to and required to, in fact, vote.

Good. Thank you for the quick legislative work of my colleague here. I refer to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the definition section, where it states: "Private interest does not include an interest arising from the exercise of an official power or the performance of an official duty or function that applies to the general public, affects the member as one of a broad class of electors, or concerns the remuneration and benefits of a member or an officer or an employee of the Legislative Assembly."

Hon. G. Collins: Yes, I understand what the member is saying, but she should have taken her research perhaps one step further to subsection (c) before she started her victory dance.

There have been a number of cases where members have to and in the past have been required to vote upon their remuneration, the benefits that they receive and the pensions that they receive. I know that member stood in this House and voted on matters that relate to remuneration and pensions, because she and I sat in the same House and have been elected for pretty much the same time.

It is an interesting superstructure that she has created. It has lots of references, but it fails to, I think, deal with the one that is definitive, and this House has already spoken. It has said that when members are dealing with their personal remuneration, it is not a matter of privilege. It's very clear. It's in section 1 of the Con-

flict Of Interest Act. It is the most current reference on that regard. This House has chosen to direct its affairs in that way, and clearly it is not a contempt of the House or a contempt of parliament if parliament is dealing in the exact context of the legislation it passed not that terribly long ago.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment, please. The Government House Leader has reserved his right to respond further to this motion of privilege — later today, I would urge. I would hear one argument only from the government side and one from the opposition side. The Leader of the Opposition seeks the floor again.

J. MacPhail: Regardless of that, there is the issue that this government plans to pass this legislation today, so there are unique circumstances that face us in this chamber about this matter. Therefore, perhaps the Speaker could see his way to have a recess.

Mr. Speaker: If you just take your seat for one moment, I was going to deal with that. The matter of privilege does not go to the validity of the bill. It addresses one aspect of the bill, and that is the role of the minister and the role he has played in the progress through this House. So the bill is valid, and if it is the Government House Leader's wish, it can proceed to the next stage, which is committee.

I will hear the Government House Leader's further argument later today, and then in due course we'll rule on the point of privilege, which I might add is very detailed and well researched. I thank the member for that. It's a very complex issue which will take some time to come back with an answer.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, followed by the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 28.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: We're going to spend some time on this section, because this is a very important part of the Forestry Revitalization Act, Bill 28. I'll read section 2 into the record. It's entitled "Harvesting rights reduced for timber licences and certain replaceable licences."

I have referred in my questions in shorthand, as this is the section that deals with 20 percent takeback of tenure. From my reading of the legislation, this applies to forest tenures in excess of 200,000 acres. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a threshold, but for the member's information, the unit of measurement is cubic metres, not acres or hectares.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister please tell us what areas of the province will see the greatest impact from this takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: The cumulative volume affected is about 8.3 million cubic metres. The rough breakdown on that is 2.6 million cubic metres on the coast and 5.7 million cubic metres in the interior.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and therefore I'm interested in the breakdown amongst that. What licences will be affected and by how much, please?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best answer I think I can give is on a licence-by-licence basis — that is, as set out in the schedule.

J. MacPhail: It is interesting that the…. Is the schedule the one that the minister's referring to at the back that lists…? Let me just describe it. The schedule lists a number of companies in column 1. Column 2 has the licensing number. Column 3 has the allowable annual cut for each of those companies. Then for the ones that have more than one location — for instance, Canfor, which has 15 licence numbers — column 3, the allowable annual cut, is blank.

Perhaps the minister could be a little more specific because the schedule doesn't tell me anything on what it means. For instance, in looking at the schedule, item

5, Canfor Group, Canadian Forest Products Ltd., A19208…. That's a licence number. Why is it broken out like that? Perhaps the minister could describe why it's broken out.

Hon. M. de Jong: The licences that are listed — and we'll take the Canfor example — are all of those licences which, under the definition and the terms of this act, are subject to the 20 percent takeback. The number that the member sees immediately to the right of the word Canfor — the 1556012 — is the cumulative total not of all of these licences but of the volume that would be taken back after applying the 20 percent above the 200,000 threshold that Canfor, as an entity, enjoys along with all other licensees.

J. MacPhail: It could have been because I was in the hallway, but did the minister introduce his staff? If he didn't, if he wouldn't mind….

Hon. M. de Jong: Don Wright, the deputy, is on my right. Julian Paine is on my left, and behind me is Richard Grieve from the Forest Service.

J. MacPhail: Is there a mill attached to each one of these licences of Canfor?

J. MacPhail: Well, is the government then going to just take 20 percent off…? Is the 1.556 million cubic metres takeback for Canfor going to be divided by 15?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is a fair and appropriate question. The answer goes like this. We had a choice, having decided to go down this path of a reallocation. One of the options was to simply apply 20 percent to each of the licences. In fact, what we are trying to do is secure a maximum amount of flexibility, both for the Crown and indeed for the operators.

We need a representative selection of volume in terms of species and in terms of geography, recognizing what our objectives are as they relate to communities, first nations, woodlots. Therefore it is not inconceivable — and I'm not sure Canfor is the best example to apply this to — that in a particular case the Crown and a licensee might, for example, agree to the surrender or reallocation of an entire licence as opposed to simply 20 percent.

What the schedule points out is what, at the end of the day, must be satisfied — the 1.55 million cubic metres, in this case, from Canfor.

J. MacPhail: I don't want to in any way to suggest that I'm singling out any company by referring to a particular company out of a particular column. I'm just using the various names listed in the legislation to demonstrate the basis from which I'm asking my point.

When is this going to be determined? What are the rules to set up for determining this?

Hon. M. de Jong: The act stipulates, in a section we have not yet arrived at, that that selection process negotiation will take place over the next three years.

J. MacPhail: I'm being advised to read the bill. I want to assure everybody that I've read the bill. But the fact of the matter is that this legislation is going to be rammed through tonight. What we're really legislating is negotiation, and there are thousands of people's lives affected by this bill and the consequences of this bill.

What I'm asking the minister is: how will the negotiations work? What has he got planned the minute this bill is passed?

Hon. M. de Jong: To the member, I feel her pain. I am regularly subjected to a similar exercise. What I know is happening on the part of government, as we move through the implementation of this statutory regime, is a process by which we analyze — given our understanding of where the licences have been attributed — our needs as they relate to the objectives. They're very much part of this overall reform agenda.

Where is it that we require volumes to deal with first nations on a geographic basis? Where is it, and from a selection point of view and representative sampling point of view…? What is it we need to auction to ensure that we have credible and reliable data to drive a market-based timber pricing regime? Where is it that there is interest in the expansion of a woodlot program?

From the Crown's point of view, we are in the midst now — in the early stages, admittedly — of developing an inventory of needs as they relate to the 26 various licence groups listed here. For their part, having now examined the blueprint that this legislation represents and based on discussions that will take place commencing shortly, licensees will be doing the same. I think there will be a pretty healthy discussion. I think I can also say, honestly, that it's the kind of thing I wish could be done more quickly, but it is a detailed task. That's why the legislation contemplates the three-year period to have those discussions — what will largely be licensee specific.

J. MacPhail: If nothing is concluded before the three years, it means this government will have been beyond one term and will have done nothing in this area. So, I'm a bit taken aback that the minister is relying on a three-year period. As I read the debate by the Liberal backbenchers, they referred over and over and over again to the 1990s as being a disastrous decade. Well, before any conclusion is reached on this matter,

Perhaps the minister could give us some guidance on how the 20 percent is to be determined. Is he planning on using the full three years? Will there be an order in which companies come forward? Will there be regional discussions? Who will be involved in making the determination?

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer, I think, is quite obviously that I would like this to go as quickly and smoothly as possible. The three-year period I've alluded to is a bookend, and to the extent that the vast majority of this can be accomplished in advance of that, that is very much my hope.

There are some features to this, though, that I certainly would like all members to be aware of, and that is the very significant interest we have in incorporating first nations into this discussion, recognizing that of the amount slated for reallocation a significant portion is designed to meet our obligations to first nations. It would be logical, at the earliest possible moment, for them to be involved in the discussions — discussions with licensees and discussions with government — and I do not underestimate the capacity that has for guiding the discussions and negotiations and for influencing those discussions as we move forward.

J. MacPhail: Maybe I could read into the record what one first nations group has said about this. This is from the Nanaimo Daily News of today on the front page: "Chief Says New Policy 'Arrogant,'" by Nelson Bennett.

That's kind of an inauspicious beginning to assuming that this is all going to go very well, I would suggest. Sorry, Mr. Chair. That's the end of the article. Why did the government feel it necessary to invoke legislation to do what is really the legal right of first nations in terms of access to tenure?

Hon. M. de Jong: As always, I appreciate the member's thoughtful questions and, obviously, her right and option to read commentary into the record, though the question from this member surprises me a little bit because I think she knows the answer. That is that we have obligations that are politically based — that is, promises that this government has made — but, much more importantly, obligations that are being increasingly defined by the courts, and they relate to the need for us to accommodate as a society the interests of first nations as they relate to a whole range of matters.

In this case we're focusing on forestry and the forest resource, but our ability as a society, our ability as a government — any government — to meet those obligations is tied to our possessing the currency required to do just that. In a world where 98 percent of the AAC is already allocated, Forests ministers, opposition leaders or members of this House can stand and yell until the cows come home about the interests we have in providing tenure opportunities to first nations. If we don't possess the volume in order to allow that to happen, then they really are statements that don't amount to very much.

At its root, this represents a piece of legislation that minimally provides the Crown with the ability to acquire some of the tools necessary — in this case, timber — to satisfy those obligations. I won't comment at length on the article, except to say that the comments attributed to the chief in Mr. Bennett's article, as they relate to volumes, I simply disagree with.

P. Nettleton: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to the Leader of the Opposition for allowing me to ask a question or two of the minister which, in fact, is tied to the line of questioning we are pursuing under section 2. I know that, perhaps, there is no direct relationship between the line of questioning in and around first nations interests, but certainly indirectly, at least, it is related. It's my understanding that, in fact, under Bill 29 there will be considerable discussions with respect to first nations concerns.

To underscore the point that I think the Leader of the Opposition has been making with respect to these changes before us, which will be implemented shortly,

I expect that from a first nations perspective…. It's my understanding that most first nations in fact are — if not openly critical with respect to the changes and the lack of consultation from their perspective — at least quietly questioning why it is we find ourselves in the position we're in here in this House, implementing change without the kind of consultation that is critical, is necessary, for all concerned.

I have before me — from the part of the world from which I hail, Prince George — a couple of news releases. One is from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, an important tribal council representing numerous first nations — a news release criticizing this government moving forward as it is, characterizing this legislation and the lack of consultation as very disturbing. I have, as well, from the northwest tribal treaty group another news release dated March 28 — the earlier news release is dated March 27 of this year — again talking about their concerns with respect to the fact that there have not been the kinds of consultations that in fact are necessary in order for both first nations and non–first nations to work together to ensure the kinds of opportunities that they — that is, first nations and non–first nations, forest-dependent communities — need to enjoy.

I happen to know that the minister, as the former critic for Aboriginal Affairs, is exceedingly familiar with first nations concerns in and around the forest sector and opportunities that are tied to the forest sector in these forest-dependent communities. As well, the minister in his previous life was a lawyer, so I'm certain that he's also familiar with the case law. There's considerable discussion made in the news release of the northwest tribal treaty group with respect to case law and what it says to the whole question of consultation.

My concern, as a representative of a number of forest-dependent communities including the larger community of Prince George, is that we may find, at the end of the day — even though, as I say, this legislation will, I expect, be implemented and will bring about enormous change…. Nonetheless, we will find ourselves, with respect to first nations and first nations concerns and interests, back in the place where perhaps we face blockades. Perhaps we will find ourselves in a place where we find ourselves in the courts. I don't think these types of actions are particularly productive in terms of moving forward and creating the kind of certainty to which we've all made reference and which we all want, frankly, with respect to opportunities in the forest sector, particularly taken in the context of the enormous challenges that we face with respect to markets, softwood and what have you.

Again, I know the minister has worked very hard on that softwood file, and we all wish him every success. I can tell you that partisanship and differences aside, that's a file we want to see solved. I've publicly made the comment that, in my view, this minister is smart, he's tough, he's dedicated, and it's my hope that, in fact, that's a file he resolves.

I have some concerns — representing, as I do, first nations communities — that in fact we do not see the kind of consultation or commitment to consultation that is necessary in order to move forward and move forward smoothly. I'm just wondering: has the minister considered…? Is there some kind of a mechanism for consultation, given the demand of first nations for meaningful consultation, beyond the implementation of this legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for his thoughtful comments. I know it is a subject that has attracted his attention in the past and to which he has devoted a great deal of energy — and not illogically, given the part of the province that he represents.

The best way, I think, that I can respond to the observations and ultimately the question is to point out the dilemma we face — any government, the government of the day — confronted on the one hand by the expressions of the expectations that first nations have to be more directly involved in forestry development and in economic opportunities generally around the province. For many first nations, that means forestry. It is the resource that surrounds them in their communities, and it has been, I am sure, horribly frustrating to watch that resource utilized and impacted, and to have been largely excluded from the benefits that go with that. So first nations say: "It is time to let us participate fully in this resource that exists around our homes and on our traditional territories." I agree. I think the member agrees; the government agrees. It is a sentiment that all in this House, I think, agree with.

The dilemma, as I referred to earlier, relates to the fact that — to this point at least — previous contractual arrangements have limited the Crown's ability to give effect to those desires. So the member pointed out some of the concerns arising out of the CSTC, the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, and I have heard those concerns. I, however, place them in the context of having been told not so long ago by certain members of that tribal council that the offer that was made for 500,000 cubic metres of cut was insufficient. Now, we may negotiate and quarrel about whether that is so. At the end of the day I think one of the answers from the Crown is, "But that's what we have" — and, sadly, have that largely because of uplifts that have occurred due to the pine beetle infestation that the member knows well and has worked to call attention to.

So how do we rectify that? We have here, broadly speaking, a strategy that tries to put the Crown in the position where it can come to the table with more currency. This bill is not about revenue-sharing, but there is that aspect of this as well — combined — putting the Crown in a position where it can present some accommodation offers that hopefully will elicit support from first nations. From a significant section of the first nations community, there is an argument and a cry that say: "Get on with that, because we want to get moving. We want to start putting people to work the way the Cheslatta are putting people to work and the way the Lheidli-T'enneh are wanting to put people to work." Offsetting that cry to get on with it, of course, is the

argument that says: "We also want to be fully engaged in the discussion moving forward."

I understand that, and I think the thrust of the question that the member has asked, quite properly, is: what does one do moving forward? And I agree with the member completely. The present circumstance is unsatisfactory. If we are going to engage in a consultative process based on an individual relationship between an individual member and individual bands, the workability of that is, in my view, very much in doubt. The sheer numbers cause logistical problems. So I think the challenge, and the subject of a discussion with the northwest tribal treaty association that I agreed with, is that we have to find a structure so that those discussions are taking place on an ongoing basis. Though there are always political issues, there are, in the context of what we are doing here, also very technical issues that relate to the operation of forestry in the province — the involvement of bands, the allocation of timber, forest health issues and questions around things like cut control, which we're going to discuss in another bill.

I think the challenge we have is to develop that structure on an ongoing basis. I have asked individuals with the Aboriginal Forest Industries Council to work with us to develop that. There are talks ongoing with the organization that the member referred to. I know there is frustration there that it has taken this long.

I hope that amidst the concerns and the criticisms that have arisen, there is some recognition for what the intent is here and what the motivation is. I am told that as Forests ministers go, I have met more often and more frequently with first nations than any predecessor. I don't say that as a way of begging applause but simply as a signal of the interest and the level of import that I and the government attach to this. I know the member is going to remain vigilant. I know the member is going to do what he can, as he has in the past, to help create those relationships that we need to have moving forward.

J. MacPhail: Well, wasn't that pleasant — a nice little chat about first nations, etc. All very nice, except the bill's going to be rammed through by March 31 — tonight — and first nations are upset. They don't see this in the same way that the Minister of Forests did, and the reason why the Minister of Forests has had to meet so frequently with first nations is because he keeps doing things without consulting them.

Let me just tell the House what the First Nations Summit did on March 12, 2003. They passed a unanimous resolution that requested the cabinet to postpone the Forest Act amendments until the fall session of the House in order to provide time for first nations input. That was after the Minister of Forests met with the first nations on March 11. It's all very well and good to have meetings, but if you have a meeting that just makes people more upset and takes more of their rights away, it ain't that productive a time.

The Minister of Forests was told clearly on March 11 at the summit that there was insufficient consultation and no accommodation of their concerns regarding legislative and policy changes. Also, it's true that the Minister of Forests met with northwest tribal treaty nations on March 3, but there he heard very clearly that their suggestions to postpone legislation were sincere and serious and that they wanted the legislation postponed because there was no consultation or accommodation.

What's the good news for first nations around the province as a result of this legislation? Well, they're having an emergency planning session three days from now to discuss these unilateral changes — not to sit down with the minister because it's been such good legislation, but they're having an emergency planning session because of the unilateral changes brought in by this government.

We've got lots of time to read into the record the media releases from the Carrier-Sekani tribal council, released March 27. Let me just read a couple of the opening paragraphs. The title of the news release from the Carrier-Sekani is: "Carrier-Sekani Tribal Council Says Minister of Forests Is Asking for a Legal Battle."

The minister is somehow trying to say: how else could he do this? What's the problem in recognizing the legal rights of first nations to have their interests accommodated, and the legal obligation of both forest companies and the government to consult before making changes? What's the problem with the principle of willing buyer, willing seller?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure I understood the question. It seems to me though, if I have understood correctly, the question that arises from it is that the legal duty to accommodate is not some nebulous thing that is dependent upon the extent to which the Crown can identify a willing seller. It is a real duty that the courts have imposed.

I suppose we could tell first nations to cool their heels for another decade or two while we somehow obtain the currency we need to act upon the obligation the courts have identified for us. But I hardly think that would represent a satisfactory solution. I know that it wouldn't represent a satisfactory approach for the first

nations that the member neglects to mention, and I wouldn't expect her to — those who, ironically, have made great steps in the last months and several years to become more involved economically in forestry and who are saying quite clearly that they have achieved more in the last two years and have greater expectations for the immediate years moving forward than ever before.

I suppose the member identifies another possible route to the reallocation of timber resources, but I hardly think it's one that would meet with a more positive response, if I understand the suggestion correctly.

J. MacPhail: What we're trying to figure out here is how the 20 percent takeback came about, who's impacted by it and what the consequences are. Those are the questions I'm asking. So far I've been told there will be three years of negotiations. That hardly gives stability or certainty to first nations. It hardly gives stability to forest workers, and it definitely doesn't give stability to the communities that are forest dependent.

I'm just exploring with the minister the concept of the 20 percent takeback. He said one of the reasons why we need to do this is to ensure allocation fairness to first nations. That's the basis upon which I'm exploring this. I don't recall any first nation briefing me somehow suggesting they advocated legislation for 20 percent takeback.

I am told that there has been a wide recognition of the legal obligation of companies to allocate part of their tenure to first nations. Why did we then, given the fact that companies are moving in this direction, all of a sudden determine that it would be the government that would determine the takeback without consulting first nations and, frankly, undercutting what I'm told are some companies that wanted to sit down and have willing buyer, willing seller negotiations?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I have missed a point, the member will remind me, I'm sure.

First of all, unlike the member, in the time I've had this job, I actually have received a steady stream of recommendations from first nations to do just this: to acquire the ability to redistribute tenure from its present owners to first nations. Now, have there been different views about the amount? Absolutely. But the notion that the Crown would take pre-emptive measures to initiate this reallocation is something any number of first nations have advocated for some time.

I don't want the member to think I am dismissing her suggestion out of hand, because, in fairness, it is something that was discussed — that is, the notion of saying to licensees: "You go and try to come to these accommodation agreements or arrangements." It does not, at the end of the day, discharge the Crown from its legal obligations and fiduciary duties.

The other thing I would say candidly to the member is that the government's interest…. Presumably our interest extends beyond securing certainty for any one licensee. It is to achieve, at the end of the day, a level of certainty on the land base for everyone. The ability to do that without being directly involved in the process is, I think, open to question and has clearly led us in the direction of the model that the member sees here.

J. MacPhail: I hope the minister will, early in this debate, come to the conclusion that he should not leap to conclusions because I am asking questions. I am trying to understand from whence this legislation came. It certainly didn't come from forest workers. It didn't come from the communities, and it seems to me that first nations are pretty upset too. So where did it come from, and where is it going?

Maybe I'll take it in smaller baby steps to figure out, then, where it's going. The 20 percent is going to be determined by negotiations. Who will be at the table?

Hon. M. de Jong: The discussions that I contemplate moving forward would involve Forest Service staff generally at the district level or perhaps at the regional level. There will be involvement from officials at the senior ministerial level, particularly, I think, in the formative stages and at the concluding stages. Those discussions would relate specifically to the licensee whose interest is being directly impacted by the reallocation. I don't know if that helps the member.

J. MacPhail: Let's just take an example again. I'll use a different company this time. Let's take Interfor Group. Interfor Group has 13 licences — International Forest Products Ltd. Will the Forest Service staff meet with the community affected by licence A16841 at a separate table than A16850?

Hon. M. de Jong: Certainly, what will happen is that Forest Service staff will sit down with representatives from Interfor. I'm not certain where the two licences the member refers to are located vis-à-vis one another or what proximity they have to one another, but that will begin the general discussion. The Forest Service personnel will make it clear early on what the expectations are from the Crown side, as it relates to the objectives that govern this reform package: first nations, communities — I've listed them — a representative profile of timber. Therein will begin the process of identifying where that representative timber can be drawn from within the licences controlled by the particular company involved.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I assume the government is doing this is to put a whole bunch of timber up for public auction. The minister, in order to meet all sorts of requirements, has to add about 20 percent — so he says — of the large tenure holders. Well, unless you know how negotiations are going to be structured and unless there's sort of a model by which communities or companies can negotiate it, you could have half in three years reaching the 20 percent and the other half

still wrangling over it. That doesn't help at all. It doesn't help the overall objective.

I would have assumed the minister would be able to stand up here and say: "As soon as this legislation is passed, here's how negotiations are going to commence. The IWA will be at the table. The CEP will be at the table. The Carrier-Sekani will be at the table in its traditional territory. The Penticton band will be at the table in its traditional territory. The community of Pouce Coupe will be at this table." So far I can't figure out how negotiations are going to occur. Who will be at the table?

On top of all of this, it's going to be the Forest Service staff leading the discussions. How many Forest Service offices did the minister close down today? How many offices were shut today — forever?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in fact, as part of a restructuring program that the member knows well, offices in 20 communities have been significantly downsized, though I am happy to say that the Forest Service will maintain a presence in each and every one of those communities. You know, when the forest sector goes through a period such as it has over the last decade and revenues to government fall by upwards of $600 million, I guess there are politicians who would pretend that that does not have an impact on the ability to deliver services. There are others — and I am one of those — who understand that it has a very direct impact and, in the case of many Forest Service workers, a very unpleasant one. No one is denying the importance associated with getting this industry back on its feet and the need to get beyond the denial that we appear to have been in as a government and society for too long.

J. MacPhail: That kind of defence of a scoundrel won't get us anywhere, because revenue has fallen more under this government in 20 months than it did throughout the 1990s. So let's not go there.

Secondly, there have been groups of people who have been meeting with this government to talk about changes in the forest sector — not nearly enough. The group wasn't nearly broad enough, but they did put their heart and soul into determining changes in the forest sector — the Truck Loggers Association, the IWA…. And there were large and small licence holders there. Not one of them at any point ever suggested expropriation.

Again, perhaps if there had been a full discussion of accountability, a full discussion of continued transition funding or a discussion of pension bridging in a meaningful way, all of those people who have spent a year — admittedly behind closed doors — trying to assist this minister to get it right would be up here cheering today. But they're not because all that discussion the minister had, he completely ignored and moved right to this legislation. That group who was assisting the minister would suggest today that they can find no justification for his taking back annual allowable cut to determine market.

Mr. Chair, I am in favour of tenure reallocation. I am in favour of tenure reallocation of a substantial amount. But what this government has done — or I'm trying to get the government to explain to me that this isn't what they've done — is expropriated, and they've expropriated in the interests of a few at the expense of many. If indeed that's not the case, tell me who will be at the table to determine the takeback. Just stand up and tell me: will the IWA be at the table?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, in ways that the member knows, the answer is an unreserved yes. But I'm puzzled by the statement, "to have expropriated in the favour of the few to the detriment of the many," which suggests to me that the member is arguing that those who are directly impacted by this expropriation, as she puts it, are on the positive end, and I guess we'll hear about that later in this debate.

There's no question that there's a balancing of interests involved here. The member referred to a process that took place over the better part of a year and a half and that reaped good work, good progress, much of which is embedded in this reform package. The member won't, I'm sure, ever want to acknowledge that. But as it relates to a number of different issues, the work of that group has found its way into this package. Are the truck loggers jumping up and down as cheerleaders of the government? No. But I did hear them say that recognizing the competing interests that were involved is the right direction for the government to be headed in. I happen to take a degree of satisfaction from hearing that kind of comment from a group that represents 7,500 workers — direct workers.

The member will choose the comments that she wishes to choose. To be honest, I'm pleased that in working with some of these groups and with the IWA, who made a very passionate and, I thought, effective argument around the need to look at pension bridging, we were able to come up with a process for the first time to deal with that head-on with real dollars. I know the member will speak to that when we get to that part of the bill.

J. MacPhail: I spent the weekend preparing for this legislation, and the job was made easier because I had the assistance of a lot of people — first nations companies, which came as a surprise to me; people in the community who are the councillors and mayors of communities that will be directly and negatively impacted by that; and working people from the IWA, CEP, PPWC. These points of view that I am putting forward are theirs. All three groups that spent the better part of a year trying to help this minister reorganize the forest industry feel completely betrayed by his expropriation — completely betrayed. It doesn't surprise me at all when people put their heart and soul into assisting this minister, often having to draw down on their own political capital to help this government, and then they get betrayed by it.

What I'm trying to do now is…. When is he going to get them back to the table? Twenty percent is legis-

lated away. I can't for the life of me get the minister to tell me how this is going to work. We have dozens of licences that maybe one will be drawn down by…. Or 20 percent will be reallocated. I bet you there could be 40 percent reallocated, and the corollary licence won't have any reallocation or expropriation.

Will community groups be there? Who's going to be at the table? Communities who are interested in having a community forest licence — will they be at the table? Will they be bidding? Who gets the 20 percent takeback? How does that process work?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member is going to have to indulge my limited capacity by sticking to one question, or I'm going to miss some aspect of this.

There is obviously a process involving the Crown, which has initiated this exercise, and the licensee, who is firstly and most directly impacted. Thereafter, the member has seen all of the material in the careful preparation she has done. The government has not been at all coy about what our expectations are with respect to the volumes that are reallocated and where we intend to see them reallocated to. If the member believes that somehow I have been less than forthcoming in revealing all of that, then she should say so.

But it is all there in the material — the volumes that are expected to be made available through auction, the volumes that would be available to community forests, the volumes that would be available to the woodlot program, the volumes that would be available to first nations. In fact, it's been very specific, and the process moving forward recognizes the fact that we need now to move ahead with the implementation of that blueprint.

The member is perhaps suggesting to me that the preferred route for her would be for government to unilaterally decide not just the volume involved but where it's going to come from, and execute on that without any discussion. That is certainly a practice that has been followed on occasion in the past. It is not my or the government's preferred route.

J. MacPhail: Let's be clear. What happened in the past is that there were public hearings on takebacks, and everybody had input into takebacks. Those public hearings are gone now; they're no longer required.

I'm just trying to figure out what the government's plan is. For one, let's look at the West Fraser Group. They're going to be giving back 857,934 cubic metres. That is a huge amount of timber spread over a huge area. In that area there could be community interests who would want to have a say…. Oh, I'm sorry; that takeback is a huge area amongst an even bigger area.

There could be a community working with their local mill, their local IWA, who says: "We want this part; this volume we want. It can be sustainable. It can sustain our communities. They're good-paying jobs." And maybe West Fraser says: "Oh no. Hey, man, that's high-grade stuff. We're getting it. You're out of here. You're not getting that part."

So who decides? Who's at the table? Where will the first nations interests begin and end? Where do the communities' interests begin and end? I mean, these are not new questions. I would have assumed there would have been a document — an outline, a manual — already about how negotiations will take place. That's all I'm asking.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am not surprised by the nature of the presentation. I also know full well that, had I laid out for the member in excruciating detail precisely what volumes were going to be used for what purpose and with which groups, the argument would have been: "How dare you presume to move ahead without properly involving people." Of course there is going to be participation by community groups and by the Crown.

The purpose of the exercise is to expand a community forest program. Surely that is something that engages the full participation of the communities involved, those that want to avail themselves of opportunities. The reality, of course, is that it's not been an issue because no government of the past has actually taken the steps necessary to put itself in a position where it can have those negotiations. No one is underestimating the breadth or the enormity of the task that awaits us, but what we have here is a blueprint setting out what we want to achieve and a mechanism by which it can at last be achieved.

J. MacPhail: The minister's defence is: "Oh well, no matter what I did, this person would complain." I'm just seeking detail.

Maybe I'll break the questions down even smaller, then. What's the analysis of employment impact of the taking back of the 20 percent that will be used in negotiations? Is employment impact a factor? Has the minister done any work on the anticipated employment impacts of taking back 20 percent?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say this: the inclusion of the trust to which there is an allocation of $75 million signals in pretty clear terms the recognition on the part of the government that there is a transitional cost associated with placing our forest sector on a firmer economic footing. That visits particularly acutely on the coast, and it visits upon workers in the processing sector and potentially in the harvesting sector — both employees of licensees and the contracting community.

An analysis has been done, taking into account both the work that Dr. Pearse conducted for the government just over a year ago and some of the discussions that have taken place bilaterally with labour organizations like the IWA and at the larger table that was in place over the last year and a half.

J. MacPhail: Well, gee, my research was much more productive than that. One forest company said to me: "We've got 2,000 employees. Twenty percent means that 20 percent of those employees are gone." They'd thought that through.

Has the minister done any employment impact on the 20 percent takeback? Is there a way of taking back 20 percent that affects employment less?

Hon. M. de Jong: The thing I want to try and convey to this member, and she may — in fact, I'm certain, based on her comments of a moment ago — have already made up her mind about this…. A timber reallocation does not equate with the timber disappearing. The fact that timber is available on the open market means just that. It is available to licensees, admittedly at market prices.

Those who would suggest that somehow the presentation of this Crown-owned fibre for use via a different mechanism automatically precludes any licensee from accessing that timber are just wrong.

J. MacPhail: Just tell me on what the minister bases that. What analysis has he done to say that there won't be a loss of jobs? He just stood up and basically said how dare I assume that there would be a job loss. What analysis has he done to say that there won't be?

Let me just tell you a piece of advice I received over the weekend about this public auction of timber. This was from a group of people who are very suspicious about why the government is doing it the way it is — through legislation — because, this company group says, it won't have the effect that the minister claims it will have in terms of keeping all of the benefits in British Columbia.

The 20 percent takeback from licence holders will go up for public auction. That 20 percent at public auction will then determine the price that the licence holders will pay for the other 80 percent. That 20 percent at public auction is very key, but the price at auction will no longer be governed by Bill 13. We use that for shorthand here. Bill 13 is the contractual relationship between the loggers and the licence holder. In my view, it's worked extremely well.

Bill 13 is gone now. Bill 13 is red-circled. I'll sit down because the minister is making all sorts of faces. Is Bill 13 gone or not?

J. MacPhail: So all of the contractors that operate now will be the Bill 13 contractors?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two different questions. Are Bill 13 contractors, over time, impacted by either the takeback or the regulatory changes that are contemplated and spelled out in the package for Bill 13? I think they will be, and part of our calculation has taken that into account.

J. MacPhail: In fact, I predict that Bill 13 contractors will be red-circled and will be gone. That's what everybody out there in the industry thinks too. That is the prediction of everybody out there in the industry, both the contractors and the companies. Whatever contractors are logging now….

J. MacPhail: Well, I have no idea. The companies I talked to and the contractors I talked to didn't get into batting at each other. They were batting at the government. No company has suggested to me that it was their wish, and no contractor has suggested that they were anything other than efficient for the job.

So, the contractors will be gone under Bill 13. The contractors left will be ones that will be working directly with the large licence holders, who will have their fixed costs covered. They will be out there bidding for timber, able to pay a higher price for timber on the log market at the auction because somebody else will be covering their fixed costs, and therefore the price will be artificially high.

In fact, the price will be artificially high just as it is with small business timber sales now, where there are contractors who front in the bidding process for the large licence holders. Prices are artificially high in the small business timber sales now, but that's going to expand to the 20 percent. That 20 percent price will guide the rest of the 80 percent. It really will mean more revenue having to be paid to the government and that this is really a grab for revenue. Perhaps the minister could dissuade me of that premise.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, I don't know now whether the member is articulating views that were expressed to her or whether she is making it clear, through you in this debate, Mr. Chair, that she opposes a timber pricing system built around the auction of publicly owned timber. This is a system that quite frankly is designed for and will benefit the most efficient operators, and to that charge I plead guilty. Whether it is in the processing division or in the harvesting division, whether it is a company crew or a contractor…. In the case of the contracting community, we have been very clear.

The provisions of Bill 13 will be changed so that the rate test is tied to the market. If the member is expressing the concerns of some around that principle, I have heard them. But I must tell her, as I have been telling people for the better part of a year and a half, that the government and I are of the view that we need to increase our competitiveness and our efficiency, and the price for not doing so is a continuation of the trend we have seen over the last ten years.

J. MacPhail: My job here is to figure out how this is going to work. It's on a hope and a prayer and "maybe negotiations will work" that so far I've had information. I'm suggesting that an expansion of a public auction that works on the basis of how it works now in the small business section is an artificial market. It's got people fronting. It's got little guys fronting for the big

guys. Prices are artificially high. The small guys have had their fixed costs covered off by the large guys, and there's an artificially high price.

Let me ask this. What revenue increase does the minister anticipate over what period of time from a public auction?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to say this with all sincerity. These are questions that pertain to the use of the volume that we'd be taking back, and I am interested in having that discussion with the member. I note that its direct tie to the language in the section is a bit remote, but I don't want to dissuade the member.

Our revenue projections are as the member has seen them in the budgetary instruments. They are there. They do not take into account, in any way, possible settlement on the softwood lumber dispute file out of an abundance of caution, although there is clearly a potential for a settlement in that realm to impact. The revenue projections are as they exist in the budgetary instrument and are built in part around the plan that we are talking about here.

J. MacPhail: Two comments on relevancy. I recall a debate when the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services was Forests critic. He read a poem called My Dog Shep. So that's No. 1. And No. 2, I assume that the takeback is about doing something different in order to have a price system that is actually market based. Otherwise, there's no reason or there must be another reason for having a takeback. It's all related to getting timber up for public auction that will reflect market prices.

What I'm saying is that there are a whole whack of people out there in the industry now who think that the current market-based system in the small business enterprise section does not in any way reflect true market values, and that there are a whole bunch of people suspicious throughout the industry who think that this is all about price inflation and more revenue for the government.

Well, I've asked the minister when these negotiations would be completed or how long they would take. Do the revenue projections that are in the three-year fiscal plan then reflect what period of conclusion of negotiations and the new system being in place?

Hon. M. de Jong: The revenues that are forecast in the budgetary instruments, as I say, do not take into account the possibility of settlement with the Americans and are built largely around the data that we now collect. I can say to the member that following implementation of the market-based timber pricing system contemplated here, stumpage will rise and fall with the market. I would also acknowledge to her, though, that my expectation and belief is that as the industry becomes more competitive, that will be reflected over time in increased revenues to the Crown and a recouping of some of those revenues that have been lost over the last six, seven or eight years.

P. Nettleton: It may be that I've somehow missed something outside of this debate here today, but one of the questions that certainly comes to mind is: how did the government arrive at the 20 percent figure for reducing timber licences? Why not 15 or 35? Why 20?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we inventoried what we thought our needs were insofar as some of the objectives we spelled out around the establishment of a market-based timber pricing system. This member will know that in his part of the province. Stepping back from the system that is presently in place, including some of its features like the waterbed, is something that licensees in that part of the province have been calling for, for some time.

So we looked at what our needs were — first nations, community forests, woodlots, volume through an auction — based on, in part, this question: how much volume do you need to run through an auction system to derive sufficient data to credibly drive the rest of your stumpage system? I should say, and admit also, based in part upon an acknowledgment of the funds government had available to compensate for the retaking and reallocation of that volume…. So a combination of the two.

The Chair: We'll return here at 20 minutes to the hour. The House will be in recess till 20 minutes to five.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister preparing to do for socioeconomic impact assessment around the takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, the government has already commissioned such a report — the member knows about it — by Dr. Pearse. I think in the past I have heard her articulate her disagreement with it, but it has painted a picture of the situation facing, particularly, the coastal industry and our need to take specific action. I think it is fair to say, broadly speaking, that the government accepts the diagnosis and, in large measure, the prognosis for how to alleviate the worst of what Dr. Pearse has described will occur if we don't take steps.

J. MacPhail: Is the socioeconomic report that the minister will use the Pearse report?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure if the member didn't hear me or misconstrued me. The report that Dr. Pearse

has prepared lays out in excruciating detail the impacts that will continue to befall this industry unless a plan is executed that will reverse the circumstances giving rise to that steady decline. It is a report commissioned by an eminent forestry economist with a very specific, albeit difficult, diagnosis, and one that I'm sure causes many people great concern. The challenge, of course, is to create the set of circumstances that Dr. Pearse alluded to that will lead, for example, to the construction of a dozen new processing facilities for our coastal industry.

J. MacPhail: I did hear the minister. Perhaps the minister could tell me the date of this report.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I thought that was the report he was referring to. That, of course, is a report that talks about what will happen if there is no rationalization. It makes an argument for rationalization. I don't recall Dr. Pearse talking about what the socioeconomic impact would be on communities and their families with the takeback of 20 percent. He said there would have to be mill closures, and he said there would be pain.

I'm asking this minister whether he has done a study about what the socioeconomic impact will be on workers and their families — assessing the viability of workers being able to move, for instance, from community to community; assessing the age of families in the community. Will schools be affected? It's that kind of thing.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I think it is important that we recognize up front the costs as spelled out by a number of analysts, including Dr. Pearse — the costs associated with continuing down the path we are on. The need, if we are serious about diverting from that path and creating a hope and sense of future in forestry from making changes…. In fact, Dr. Pearse does lay out something of a descriptive about what is possible for communities, if government has the courage to take particular steps as it relates to creating the circumstances in which investment will return.

I will say this. Even at this early stage — in advance, actually, of the unveiling of this package — we are beginning to see signs of that. If one goes to a facility in Campbell River owned by TimberWest — a plant that just a few years ago was deemed antiquated and outdated and whose continued operation was very much in doubt — we are now seeing decisions being made to reinvest significant amounts of money to modernize that facility. It is something that I know the member will want to pursue in terms of attaching specific job figures. The reality is this: our clear objective is to create a circumstance in which much of that rationalization will play out differently than the first scenario Dr. Pearse described and in which the impacts will be averted by seeing that new investment take place and those upgraded facilities take place.

I am mindful, also, that on the coast, where this problem is generally regarded as being most acute, we have over the past number of years undercut timber volumes by upwards of three million cubic metres. It would seem to me that part of the challenge, in terms of creating a heightened sense of stability, is to find the mechanism by which we can begin to re-access that three million cubic metres. I think it's three million cubic metres that historically, over the past number of years, has gone unharvested. That, in and of itself, will have an incredibly positive impact in alleviating some of the challenges associated with restructuring and retooling.

J. MacPhail: What did Dr. Pearse say would happen to the families who are affected by a takeback of 20 percent? That's what my question was.

Hon. M. de Jong: There are impacts. No one is suggesting that this is going to be without challenge or without difficulties. It's why we've allocated right up front a significant sum of money, which we'll come to later in this bill, that is there to provide some assistance with respect to those impacts.

J. MacPhail: We've heard in our briefing that the $200 million for compensating the companies is just a beginning figure. Is the $75 million for taking care of the families and the communities just a beginning figure?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am going to suggest that the member remember that question when we get to the appropriate section.

J. MacPhail: It was the minister who brought up the fund. I asked about socioeconomic impacts. He referred to a $75 million fund. I did a follow-up question. What socioeconomic impact study led to the $75 million figure for compensation?

Hon. M. de Jong: Broadly speaking, there are two considerations. First of all, we have conducted an analysis of the replaceable harvesting rights that stand to be impacted under this strategy, this package, and endeavoured to quantify that. Actually, I should say three considerations.

As well, we have been provided with copies of material from the IWA as it relates to some of the strategies that we were pursuing and will continue to pursue jointly with the federal government, persuaded by the numbers provided by the IWA with respect to things like pension bridging.

Thirdly — and I say this equally candidly — others, including the IWA, will point out that they made an argument for additional funds beyond $50 million. I, unfortunately, am somewhat impacted by ability to pay on the government side.

J. MacPhail: Will there be any socioeconomic studies done, further to what the government already has, that may guide negotiations about takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me give the member an example of the kind of discussion that I think is relevant and anticipate taking place. The member will know that specific to this reform initiative is the desire to allocate additional volumes for community forests, and communities have been particularly interested in acquiring some means by which they can more directly control their own destiny. That presumably will have some direct impacts as it relates to the use those communities want to make of that increased fibre basket, the strategies they employ and how that might also relate to the talent that exists within their communities on the part of workers. That's one example of a very direct way that communities will be involved in this process.

I might add, consistent with something that I have heard repeatedly over the last year and a half from people within the IWA and the IWA leadership, that they are not particularly interested in retraining schemes that would have them become wildlife guide-outfitters or tourist individuals. They are interested in remaining, to the extent that they can, within the forest sector. An expanded community forest program is one way, potentially, to see that happen.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and I can fully understand that. But my job is to figure out from the minister what he's planning on doing for the families and the workers in the communities who will be dislocated. Back to the guy who's running a big shop in a forest company — 20 percent takeback means 20 percent loss in jobs in his calculation. That's after maybe 25 years of experience in the industry on the management side.

Will the negotiations that the minister referred to, to determine the 20 percent takeback, have any requirement for taking into account family dislocation or worker dislocation?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm not going to discount the relevance of those elements from the discussion from the Crown's point of view, the licensees, the communities, the workers. I'm going to suggest as well, however, that it is very much a component of the discussion that will take place on the board of the agency charged with administering the $75 million trust, and the member will know that will include representatives from the IWA, the contracting community, licensees and government.

The final point I think I would like to make — and I do want to emphasize this — is that the trees are not going anywhere. In fact, what we are endeavouring to do is create a circumstance in which we can reclaim three million cubic metres of cut that has been underharvested. It has struck me, and I presume the member, quite odd that at a time when there is tremendous dislocation, particularly in our coastal community, we are undercutting by three million cubic metres. It must at least beg the question: why is that? So the trees are going to be there, and, in fact, we hope access to a larger share of the full entitlement, the full AAC as set by the chief forester.

J. MacPhail: We don't expect the public to be experts in the forest industry, but it's a bit glib for the minister to somehow suggest that an undercut of three million cubic metres will be resolved by this bill. There are all sorts of reasons why there has been an undercut in the province, and this bill — or the combination of the three — will go very little way toward solving that problem unless, of course, raw log exports are permitted.

So when the minister says the trees aren't going anywhere, how does he know that? I looked for somewhere in the bill where there will be restrictions on the use of the takeback. There are none. So will there be a public auction where only Williams Lakers can attend, or won't Americans be allowed to attend public auctions — standing timber — and get their logging truck and have at it and go home with their logs? What's to prevent them from doing that? I couldn't find anything in the bill to suggest that there would anything to prevent that.

Hon. M. de Jong: This is going to shock the heck out of the member. Americans can come to British Columbia today and bid on timber — right now, today — as we sit here. The restrictions we have in place, however, require that that timber be processed in British Columbia. The reason the member doesn't see anything in this bill is because all of those restrictions will remain in place.

J. MacPhail: Sorry. The restriction is that the logs will have to be used in mills in British Columbia. Is that right? Okay. Then perhaps the minister could explain why the companies are so happy that there are no employment ties — or some companies are — to the use of the new system. In fact, I think it was the minister himself who announced that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. The minister announced a package of changes. He announced a package of changes that said there would be a public auction. Appurtenancy is gone, cut control is gone, location of mills is gone, and there's going to be a public auction. He also assumed that this would go a long way — it wasn't done for that purpose, but that it would go a long way — toward resolving the softwood lumber dispute. And if the minister is somehow suggesting that if appurtenancy is gone, minimum cut control is gone, mill closure restrictions are gone, but still the logs are going to be used by British Columbians in their communities, what did he do all this for, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know we will have a wholesome debate on these matters when we get to the bill that actually deals with these matters, which the member will know is slated for debate sometime in the future.

But let me say to the member here and now, so she will have a clear sense of what I will say then…. If we

are serious about maximizing the value of the timber resource we own in British Columbia, then I say it is time we came to terms with the fact that in some cases it makes more sense to take a tree that is cut down from a particular location 20 kilometres further down the road to a value-added use for which it is better suited. Yes, there are people who disagree with that. I am someone who happens to agree with it — that the time has come where we dedicated ourselves in a meaningful way to the construction of a policy regime that actually removes the impediments to maximizing the value and the return on the resource that British Columbians own. That, as the member knows, in subsequent legislation has led to some very sweeping and significant changes.

I asked the minister what evidence people could find in this bill that the logs aren't going anywhere. He's got 20 percent more going up for public auction. Bill 13 is gone. I mean, the minister would like to say: "Oh no, the rudiments of Bill 13 will still be in place."

An American can come up, bid on the standing timber, cut it down and take it home. There's nothing that prevents that right now. Is it the cabinet restriction on raw log exports that prevents that, then? Is that the only thing now standing in its way?

Hon. M. de Jong: Look, I know this doesn't fit with the messaging that she is trying to do on this, but the precise same regulatory restrictions that existed under her government and that exist today will exist following the passage of this legislation. It's as simple as that.

J. MacPhail: I'm asking the minister to articulate what that is. Just articulate it. Put it on the record, because appurtenancy is gone, mill closure legislation requirements are gone, and cut control is gone. So what's left? What's the regulation left that says logs will be used by British Columbians, let's say, in British Columbia? I'll give him the whole province.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks to the member for the question. The specific legislative mechanism is section 127 of the Forest Act, which remains completely in place and applies to timber harvested from Crown lands.

I should say, though, looking ahead to the debate we are going to have around Bill 27 — and I'm sure the member knows this — that we are actually tightening the definition that will ensure there is no doubt and will actually beef up that restriction around log exports.

J. MacPhail: I just know the record of this government in terms of raw log exports. In the last year of the previous administration one million cubic metres were exported, and in the first year of this government's reign — regime — it was 1.8 million cubic metres of raw logs exported. That's almost a doubling.

It will be interesting to see how the tightening-up actually works under this government, because certainly they felt that the way they could apply the rules for raw log exports meant a doubling of raw log exports. Nobody took pride in a one-million-cubic-metre level of raw log exports in the final year of government either.

What's the environmental analysis that's to be done around lands allocated for the 20 percent takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think one of the things the member needs to remind herself of as we go through this discussion is that it is not always appropriate to speak of lands. While in some cases there will eventually be an area-based definition, that is not always the case. It is volume-based as well.

The legislation is neutral. What we are deciding here is how to allocate the forestry resource. All of the relevant environmental legislation that is in place now, some of which the member and I debated in the fall of last year…. The Forest and Range Practices Act and all of that legislation continue to apply where forestry activity takes place, irrespective of who is conducting that forestry activity.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but there is a way of dividing up the part…. And thank you. I expect the minister is reminding the public that I said, "of those lands allocated to the 20 percent takeback," understanding the takeback could be volume-based as well.

In fact, it could all be volume-based. The 20 percent could be all volume-based and have a public auction, and everything would be just fine. But there will be a way of changing tenure, land-based tenure, that will have an impact on wildlife habitat, the division of lands on wildlife habitat — riparian zones, for instance — that will be more complex if, indeed, they are not under one owner, one management zone. In fact, that's more than likely to happen. So what's the consideration in that area?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this will help the member. In the course of this process the Forest Service will continue, as it is entitled and expected to do pursuant to statutory authority, to exercise its environmental oversight to ensure that the selection and reallocation process takes place in a way that is consistent with sound forest and environmental management objectives.

I don't think the member said this, but perhaps there are people who hold this view. I do not automatically react negatively to the fact that tenure will be held by a more diverse group of individuals or companies. We have to and will ensure that the principles of stewardship and sound environmental management are not compromised, but I happen to think there are real benefits associated with a more diversified holding of tenure.

J. MacPhail: Part of the debate we had with the changes to the Forest Practices Code was to eliminate

red tape. So the minister was getting out of the business of tenure holders having to file various levels of plans. But one of the things that he insisted was that they would still have to do the plans, both the wildlife habitat plans and the riparian zone plans. In fact, site plans would have to be done and would have to be available if asked for. But it would only be the tenure holders' responsibility to do those for the area of tenure over which they have control, and there would be a requirement to work with the tenure holder next to him or her to make sure that they jibed. So the smaller you get, the more requirement there is for making sure that the site plans…. Taking into account all of the environmental values that we discussed at length, they'll be more of that work to be done. Who oversees that, then?

Hon. M. de Jong: All of the obligations are part of the Forest and Range Practices Act, and the Forest and Range Practices Act during the transitional stages will continue to apply. Any licensee, irrespective of their size, will need to factor that in as they consider the costs associated with practising forestry in B.C. The compliance and enforcement section of the Forest Service will continue to exercise its oversight as set out in the legislation.

J. MacPhail: The Pearse report said mills would have to close. How many mills does the minister anticipate could close with the 20 percent takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: The point I want to make to the member is that if there are mill closures, it will not, in my view, be attributable to the takeback. It may be attributable to other cost efficiencies and competitiveness issues, but the timber will still be there. It would be incorrect, in my view, to assign a figure on the basis of the takeback.

J. MacPhail: The minister just stood up and said he's of the view that if the timber has to go 20 kilometres down the road, so be it. He said that in the context of appurtenancy being gone. Appurtenancy being gone and timber moving 20 kilometres down the road means there will be mill closures. And the Forests ministry — has it stopped doing the analysis it has done for three decades about potential mill closures? Is that work no longer being done?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have heard, in some of the public commentary, the member offer her views on this matter. It seems clear to me that she referred — and she has said it again here a moment ago — to another issue that is present in another bill and has referred specifically to appurtenancy. In fact, after careful analysis I am told that there are no mills on the coast that possess mill-specific appurtenancy clauses. So to attempt to make that tie is, I think, unhelpful or inaccurate at this stage.

The member has heard me say that I believe there is value associated with directing timber to its highest and best uses. Does that mean there will be changed opportunity or different opportunities in the employment sector? I think there will. My hope is that we can maximize some value-added opportunities and that that will have benefits. The concern, of course, is the transition in getting there, and the member has heard my comments around that.

J. MacPhail: So the ministry has stopped doing an analysis of potential mill closures? Is that gone? The ministry no longer does that?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, the ministry does examine processing facilities with a view to the available timber supply. But I will say this, with the greatest respect: the ministry does not take the view that it can determine or will determine or should determine which facilities will continue to operate and which will not.

In the latter part of 2001, Dr. Pearse made some specific findings and specific diagnoses about what the prospects were on the coast. I'm hoping we can do better. I'm hoping we can do better, more quickly, and I'm hoping we can initiate some of that reinvestment that has eluded the coastal industry for a long, long time and has decimated towns like Tahsis. Go to Tahsis. Go to one of these towns where people are surrounded by forests and cannot be employed in the forest sector because of what has taken place.

It has perhaps been considered by others in the past as sound or clever politics to offer their glowing prognosis on the thousands of jobs that will immediately be created by government adopting a specific course of action — governments in the past who have intervened pretty directly and essentially dictated which facilities will operate and which won't. It has, in my view, all been a miserable failure. Certainly, there is a hope and an expectation here that we can create that circumstance in which the kind of thing that's happening in Campbell River will begin to take place elsewhere on the coast. The sooner that happens, as far as I'm concerned, the better.

J. MacPhail: It's cheeky of this minister to think that the whole forest sector and the social contract developed the minute he got involved in politics. He got involved in politics in '92-93, and somehow he thought…. I guess he thinks that's what represents the world as we know it for the social contract between communities and the forest industry. Well, that social contract has been in place for decades. For the minister to somehow suggest it was a horrible failure is to write off communities like Williams Lake — which wouldn't exist without the social contract — Prince George, Burns Lake, Golden, Campbell River, Duncan. It's to write off those communities. He said that was tying jobs to mills — the use of the wood. It was a horrible failure. I am completely taken aback that the minister would write off 50 years of social contract as a horrible failure.

Of course, I guess he needs to do anything to cover up for what he is doing right now. He says he hopes the wood gets reallocated to value-added manufacturing.

Well, let's see what they say. This is just from today — the Daily News in Nanaimo, "Forest Policy Raising Eyebrows," another article by Nelson Bennett. I already read one of his articles into the record. This is another one.

It's unbelievable, isn't it, that I, a Vancouver east MLA, actually have to bring that up. Where are those great MLAs from Nanaimo?

That's just one example of how the social contract is once again being broken down and small, value-added manufacturers see that they will be at a disadvantage. It goes back to my fear — me, articulating the fears of others — that the open market system operating the way the minister will have it operate will not actually really reflect market prices but will allow the big, deep-pocket companies to go in and in an artificial way inflate the prices paid for timber.

It is always important to reflect on history and what the social contract gave, and to somehow now declare it an outright failure is to actually write off the communities that this government seems to think it cares so much about: the heartlands communities — this minister just wrote off completely.

Hon. M. de Jong: Actually, we are relatively confident that the prospects for the pulp and paper sector will be positive. On the coast, for example, we reclaimed some of that lost AAC. That will provide more of the raw resource that those facilities require. Chips, for example, fall into the same category as timber, and the restrictions that presently exist around the exporting of chips will continue to apply.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked that question is because the minister said there is no appurtenancy agreement to any mill — I think he said — on the coast. Well, did something happen to tree farm licence 44 — the Alberni tree farm licence — dated August 1, 1999, that has an appurtenancy clause to Powell River and Port Alberni pulp and paper facilities? What happened to that? Is that gone? It's an appurtenancy mill.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm happy to verify this over the break, but TFL No. 44 is a tree farm licence owned by Weyerhaeuser. I have no doubt that they have supply agreements with processors like Norske and perhaps some others, but I'm not aware of an appurtenancy provision that ties TFL No. 44, in and of itself, to a pulp and paper facility, but I'll certainly check.

J. MacPhail: Well, here it is. Timber processing, 15.01. It's TFL No. 44. It was renewed August 1, 1999 — 15.01. "The licensee will process all timber harvested under a cutting permit or row permit under this licence or equivalent volumes of timber or wood residue other than hog fuel obtained directly or indirectly through any one or more of the following timber processing facilities: the Powell River and Port Alberni pulp and paper facilities owned by Pacifica Papers."

Perhaps the minister could use the supper break to tell me what other mills actually have appurtenancy clauses or exist on the basis of an appurtenancy clause. This is a perfect example of one.

J. MacPhail: I'd like him to itemize the status of the other mills on the coast, because I think the minister is wrong. He said that there were no coastal mills that exist as a result of appurtenancy clauses, so let's have it mill by mill. They're listed right here in this…. What about the community of Port Alice — the impact on the mill in Port Alice and the community of Port Alice? What's the impact of the takeback?

Hon. M. de Jong: Apologies to the member for the delay. In fact, the expectation is that the supply of chips on which the Port Alice operation is dependent to produce its product will, under this regime, improve. There's no doubt that, based on information I have been provided with, that facility faces a number of challenges partly related to the age of the facility. The chip supply or fibre supply for that mill should not contribute to those difficulties insofar as they will be readily available.

J. MacPhail: Are there any representatives at the table? Or is it the big licence holders who just represent the pulp side of the industry? Is there anyone specific to the pulp sector the minister consults with that represents strictly the interests of the pulp sector? Or is it only all of the vertically integrated companies who have a say?

Hon. M. de Jong: I have in the past had meetings with representatives from Norske Skog and with Doman-Western, for example, and the proprietor of the new Skeena. I have had meetings with individuals involved with the pulp workers union.

J. MacPhail: The minister said that the same restrictions on raw log exports will be in place and that he's going to tighten them up. Has he examined legislating raw log export restrictions — tightening them up or just banning them completely from provincially owned land?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes, but I'm going to suggest to the member that we are now varying widely from the section that we are dealing with.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me ask my next question, which is related to the 20 percent takeback. What percentage of foreign companies or individuals who don't have mills in the province now bid on small business enterprise sales of logs?

J. MacPhail: What foreign companies or individuals bid on logs at the log auctions that exist now in British Columbia?

Hon. M. de Jong: Just for the member, to clarify: what the Crown does, as she knows, is sell standing timber — some of it via auction. Does her question relate to foreign individuals without processing facilities who bid on standing timber? She's indicating that is her question.

To the member: I'll have to get that information for her. I can't give her a percentage or a figure that would be meaningful.

J. MacPhail: This is where I'm going on this. What will be the rules now under the new system?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure if I missed something along the way. The rules, as they relate to the use of fibre domestically within British Columbia and the preservation of the restrictions on the export of logs, remain.

J. MacPhail: No, sorry. I'm not talking about the export of raw logs right now. I think that will be a pressure that the minister faces, depending on how he answers this question.

If it is a market-based public auction, is it not possible that foreign companies who don't operate here now would want to come in and bid, whereas they didn't before?

Hon. M. de Jong: We have domestic log brokers in British Columbia today. Is it possible that someone will want to come to British Columbia and set up a domestic log-brokering business? I suppose. Someone may choose to relocate here. What they would be doing is bidding on the timber that is provided for auction and then either processing it in B.C. or selling it somewhere in B.C.

Similarly, someone, I suppose, could come to British Columbia and become a log broker and purchase from private lands. All of the restrictions around the use of that wood are somewhat different. But the possibility of someone coming to British Columbia and bidding and becoming a domestic log broker, I suppose, is there.

J. MacPhail: I'm trying to get a sense of what the world will look like, given that the minister has said there was going to be 20 percent takeback to put up for public auction, and yet he is going to tighten up raw log exports — how that meets a policy change that would satisfy anybody who's interested in levelling the playing field across North America. Perhaps the minister could actually get me those details about what the situation looks like now in terms of foreign companies who do not have processing facilities in the province — what that is now and what he anticipates the change to be.

I ask this question because I assume the minister is going to at some point argue with Americans that, even though he's not saying that this is to be done for softwood lumber negotiations…. He will somehow use this as a defence or an argument in his favour that the government has gone a long way to meeting the concerns of the Americans in the softwood lumber dispute.

I would assume that these questions will be raised — in fact, I know the questions have been raised — both at the softwood lumber negotiating table and by those companies who want an end to the softwood lumber dispute. That's why I'm interested in his answer in this area. Will the minister commit to get that for after supper? The minister is nodding yes.

I have had some feedback from the Carrier-Sekani based on the discussion that has arisen earlier today. Here's the question that the Carrier-Sekani tribal council has sent in. One question that the chiefs have is: "What is the volume that has been set aside for first nations? The Minister of Forests has confused the issue by stating percentages that do not add up. Please ask the minister what is the exact amount." What is the volume that has been set aside for first nations?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this will satisfy the member, and while it may not satisfy the original questioner, it will provide them with a specific response. The long-term objective via this exercise is 8 percent of the annual allowable cut.

J. MacPhail: That's the answer that didn't satisfy them. They're actually watching. Has the minister got a volume that he could actually lay out?

I'll provide the second part of the question. The chiefs of the Carrier-Sekani note that the northwest treaty tribal nations have stated that 50 percent of the AAC from their traditional territories in the north

should be set aside for first nations. Just covering their traditional territories, that would amount to 20 million cubic metres for first nations that live in the north.

Hon. M. de Jong: The rough calculation of 8 percent is 5.4 million cubic metres. I have heard the submission and the statement of position from the group that the member is referring to in the past, and it is obviously a different position than that taken by the Crown.

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

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

Hon. G. Collins: Earlier today I reserved my right to raise further matters on the privilege motion that was made by the member opposite, and I wanted to do that now, if that's possible.

Hon. G. Collins: I've now had the time to do a bit further research, and it's clear to me that my earlier assertions are accurate. The member made a rather long presentation, citing precedents going back to 1858 and 1940. However, in the presentation she ignored the rulings from the House of Commons in the British Parliament in 1911 and 1896, both of which make it clear that a member may vote on a matter that deals with the payment of salaries to members of the House. This includes the minister.

Further, in this House, Speaker Barnes ruled on July 10, 1995, that remuneration does not include an interest arising from the remuneration and benefits of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. The Speaker quotes from the Members' Conflict of Interest Act in his ruling. That's the same act that I referred to earlier today, and I believe it is definitive.

This House dealt with the longstanding issue of conflict of interest and how it relates to the remuneration of members in a very clear way. Section 1 of the act defines a private interest and specifically excludes the remuneration and benefits of a Member of the Legislative Assembly. I put to you that when the hon. Speaker Barnes made his ruling, he was correct in 1995 when he said that this is an issue to be determined by the conflict-of-interest commissioner. As well, I believe the act is clear that this does not qualify as a conflict, but obviously that would be up to the conflict commissioner to determine.

Mr. Speaker: We'll have a short further submission from the Leader of the Opposition.

J. MacPhail: Very short. The conflict act refers to votes on remunerations and benefits, neither of which the amendment under the Forest Revitalization Act speaks to, and so we're not dealing with remuneration and benefits in the contempt. The amendment in Bill 28 doesn't amend the Legislative Assembly Allowances and Pensions Act. It doesn't amend the rate of pay. It doesn't amend the benefits that the Minister of Forests can depend on. It amends a performance measurement that specifically allows the Minister of Forests to avoid the consequences of this $275 million overexpenditure in his ministry.

It's got nothing to do with remuneration or benefits. It's got to do with the performance measurement that exempts the minister from the consequences of the ministerial budget act that I tabled with you. I'm sorry, I don't have it in front of me, Mr. Speaker. So this aspect, the performance measure and the exemption from that, was not contemplated when the conflict-of-interest legislation was drafted.

Hon. G. Collins: Just a final comment. The member can't have it both ways. Either this affects the member's remuneration, or it doesn't. Whatever the vote is, the vote has an impact on the member's remuneration. That's the argument that she's making. In either case, whether she wants to have it one way or the other way, the act is clear. Any matter that affects a member's remuneration is not considered a private interest, and that's the definition regardless of what the vote is that is taking place. The impact on the individual member has to be determined, whether it's a private interest or not, and the act is very clear in section 1 when it says that remuneration is not a private interest. Therefore, either way — either argument the member makes — the act is clear and definitive in that this is not a matter of conflict.

Mr. Speaker: I thank both members for their arguments and their points made. They will all be taken into consideration, and I will bring back a ruling just as quickly as I possibly can. In the meantime, the House will recess until 6:30 p.m. for dinner break.

Hon. M. de Jong: Hon. Speaker, I call Committee of the Whole. For the information of members, we'll be debating in committee Bill 28.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: I don't know whether the minister had time to do his research over the half-hour break, but I found another tree farm licence that has an appurtenancy clause for a mill. It's tree farm licence No. 37, the Nimpkish tree farm licence, with Canadian Forest Products. Again, I'll just read it. The date of this is March 1, 2000, "Timber Processing," section 15.01:

Hon. M. de Jong: The first thing that we need to distinguish between is appurtenancy provisions and mill-processing provisions. Appurtenancy provisions will be and are and were very specific as they relate to a single mill.

Let me start with the TFL 44 situation that the member was describing and querying about previous to the break. It's interesting. We have done a review of this very quickly. There is probably no better example of how the previous government, the government that the member served under, recognized the very problem that we are trying to address here.

The document that the member is, I think, relating to arose out of a sale that took place between MacMillan Bloedel, in those days, and Pacifica, the owner of the pulp and paper facility. Under the existing regime, the volume in question was tied to processing facilities owned by MacMillan Bloedel.

At the time of the sale, as I understand it, MacMillan Bloedel came to the government and said: "This fibre that exists within TFL 44 is much better suited for the pulp and paper facility that we have now sold to Pacifica. That's its best use." We are seeking an alteration to the mill-processing requirements that cover that volume of fibre so that the best use of that fibre can occur, which is the pulp and paper facility — an exception, a rolling back of the mill-processing requirements as they applied. Far from dealing with a specific appurtenancy example, what we're dealing with is an example where to have applied those provisions rigidly, as the act required, would have been problematic. In fact, Mac-Blo would not have had the option of that volume being assigned to Pacifica, because they would have been in violation of their mill-processing requirements.

I don't have the information, obviously, on the example that the member has just referred to, but I am quickly advised that the circumstances are not that dissimilar.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister is exactly right, but nevertheless, this is the modern appurtenancy. This is the evolved appurtenancy that was negotiated between the parties. What happens to these agreements?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure if the question relates to the specifics of the example itself or is a more general question about the regime that exists following passage of these changes. I'm not sure I understood the question.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is the same dynamics that applied and caused the member's government to decide it made no sense to adhere rigidly to a regulatory regime that would have ensured there was not fibre for that facility in Port Alberni…. The same logic will apply to, presumably, ensure that in this case, the fibre necessary to operate that facility — the pulpwood best suited for that facility — will continue to go there, and the traffic in that fibre will not be driven by some governmental notion of what the best use or highest value for that fibre is.

J. MacPhail: Well, in fact, this was driven by a governmental value between the parties — the IWA at the table — with the government saying to both parties: "Get there and negotiate it, if you want alternate arrangements." But it was based on the fact that there was an appurtenancy clause in place that still existed, and this is the modern application of it. The only reason why the parties were able to negotiate this and why the workers and their families now have jobs was because of the original existence of the appurtenancy clause.

It's a little bit cheeky of the ministry to somehow say that there are no mills that are there on the basis of an appurtenancy clause. This may be the son or daughter of an appurtenancy clause, but without the appurtenancy clause, these agreements would not exist.

So what I'm asking the minister is: on what basis will working people, their families and communities have the right to sit down with the company and demand negotiations of fibre allocation in the community?

Hon. M. de Jong: One of the things I have learned quickly in this job is the economics involved in the transportation of timber and the fact that there are reasons why facilities develop where they do. It makes economic sense to have processing facilities where the fibre is located. But the benefits associated with that can be eroded when we allow the infrastructure, when

we allow the processing facilities, to become underused over time or, worse, erode themselves in terms of the technology they employ. We have seen countless examples of that on the coast.

It makes sense for processing facilities of the sort we've been discussing here to be located in Port Alberni. As the mayor of that community has said, it is time that we in British Columbia understood the need to be competitive, and Port Alberni, under his leadership, intends to become competitive. That, at the end of the day, is fundamentally the best guarantee for ensuring that that timber continues to be processed there.

Hon. M. de Jong: There will continue to be fibre supply agreements between operators in various parts of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: So these two agreements will continue? Am I correct? I mean, the minister can check on these two agreements. I want very specific answers.

I know we're a small but hardy band, but we're getting a lot of help from people out there. People want specific answers to this.

What happens to the tree farm licence 37, called Nimkish tree farm licence, dated March 1, 2000? What happens to the tree farm licence 44, Alberni tree farm licence — the agreement dated August 1, 1999? Once this series of legislation introduced last week is passed by the government, will there be any opportunity for companies to be required to allocate fibre to a specific mill?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe the member can help me. By pointing me in this direction, perhaps I can answer the question more directly. What is it about section 2 specifically that the member believes would abrogate a fibre supply agreement between two entities?

J. MacPhail: It's actually me that gets to ask the questions. We're talking about takeback. The minister is suggesting that that, along with other changes he is making, will revitalize the industry and that it will be short-term pain for long-term gain. I want to know how short term the pain is and how intense it is.

Hon. M. de Jong: We think that by creating a circumstance in which there is a greater certainty — an ability to provide opportunity for a diversified fibre flow and moving the fibre to its highest and best use — the prospects for this industry on the coast and throughout British Columbia are positive.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister not going to answer the question about what's going to happen to these two agreements?

Hon. M. de Jong: On the strength of the information I have as it applies to the first circumstance, I've given the member my opinion that fibre supply agreements can continue to exist. I can undertake to inquire of the second agreement. I will do that and verify my opinion on the first one, though I am not going to offer that opinion right this very moment.

Hon. M. de Jong: The advice I have received as it relates to these agreements is that they would tend to exist where integrated companies have divested themselves of, particularly, certain operations — pulp and paper operations. I can endeavour to obtain an inventory of where they do exist presently.

Hon. M. de Jong: Right. I think my answer was that I would endeavour to obtain that number and an inventory of them.

I know the minister is…. Well, I won't comment on the minister's state. Let me just try this again for the minister.

This is an e-mail that came in at 6:07 p.m. The Carrier-Sekani tribal council chiefs, including Tribal Chief Mavis Erickson and Vice-Tribal Chief Harold Prince, are watching the debates. "Since there was no open consultation and accommodation with first nations, this is, sadly, the only way to bring our issues forward." They've asked me to bring an issue forward. "The minister obviously does not want to answer the question as to the volume of the takeback to first nations, as it is an ambiguous number."

Here's the question. "Please ask: of the 8.3 million cubic metres, how much volume will be allocated to first nations?"

Hon. M. de Jong: Mr. Chair, through you to the member and to those for whom she has kindly agreed to ask these questions, it is my absolute intention and desire to provide as much information as possible so that if I misconstrued the question or if the answer was not complete — and I thought the member received the answer, recognizing it to be as complete as possible — then my apologies.

We've set a target, 8 percent of the AAC, for first nations. That represents 5.4 million cubic metres of timber. First nations presently hold about 2.4 million cubic metres of fibre. To get to the 5.4 million or 8 percent figure, that would require an additional three million cubic metres.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, that's fair enough. I'm just saying that's why people are watching and wanting to continue to ask the questions. Three million of the new 8.3 million cubic metres being put up for public auction will go to first nations, for a total of 5.4 million cubic metres that will be in their control. There's the answer. That's the basis from which the first nations will now be starting. They get an extra three million cubic metres. It will be interesting to see how they react to that.

There are people watching who put these figures forward over the supper hour. The legislation is taking back 8.3 million cubic metres, which is 11 percent of the provincial total — i.e., 8.3 percent of 74 percent is 11 percent. Okay, the 74 percent is the….

J. MacPhail: No, you should get a calculator because this is important. There are 74 million cubic metres now being cut. Is that right? Is the AAC 74 million?

J. MacPhail: The AAC is 74 million. So 8.3 million of 74 million is 11 percent.

I'll just carry on. This person — I love it and support it — says: "I guess using only Liberal accounting methods can you claim 11 percent is actually 20 percent." He goes on to say: "Half goes to auction — i.e., 4.15 million and half to first nations, community licences and woodlots, 4.15 million. Of this 4.15 million that goes to woodlots, communities and first nations, communities get 2 percent and first nations get 8 percent, so first nations should get 80 percent of the 4.15 million, which would equal 3.3 million cubic metres, which leaves communities and woodlots getting 850,000 cubic metres.

Can the minister confirm that? That's using the Liberal…. Do you want me to run through it again? We're starting with 8.3 million takeback out of 74 million cubic metres, which is the total AAC, or the AAC above the threshold of 200,000. Of that 8.3 million — the minister says 8.3 million — half goes to auction, so 4.15 million cubic metres goes to auction. We're left with 4.15 million cubic metres that will be divided up amongst first nations, community licences and woodlots. Of the 4.15 million, woodlots and communities get 2 percent and first nations get 8 percent.

What he's doing here is saying that four-fifths go to first nations and one-fifth goes to woodlots and communities. This is what the first nations are doing as well, and it's based on the information that they got. So four-fifths of 4.15 million to first nations is 3.3 million cubic metres, and one-fifth of 4.15 million goes to woodlots and communities, which is 0.83 million — not even a full million cubic metres. Is the fellow's math right? And by the way, this is a different person than the Carrier-Sekani.

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, we've got to start with a clear understanding of what is taking place, and I think the first inaccuracy in the summary that the member has referred to relates to what you apply 20 percent to. We, in giving this effect, are not applying 20 percent to the AAC of 74 million, and the member will know that from the legislation. It is 20 percent of the replaceable volumes, and the member knows that off of that amount there is a 200,000-cubic-metre threshold for the licensees so impacted, so that the actual volume to which the 20 percent applies is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 41 million. So from that, a whole series of errors would compound in the calculation.

Another one that comes to mind relates to the volume for first nations. The target for first nations is 8 percent of the provincial AAC, now 74 million, although I hasten to add that includes an uplift in the northern interior where the beetle infestation has taken place, and that certainly will not be sustainable over the longer term. The target is 8 percent of the provincial AAC for first nations. I have already indicated that that represents 5.4 million cubic metres. They presently hold 2.4, so the additional volume required is three million. But if you apply the 20 percent to the wrong figure at the outset, it gives rise to a whole host of difficulties through the calculation.

J. MacPhail: No, actually, it doesn't, because the person makes two points. One is a cheeky but I believe accurate point that for the ordinary people of the world who don't know the difference between replaceable volume and annual allowable cut — like maybe the Americans — they think that when you say 20 percent takeback, you mean 20 percent takeback. I guess that's why most of the reports in the United States are saying: "We'll see what these numbers actually mean." So that's one point.

But his second point is dealing in absolute numbers of volume, not percentages. So the second half is not a follow-through of that, of a different method of calculating the 20 percent. His follow-through is dealing with the actual 8.3 million cubic metres. So if you take 4.15 million cubic metres and subtract three million, you're left with 1.15 million cubic metres of takeback…. Sorry, 4.15 million cubic metres — no percentages — are being allotted to first nations, community licences and woodlots, so if the minister says three million of those cubic metres are being allocated to first nations, then 1.15 million cubic metres will have to be divided amongst woodlots and community licences. Is that correct?

Hon. M. de Jong: Two things. First of all, the member has, I think, confused two issues here, and she may not be the only one, so I will endeavour to explain.

I have never suggested that this takeback volume, in and of itself, represents 20 percent of the AAC and necessarily, therefore, the fact that only a portion of it is intended for auctions…. I would never suggest that it, in and of itself, represents an auctioning of 20 percent

of the provincial AAC. What I have said is that combined with other volumes that presently flow through things like the timber sale program…. We do find sufficient volumes within this amount which, when combined with other auction volumes, take us to that 20 percent figure. That's the first thing.

Then, perhaps for the benefit of the member and others watching, I'll read into the record some numbers, and there are lots of numbers. I will restate some of them.

The reallocation from the major licensees, as provided for in this act, provides 8.3 million cubic metres. There are presently in the province, based on the estimates we have, about 1.1 million cubic metres of unallocated timber. Over the longer term, non-replaceable licences totalling another 8.4 million cubic metres will expire. Of that amount, approximately 6.6 million cubic metres represent beetle uplift. Moving forward, we need to acknowledge that will be taken out of the AAC when the epidemic has run its course. A further 0.7 million represents another temporary amount of fibre available — that is, undercut volumes. That would leave, when you do that calculation, a net of 1.1 million cubic metres available over the long term.

In total, you have approximately 9.3 million cubic metres that will be available in the short term, with that total figure rising to 10.4 million in the long term. Where does that go? The member has heard me talk about the target of 8 percent for first nations, and that percentage represents 5.4 million cubic metres which, if we take the 2.4 million that first nations presently hold, would require an additional three million. To get to the 20 percent of the long-term AAC to be sold by auction, an additional 3.8 million cubic metres must be added to the timber sale program. To double the allocation to woodlot and community forest licences would require an additional 1.7 million cubic metres. Those calculations indicate uses totalling 8.5 million cubic metres, leaving an additional 1.9 million cubic metres for reallocation options down the road.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister saying that for community licence and woodlots, there will be an additional 1.7 million cubic metres allocated to them in the next three years?

J. MacPhail: Again, I'm back to my question. I only have one other public question that needs to be answered, and then we'll be voting on this section, Mr. Chair.

The allocation of the 20 percent and the time it takes to get all of this straightened out — does it mean…? I had a couple of IWA members in my office saying that if it takes three years to get all of this straightened out…. There have been disruptions in tenure allocation that took a year or a year and a half to sort out, where families were destroyed and people lost their jobs.

So is the minister…? I don't know how to say this so that it doesn't sound so combative. I don't mean it to. Is the minister really serious that this will take three years to work out, because people have been saying: "Where's the evidence of anything that we can get at real quickly to get this straightened out?" There are no guidelines, and they're certainly not finding any comfort in the debate here.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, hon. Chair, and to the author of the question the member has brought to the floor.

Look, there are different ways of doing this. I know that historically one of the ways that this has occurred — not just in this jurisdiction but elsewhere — is for government to swoop down and say: "We are effecting a reallocation" or "We are, in some cases, effecting an expropriation, and on a certain date your access to that land or to those licence rights will disappear." In fact, we have chosen a very different way. We have said that functional access to the fibre is going to rest with the licensees or remain with the licensees with whom it rests now, pending the completion of those discussions.

The objective — and I have made a point of saying this on numerous occasions — is not to effect, through the passage of this legislation, a wholesale scooping of AAC to disappear into the bowels of Victoria, the black hole of government where no one can make use of it. The idea is for it to be out there, to be accessible, to continue to be used and for there to be as seamless a transfer of this as possible, so that when those discussions…. In the case of one licensee, it may take three months. In the case of another one, it may take six months. In the case of another one, it may take a year and a half. But during the time those discussions are taking place, the author of that question should know that if he is involved in work related to a particular licensee's access to tenure, that will not change until such time as those discussions have taken place. That was done for a very purposeful reason.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, that was a person who came to my office over the supper hour. I have one other question in writing here.

What this person said and would ask me to say is: how do you then, in a system that is so like a centipede moving along toward change, determine the price of the other 80 percent that is not public auction? What possible method…? When you have a system that's so in transition, so creeping toward change but is really of a terribly mixed model, how do you do that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I don't think it's an unfair question from either the member or the individual. There is a built-in incentive on the part of the Crown and the licensees, many of whom have been calling for a shift to market-based stumpage, to get on with this and to complete those discussions and negotiations and transfers as quickly as possible. I'm not quarrelling with the member's point. If you are constructing a stumpage

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, this question that came in was when the minister addressed the question from the member for Prince George–Omineca about: how did you arrive at the 20 percent takeback?

This question said: why a 20 percent takeback of tenure as opposed to taking it all back? The purpose of tenure was to encourage companies to invest in the construction of mills and other processing facilities. You took your tenure to the bank, literally, and then borrowed money against it to construct facilities. However, if you are not required to own a processing facility or process the wood at a local or remote mill that you own, then you have effectively converted major licensees into market loggers who have no investment obligations other than the infrastructure costs associated with building roads and bridges to extract timber. The best example is Husby on the Charlottes. They harvest and then ship all the timber to whoever will buy it in Vancouver.

Hon. M. de Jong: The author of that question has — although I think we have a difference of opinion around some of the effects and impacts…. The observation that he or she makes around severing the historical statutory link between harvesting and processing is an accurate one. Again, it is done purposely and is built on the notion that there are people involved in this business who are good at processing and people who are good but have no desire to be in the harvesting game. The opposite is also true. There are people who are very good at harvesting but don't actually want to be in the processing business.

We can go around this province and point to operations that rely for the vast majority of their fibre on resources that they purchase on the open market. This questioner appears to be advocating moving much more quickly. I heard the member herself say earlier in this debate that she would have favoured a much more aggressive takeback. I'm not sure how I would rationalize that with some of the concerns she brought to the floor from a particular licensee or business, but clearly we have been influenced by a desire to balance interests, recognizing that in the member's mind she talks about the concerns around a takeback of the sort contemplated here.

I know for a fact that those concerns that I have heard would amplify the more aggressively the government pursued a reallocation strategy. We will come in other legislation to some provisions that relate to the manner in which fibre can move around within the province in a way it historically has not been able to. Perhaps for this questioner that will provide some comfort, based on the concerns that he or she has relayed here today.

J. MacPhail: Just because I'm raising questions doesn't mean that I agree with the people who are putting these issues to me. I have my own strongly held views about the direction this should take, but these people are coming to me — companies included — because no one else will ask these questions on their behalf — no one. The minister assumed that because I was asking a certain question in the direction of a company who said there was no need to have AAC takeback — that there could have been other ways to achieve it — I necessarily agreed with it. I think his point of view is absolutely legitimate and needs to be answered, though, as an explanation.

I'm just trying to figure out from my own documents here…. I asked my staff to send in the document that would show where the 41 million cubic metres as being the basis on which the 20 percent is calculated. It's very important. These numbers are extremely important.

The minister has said that the takeback, the 20 percent, is based on 74 percent of the AAC. But 74 percent of that is 54.76 million. In fact, the minister's own documents from his media conference confirm that. So 8.3 million of the 74 percent of the provincial AAC is really only 15 percent takeback.

Does the minister actually have a chart that shows how he arrived at that 8.3 million being 20 percent? I've been searching through the documents. Other people are watching. Nobody can come up with it. Where the number of 41 million cubic metres that gets you to the 8.3 million as 20 percent comes from baffles me and baffles others.

Hon. M. de Jong: The short answer is the schedule itself, which is based on the volume of replaceable tenure held by licensees, less the application of the 200,000-cubic-metre threshold, which applies to each of the groupings. If it's possible, I will endeavour to obtain for the member, and those with whom she has been consulting, any additional documentation I might have that will provide them with a level of comfort around the manner in which the 20 percent is applied and calculated to achieve the 8.3-million-cubic-metre figure.

J. MacPhail: Well, lots of us need that. Combing through any of the documents, no one can find the 41-million-cubic-metre figure upon which the 20 percent then gets its legitimacy — no one. That'd be nice before we conclude this debate. I've got most of the documents here.

J. MacPhail: I have provided the Table and the minister with a couple of amendments that I'd like to introduce on section 3.

Section 3 basically defines…. I call it defining the takeback. It's minister's orders about how you do the takeback. I'm sure the minister will be familiar with this. It occurred in the 1990s — the practice of scaling trees of a lesser value from a cutblock, leaving the most valuable trees and having stumpage assigned at the value of the lower-valued trees to the whole of the cutblock. It was quite a scandal — the grade-setting scandal in early 2001. I'm sure the minister will remember that.

My question is: in determining the nature of the 20 percent takeback, what guarantees will be in place to ensure that the current tenure owners don't hold onto the most valuable timber in their licence and give up lesser-value timber?

Hon. M. de Jong: The Crown expects and will receive a representative sampling of the tenure involved.

Hon. M. de Jong: The Crown expects and will receive, as part of this process, a representative sampling of the tenure involved.

J. MacPhail: How is that being determined? Is that practice in place now in the ministry?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, some work has been done. More will be needed in terms of identifying where we need to provide additional volumes through the timber supply program. There's obviously work as it relates to where the logical areas for first nations are concerned. Some of the other priorities…. And, of course, insofar as requiring a representative sampling to drive the stumpage system, work has been and will continue to be done around identifying species that are appropriate for insertion into the auction portion of this.

J. MacPhail: So there are procedures in place right now that the minister will just transfer over to the new system? I haven't had an update from that scandal in terms of what procedures were changed by the ministry to ensure that the stumpage scandal could not be repeated.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that in early 2001 the ministry and the government of the day implemented changes around the harvest of a representative sampling of the cut that any licensee possessed, and that those specific operational changes took place in the very early part of 2001.

J. MacPhail: So right after the scandal occurred, I guess, was when that was revealed. That's interesting.

What guarantees are in place to ensure that the 20 percent will be geographically accessible to smaller producers?

Hon. M. de Jong: That's a fair question. That's part of getting a representative sampling, and one could make the same argument about getting a sampling of areas. That makes sense as it relates to community forests or woodlots as well.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in the case of woodlots, there have been and will continue to be very close discussions with the woodlot federation. I should say, although it's not part of this package, that we're looking at the woodlot program from the point of view not just of expanding its scope but of what it is that constitutes a woodlot. Happily, there has been a strong relationship. That will continue. Government's responsibility will be to ensure in the discussions that take place with licensees that we turn our mind to that and the other objectives that are driving this reform package.

J. MacPhail: The changes that the ministry put in place in 2001 to deal with the grade-setting scandal — how many of those employees have been laid off since then?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that, insofar as some of the key individuals who were involved from the Forest Service as it relates to dealing with that issue, they are virtually all still in place. I should also say that we now have a dedicated corps of compliance and enforcement people who are actually going to be on the ground and examining what takes place and, in my view, are therefore better equipped to know what is

J. MacPhail: They're different workers. They're completely different jobs. Compliance and enforcement has nothing to do with ensuring that there's a representative sample to determine the value of timber — nothing to do. Anyway, is the minister suggesting that there have been no layoffs in the area that would be able to provide the expertise to provide unbiased and factual information that he needs to make the determination of proper land values, proper species values?

J. MacPhail: My series of questions around this is where the minister can define the takeback and put parameters around the takeback. That's what this clause is about. There's no other opportunity to discuss this, section 3. I'm trying to ensure, given the massive layoffs in this ministry — and they've been massive — that there are people in place who can do the scaling and the proper determination of species values to give a proper assessment of the whole value of the takeback.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised — and reminded, actually — that scaling itself is performed under contract by the private sector.

What the Forest Service has are check scalers. I am further advised that we have kept virtually every single check scaler, recognizing the value of the work that they perform.

J. MacPhail: Yes, in the 1980s the scalers were privatized. It's that role that is needed in order to ensure that there's a proper assessment of the species value throughout the 20 percent takeback. Will it be the high-priced help inside the companies that the minister will be relying upon to make this determination?

Hon. M. de Jong: First of all, I'm not going to diminish the importance at all of the function provided by the scalers or the check scalers, but this goes well beyond that. The member herself has commented on the importance of ensuring that in inventorying this matter, we have proper geographic samplings and we take into account the species of the standing timber. It goes far beyond the scaling function and has to do with proximity to the cutblocks and existing infrastructure and terrain-related issues and geographic-related issues.

J. MacPhail: This whole issue of proper scaling becomes incredibly important, because the 20 percent takeback at auction will also provide the price for the stumpage level for the other 80 percent. If anything, there has to be greater vigilance than even when the scandal arose throughout the 1990s. I'm not sure how much comfort…. It's probably cold comfort that the minister has just given those who are concerned about this kind of grade-setting to the benefit of the company — how it will continue under this new system.

J. MacPhail: What this is doing is giving more substance to the minister's direction on the takeback, to defining the takeback. It talks about a priority. It seems to me that the amendment just actually describes what the minister has committed to. It takes a lot of the anxiety and questions out of the purpose of the takeback and actually, I would submit, would speed up negotiations incredibly.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I recognize and appreciate the intent, but I will say this candidly. It is clear that the member, the author of this, is not predisposed to embrace a timber pricing system that relies upon the auction of standing timber. I respect that view. But it is not one, after much discussion and debate, that the government or I have accepted and embraced and reflected in the reform revitalization package moving forward. So, notwithstanding the submissions of the member, I'll not be supporting the amendment.

J. MacPhail: My second amendment is to the same section, minister's orders, which is the defining section for how the minister defines the takeback and what is done with it. It's in my name. It says:

J. MacPhail: This amendment is the perfect opportunity for this minister to live up to his commitment to tighten the export of raw logs. There is every opportunity for him now to put his commitment on record about not allowing the export of raw logs. In fact, it would go a long way to reassuring British Columbians — the families that rely on a decent wage from our forests — that they would continue to have the best possible opportunity to have jobs that make use of those logs in their own community.

This doesn't talk about pricing. This doesn't talk about interfering with the public auction. It just talks about those situations that I described to the minister where there's a possibility that the raw log export ban could be eroded even further. Let's be clear about what has happened in this province under this government. Raw log exports have doubled in the first year that this government came to power.

I attended a conference this morning of working people who load vessels, and they are horrified by the substantial and unrelenting increase in raw log exports in this province. They understand that there is much less rigour applied to private lands, but it is their view that the raw log exports are also coming from Crown lands. As they see it, jobs are being exported.

Let me read into the record from the Times Colonist today a letter from Ken Barker entitled "Banning Log Exports is the Only Answer." I happen to know Mr. Barker. He is an expert with many, many years in the industry.

The key paragraph here is that the raw log export ban now is based upon the raw log exports being surplus to requirements. The only way a government can determine that is if there's a requirement to a certain mill to use those raw logs. If a company shuts down a mill, which it now can, or if the mill no longer fits into a corporate plan, it can close the mill. There will be no loss of cutting rights, and there will be no way to pass a surplus test. The logs, therefore, become exportable.

With other changes that are occurring that actually weaken the ban on raw log exports or the limitations, this motion merely takes care of that weakening and once again strengthens the prohibition of the export from British Columbia of any raw logs harvested from the takeback.

Hon. M. de Jong: I will take advantage of the moment to ensure that the record is clear concerning the position we in the government have adopted vis-à-vis log exports from provincial Crown lands. We have said that the restrictions that are in place will remain in place. We have said that because we believe that British Columbians want to see the timber that is harvested, grown in British Columbia, processed in British Columbia. We have made that clear to the Americans as part of discussions that are taking place in the context of the softwood lumber dispute.

If you believe some of the commentators in the U.S. or coming from the U.S. lumber coalition side, that could preclude us from securing a deal. I don't know if that's true or if that's posturing. I do know, however, that that is the position I think British Columbians expect their government to take, and we intend to abide by that advice.

With respect to the specifics of the amendment measure before the House, I would make this observation. First of all, given the mechanism that exists within the Forest Act, it is unnecessary since those provisions obviously guide and establish the rules by which unprocessed timber is precluded from being exported within British Columbia.

Ironically, before this House, in another piece of legislation, is a measure that actually tightens the provisions around the export of logs. To the extent that people have advocated ever more vigilance and certainty around that question, the government is actually listening and moving ahead with a separate piece of legislation that does that.

Thirdly and perhaps most importantly, the amendment — and I think I understand the member's intent — doesn't actually accomplish what she is seeking. Insofar as the legislative piece I've just referred to applies to all fibre, the amendment in this section deals with only a very specific and, I might say minor, amount of the provincial AAC — that which is captured by the timber licences referred to there and defined.

Though I appreciate the intention and I also appreciate the member bringing to the floor the concern that I have heard right across the province, the amendment is both unnecessary and doesn't quite perform the function that I think the member wishes it to.

J. MacPhail: There are many of us who have examined what the minister calls the tightening up of raw log exports, and it isn't a tightening up, but we'll get to that debate. The fact of the matter is that this amend-

ment applies to the only parts of the act now that are open to having a prohibition on the export of raw logs.

I'm sure the minister is sincere in his misleading of people that he's tightening up raw log exports in his legislation. But he is simply not, because it's unworkable — the way he purports his legislation will work — but we'll get to that debate.

This is a chance for everybody to just vote on an issue that everybody claims to support.

J. MacPhail: Do you want to wait, or is everybody going to stay? Okay. That's fine. That's absolutely fine. It will be interesting to note how many knew what we just voted on.

J. MacPhail: Well, for a government that says it's in favour of banning raw log exports, the vote was overwhelmingly against that, so it will be interesting to see how serious their commitment is.

The Chair: Members, if we could please either be seated or leave. We'll just be a minute, and then we'll start.

J. MacPhail: Section 3(5) talks about the three years of negotiations that will take place. I want to ask the minister to put this in the context of the softwood lumber agreement. This is the section that gives the minister, as we've already discussed, three more years to make the 20 percent takeback determination. He's had over a year since this proposal was first made public. He's had almost two years since the election promise to do this. We have been under punitive and quite unjustified tariffs imposed by the U.S. government for over a year now.

On that basis, I'm wondering if the minister could answer: if these changes are to introduce a greater degree of competition in industry — if these changes are to go toward satisfying the demands of the U.S. commerce department — just how much longer does the minister anticipate that the trade dispute will last?

Hon. M. de Jong: As I have said publicly and will repeat now, the test against which these changes need to be measured is whether or not they represent sound domestic policy for British Columbia. Equally, I have said that to the extent there is a relevance to the discussions that have taken place with the Americans around the trade file, we will seek, as best we can, to capitalize on that relevance. But the essence of the question, I think, is whether or not I can guarantee this House that we will achieve a negotiated settlement with the Americans. I cannot, although I, the Premier and the government are certainly doing all we can to explore and try to achieve that negotiated settlement.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but the minister himself announced — I think it was December 12, 2001 — changes that he was putting on the table, which was pretty much the same proposal around log auctions. The minister can suggest that it's related to domestic policy, and I'm sure it is, but it's also part of the proposal that this minister put forward himself. There has been reaction from the United States. Could the minister detail what the reaction has been to this?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm not sure they have referred specifically to section 3, but to the extent that there has been reaction out of the U.S…. I think the member has read the same reports from the administration as everyone else — from Mr. Aldonas, an indication that he sees, as I do, some relevance for many of these changes to the discussion that has been taking place; from the coalition and people like their counsel, Mr. Ragosta, a far less enthusiastic or positive reaction — though I don't think that given the history of this file, anyone, including me, is surprised by that. As I say, we have not proceeded with the expectation that this would be met with unqualified support from the U.S. lumber coalition.

J. MacPhail: I expect the minister has lines of communication that are different than mine. I read the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, and I don't have

We have a three-year time frame to do what the minister has been promising since before the election — a three-year time frame from now. That would be the year 2006 completion — an outside date of the year 2006. But it is also, this proposal for the takeback and public auction, part of the softwood lumber dispute negotiations. Has there been any notice from Mr. Aldonis that the parties will be back to the negotiating table?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, there are indications that formal talks will resume in short order. I can't make that announcement to the House today, and I cannot make an announcement about a specific date. But I should also say to the member, whom I have tried to keep abreast — imperfectly, perhaps, but as best I can — of developments as they occur, that those discussions, should they resume in the next couple of weeks, will focus, in my view, very much on the terms of an interim deal. And that, the member will know, has related to questions around a replacement of the combined CVD, anti-dumping duties with a border tax; questions around how that might be structured; questions relating to the issue of the moneys that have already been paid to the U.S. So I think that in the short term, that is where those discussions, should they resume — and I hope they do, and there are indications that they will — will begin.

J. MacPhail: In the takeback and in the minister's defining the takeback, I'm wondering how he defines this to suggest there is added competition. Where does the minister see the added competition here?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm going to restrict my remarks to one aspect of this, recognizing that there is a broader answer that relates to other legislative initiatives before this House. But insofar as we have, via this instrument, impacted the long-term tenure holdings of major licensees in this province and reduced it by a volume equivalent to 20 percent of their replaceable tenures, they are going to be out on the marketplace competing for access to fibre. By virtue of that step there is competition, not to mention the competition that flows from having that larger basket of fibre out there available for others to compete for. The competition for fibre has historically been there limited very much by the relatively small amount that was, compared to the overall harvest, actually out there on the market.

J. MacPhail: What I meant by the very open-ended question — and I do acknowledge it was an open-ended question — was that…. I've been trying to get the minister to describe how this is really going to work.

I've asked him about foreign companies coming in and bidding in the log auction — no information on that. He is saying that the logs will stay in British Columbia. That's interesting. The whole government turned down an amendment to ensure that there would be a ban on raw log exports. That's interesting.

So where are these logs going to go? They're going to go to the majors who control the processing facilities. We've heard from the value-added sector that they will not be able to compete and that their sort of leg up in the competition has been removed in legislation, so they fear greatly not being able to compete with the majors.

So, yeah, the logs are taken away from the majors. They're put on the log market, and who are the customers? The mills and the processing plants from the majors. That's what I asked about: what new competition is being added here? Frankly, as others have said better than me, a market only works if you have competition, and there is no new competition here — none that I can discern. I expect that the market price will not in any…. I think it'll be a manufactured market price, not a real market price.

Section 3 allows for the determination for the 20 percent takeback to be retroactive. Why did the minister do that?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe we are now referring to subsection (5), but if that is not the case…. The member is indicating that we are. Thank you.

I apologize for the delay. What the act seeks to make clear via 3(5) is that the effective date of the taking — the triggering event, as it were — is the passage of this act to make clear that although at an operational level we are interested in ensuring a seamless transfer of authority and use, the effective date of the taking is the passage of this act.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that, but what I understand this section to mean is that it's retroactive. If the ministry doesn't get its act together and start negotiating the 20 percent takeback, then no matter what — whenever those negotiations for takebacks start and finish — it's retroactive to the passage of this legislation.

So my question is: how does the minister propose to keep the land whole and the timber whole that may be subject to the takeback while he decides what to take back? In other words, companies will be proceeding to do business as they do now until the negotiations are complete. What is there to prevent current tenure holders from taking the best now, while the government makes up its mind?

Hon. M. de Jong: I understand the member's question. I will firstly re-emphasize the desire to ensure that this AAC remains in circulation to provide a fibre supply and to provide jobs.

However, the question relates, I think, to the safeguards that need to be there and are there to ensure that the Crown is left in a position where there is a sufficiently representative sampling. The normal processes that relate to the issuance of cut permits and forest

stewardship plans remain very much in place. In a moment we will come to section 4 which, in addition to that, provides the Crown with a mechanism to obtain very, very quickly information available to the licensees around the nature of the timber supply at their disposal. Those two things combined will provide the Crown with a level of comfort that the kind of scenario that the member points out won't take place in the 27 circumstances covered by the act.

J. MacPhail: Section 6 is entitled "Compensation." It's the section that pertains to the grounds on which government may compensate a company for taking of tenured lands. What formula has the minister created to compensate current tenure holders?

Hon. M. de Jong: The question, as I understood and recall it, relates to the formula. What we are seeking to do and intend to do is codify the existing practice, the existing mechanisms by which this compensation is calculated and have been under past circumstances as it relates to the existing section 60 of the Forest Act — so actually codifying for the purposes of this act those existing practices represents the formula that will be applied.

W. Cobb: First of all, Mr. Minister, I didn't take the opportunity to speak during the second reading and what not. I would like to commend you and your staff on your efforts. I think we found a happy medium here, as far as we could, in this very tough decision. I think we may have found the balance, but there are a couple of questions I'll ask later on. But in this particular…. Adding one step further, in other legislation that you discussed and we have put on the table, there are other ways that I personally feel the compensation could be addressed. Are the issues like cut control or the removal of appurtenancy and what not in other pieces of legislation…? Would they be considered part of the compensation package?

Hon. M. de Jong: I believe, I think, like the member, that there is value for licensees moving forward under a regulatory regime that provides that enhanced degree of flexibility to operate that is very much, in my view, a result of some of the other changes that we will be discussing elsewhere in other pieces of legislation before the House.

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the member will forgive me. The bill and specifically the regulation that follows will codify the process by which compensation has been calculated in the past. I have drawn the member's attention to section 60, which in the past has also triggered the use and application of that formula. It will be codified in the actual regulation.

J. MacPhail: The Schwindt report from the early 1990s reviewed compensation of tenure. Did the minister apply the principles outlined in the Schwindt report?

Hon. M. de Jong: No. We don't intend to apply the model arising out of that report; nor, of course, did the previous administration with respect to the numerous circumstances that gave rise to discussions around compensation in the past.

J. MacPhail: In fact, that's not accurate. The Schwindt report was followed. The Schwindt report actually did not compensate for the premise of lost opportunity. As far as I can tell, this government is compensating for lost opportunity. Let me just get into a couple of details here. Subsections (1) and (2) mark out parameters for compensation regulations as "an amount equal to the value of the harvesting rights taken by means of the reduction…."

How will that be determined? How will the minister determine amounts equal to the value of the harvesting rights?

J. MacPhail: Subsections (1) and (2) mark out parameters for compensation regulations as "an amount equal to the value of the harvesting rights taken by means of the reduction…." The reduction means the 20 percent takeback.

How will the minister determine amounts equal to the value of the harvesting rights?

Hon. M. de Jong: Hopefully, this will be helpful to the member. In the past governments have effected takebacks of tenure for the purpose, for example, of creating a park. That is a situation that is specifically contemplated under section 60 of the act, recognizing, of course, that under that regime the first 5 percent of any takeback is not compensable.

With that exception — because we are by virtue of this legislation indicating our desire to compensate fully — the process that has been at work under section 60, in terms of calculating the value of those lost harvesting rights, is the mechanism by which we intend to quantify the value of those lost harvesting rights and the process that we have applied in coming to our best estimate around the value of those lost harvesting rights.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister referring to section 60 of the Forest Act? Perhaps he could give examples of

companies being compensated according to section 60, to which you will apply the same principles.

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that there are examples of the application of the procedure contemplated under section 60 involving several licensees. The ones that have been immediately brought to my attention are the former MacMillan Bloedel and Interfor. Both involve the creation of parks.

Hon. M. de Jong: In the case of the MacMillan Bloedel example, these were decisions emanating from the Vancouver Island land use plan — specifically, some protected areas that emerged and needed to be dealt with as a result of that and similarly, in the case of Interfor, protected-area strategies in the lower mainland that resulted from that land use process.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that this is a complex topic, and we are dealing with $200 million here, so I appreciate the minister taking time to give me answers. Of course, I am going from my corporate memory here. This is why I'm asking this next question.

The formula that the minister expects to apply to the 20 percent takeback — is he going to include allowable annual cut and, if so, why?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope I've understood the question. The formula and the process are designed to attempt to quantify the value of lost harvesting rights, the unit of measurement of which is AAC, but I may not have understood the question correctly.

J. MacPhail: The reason why I asked that question is: what I recollect from those compensation is that there was not compensation for lost opportunity. When one defines the compensation parameter as allowable annual cut, then one is compensating for lost opportunity. In other words, there's a whole whack of land that hasn't been determined to be used. As the minister himself admits, there's a huge undercut in this province. So why would the minister use allowable annual cut to determine compensation?

Hon. M. de Jong: I appreciate the spirit of the questions and the reasons for asking them, though I am advised — and it matches my own recollection — that in fact, in those previous examples, AAC — lost opportunity, if you will — did form part of the calculation and the consideration given under that formula.

J. MacPhail: Let me make myself clearer. Compensation has occurred in the past, and Schwindt confirms this, when there are mills in place that need fibre and that fibre is taken out for whatever reason. There's — and the minister himself must acknowledge this — a huge portion of land under tenure right now which will never be used because there are no mills there to use it. Is the minister saying that he will be compensating companies for opportunities that haven't even been envisioned by the company yet?

Hon. M. de Jong: I know that the member wasn't necessarily meaning to be provocative. I'm reminded, however, that the previous administration did not apply the Schwindt method of calculating what compensation might or might not be payable.

I suppose the answer to the member's question is this: the formula that has been utilized under section 60, and the government of this day, acknowledged that the right to harvest in British Columbia carries with it some intrinsic value.

Licensees invest in that AAC. They make investments in infrastructure around accessing that AAC. I hope I have not been coy, and I have not intended to be, in acknowledging that there is, in our view and in view of those who have applied these formulas in the past, intrinsic value — one tries to calculate that as best one can — in acquiring the right to harvest timber within British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask specific questions in that area, then. Does the formula incorporate infrastructure costs when the land is no longer workable?

Hon. M. de Jong: Maybe the member can indicate. When the member says "workable," does she mean in the sense that the company has lost the opportunity to harvest? Is that what she means by workable?

J. MacPhail: No. It means that there are infrastructure costs there, but the land has been worked already, and reforestation has not yet occurred to the extent that it can be worked again.

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer to that question is no, if the cost of the improvements that the member is referring to has been amortized via the application of the stumpage system.

J. MacPhail: And so there's a whole bunch of work that's being done, which has a formula that calculates all this, is there? I appreciate that the minister may stand up and give section 60 again. But I have to tell you, section 60 has not been used to the extent that this government is planning to compensate companies. I mean, I hope it's not the tail wagging the dog — that's all.

Hon. M. de Jong: No. But the principle that governs the calculation and application of compensation is the same. The magnitude of the task, admittedly, is far greater, but the principle is not dissimilar.

J. MacPhail: Well, sorry, I hate to disagree, but the devil is in the details, and there's a lot of detail here — a lot. In fact, there will be a dozen or so major licence holders who will be asking for compensation at exactly

the same time or in the same period, anyway. Is there a formula to calculate compensation for land that is partially logged?

Hon. M. de Jong: There is a mechanism here that we have been talking about for attaching value to lost harvest rights. That is one very important aspect of calculating what the compensatory entitlement might be. At the same time, there's another calculation that the member has correctly alluded to previously, and that relates to the development of harvest-related infrastructure — sunk costs, hard costs. Where the ability to recoup on those investments by accessing harvest areas has been limited, there is that calculation that needs to be calculated as well. There are really two aspects to the calculation of the compensation that may be payable.

J. MacPhail: How is the minister going to ensure that companies don't release poor land and receive compensation above market value for this land?

Hon. M. de Jong: It is an important point, and it goes back to the need for the Crown to exercise maximum vigilance in ensuring that the profile the Crown receives for redistribution purposes is actually representative of the overall profile that the licensee possesses.

J. MacPhail: Who is going to be doing all this? How is this going to work? Who's in charge?

Hon. M. de Jong: Within the Forest Service we will assign specific individuals at the regional district and levels here in Victoria. From time to time, depending on where we are in the province, it may be necessary to call upon the contracted service of experts who have a specific knowledge of a particular area or particular profile, and so we will, from time to time, draw on those resources. But the bulk of the work will be performed by officials within the Forest Service.

J. MacPhail: Well, there's a pool of $200 million that is theoretically supposed to compensate all licence holders, so shouldn't there be one person in charge or one group of people in charge?

I think the question related to the assignment of responsibility. Ultimately, it will be the Minister of Forests, and I don't think anyone should be surprised that at the executive level within the Forest Service there will be a degree of attention paid to this, because, as the member points out correctly, $200 million is a lot of money.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I can keep track of things, even though people are trying to ram this legislation through.

I'll tell you something, if the Table could…. If this government is planning on extending the hours, ramming this legislation through, please, I'd like a ruling on whether it's a debatable motion or not. It's unbelievable that this is where we are at. There hasn't been one stalling tactic that I have invoked here at all. And because of the mismanagement of this government….

J. MacPhail: Yeah, I will. Maybe I'm just preparing for the worst, Mr. Chair.

Hon. M. de Jong: Based on the volume of timber taken back, the application of the existing formula, the type of timber, where it's located…. All of those are factors that are considered in the calculation of the compensation package.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister requesting that the companies who receive compensation reinvest the money back into the province?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, it's no secret that during the course of the last year, there have been discussions taking place about the desirability of generating a degree of reinvestment. That discussion is going to continue. We have already seen indications on the part of licensees that in the right circumstances, there will be an upgrading of existing infrastructure. The hope, of course, is that there will be not just the reinvestment of funds associated with this package but an attraction of investment dollars from both within British Columbia and outside of British Columbia. Happily, we're already beginning to see some evidence of that.

Hon. M. de Jong: Having applied the formulas and the mechanisms as described, the sum set out in the

legislation represents the government's best estimate of what the quantifiable value of the harvesting rights affected, combined with the sunk costs I referred to earlier — what the accumulated compensable amount would be.

J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 15 minutes and continue to sit thereafter until adjournment.

J. MacPhail: I saw the 70-odd little members scurrying around there, trying to figure out how they could, in their incompetent way, continue to ram this legislation through. They all sit there, and they just say: "Oh well, let's just wait until she sits down and shuts up so that we can have our way and ram this legislation through."

You're right, Mr. Speaker. I'm exhausted. I am totally exhausted, but having given that, I have not asked one spurious question, not one specious question. I am representing the entire province — yes, the entire province — on this legislation. Not one…. I'm sorry. One member, the member for Cariboo South, asked one question. The whole other debate on what this government has said is the most important change in the forest sector in 50 years. They're now going to ram this legislation through.

Is it an emergency, Mr. Speaker? Well, maybe it was an emergency back on December 12, 2001, when this very same minister speculated on these changes. Maybe it was an emergency back during the election, when this entire government speculated on these very changes. Maybe it was an emergency when on February 18 the Minister of Finance mentioned in his budget that $275 million was going to be taken out of the fiscal year '02-03 and allocated to the forest industry. But it is not worthy of this government overriding the sessional rules that they take such pride in. If one of these MLAs decides ever again to somehow suggest that they brought order to this House, I hope the public rises up and calls them hypocrites of the first order. They haven't reformed this House. They use this House to their own benefit, to cover their own incompetence, to allow their MLAs to sit there like sheep, not raising their voices and allowing important legislation to be rammed through. That's what they do.

Why is it, then, that I am being flooded with questions to be asked on behalf of British Columbians? Because this government won't stand up and ask them.

Not one iota of notice to me, Mr. Speaker. Not one iota of notice to the opposition — not one.

J. MacPhail: Pardon me? Perhaps the member would like to get up and speak and suggest he get on with the act. The behaviour of that member is unbelievable — the lack of respect he shows to this Legislature. In fact, I'm going to just take a moment so I can name him so that I'm not besmirching the reputation of, God forbid, the other sheep in this House. The member for Maple Ridge–Mission constantly makes belligerent personal remarks that undervalue this House, that cheapen this Legislature and that always show a lack of respect — always show a lack of respect, Mr. Speaker — and he continues that.

Perhaps someone will have the guts to stand up and defend this motion. It's a debatable motion. Why are we ramming this legislation through? Is it so that Minister of Forests can be free of having to live with the penalty? Is that what it's about? Is it so that we can pay $200 million to forest companies without debate? If I sat down now, Mr. Speaker, that's exactly what would happen. Not one question would be asked about spending $275 million of taxpayer money — not one. Not one question would be asked about what this means for communities, for workers and for the future of the forest industry — not one.

There's one of me, and not one of these Liberal MLAs had the guts — not one of you — to even advise of your heavy-handed change in the rules of this House. The Government House Leader, in his sanctimonious way, stands here and goes out to the public to say: "Well, we've reformed the House rules. They're very orderly now." They're very orderly, except when he wants to use them to abuse and ram through legislation that should have been introduced a couple of years ago in their first session. That's what they promised — or maybe a couple of weeks ago, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the Liberal members would have found the guts to stand up and debate it, or maybe this government would have allowed time for public scrutiny and public input before they rammed it through, because the public is watching. They're interested, they're concerned, and they're not getting the answers that they

need. These could very well be people that don't necessarily disagree with this government, yet this government rams it through.

I'm exhausted. I won't be able to carry on for very long, but I'll tell you, this is the most disgusting thing this government has done to date in its abuse of this House — absolutely the most disgusting thing. I hope, when I sit down, one of those in the executive council benches will stand up and defend the motion. Stand up and explain why this is necessary. Stand up and explain why the legislation was introduced on a Wednesday, rammed through second reading on a Thursday, committee stage on a Monday — extending the hours so you're ramming it through for some deadline of its own creation, without notice to the opposition. Did you have a quiet little caucus meeting over the supper hour while you were eating your nice meals and say: "Let's not let the opposition know"?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member please come to order — the member who is sitting down. If you wish to speak, you may enter the debate. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

J. MacPhail: That member actually shows disrespect to me on a regular basis, as does the member from…. I can't even…. He stands up so rarely in this House, who would even know what he represents? The member for Maple Ridge–Mission, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Forests sits over there and allows this legislation to be rammed through — not one iota of respect for the people out there or for this House. Well, I know what the odds are, but this is a real sad day. It will be sadder if no one stands up in this government to defend its reprehensible actions.

Mr. Speaker: The Government House Leader seeks the floor. I would ask him to please read his motion again for me.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move that the House at its rising stand recessed for 15 minutes and continue to sit thereafter until adjournment.

Hon. M. de Jong: Just on the motion let me say this. Whilst I appreciate and will not take issue with the fact that this represents a departure from the usual sitting — that is obvious — I don't think anyone, least of all me or anyone on this side of the House, has attempted to hide from the member or any member of this House the fact that with this specific piece of legislation there was an urgency associated with the expiration of the fiscal year….

Hon. M. de Jong: The member, I understand, in her present state takes issue with that. I have said, I think, to her — certainly indirectly — that that is not a circumstance I am thrilled by. Nonetheless, in order for us to begin to put this money to work as it relates to the workers, as it relates to initiating the compensatory aspects of the reallocation and the fact that the funds have been identified as a result of responsible fiscal management in this fiscal year, there is an urgency associated with this.

Hon. M. de Jong: Yes, it is a departure, and that is unfortunate, though I have sat in this House for almost a decade and seen far different departures in far different circumstances where…

Hon. M. de Jong: …the explanation is far less direct and, in those cases, rarely offered.

There is a situation whereby government seeks to advance the legislation in accordance with the fiscal calendar, and it gives rise to the motion.

Mr. Speaker: Would all members please take their seats so the Clerks can get an accurate count. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, earlier today the Leader of the Opposition sought to raise a matter of privilege in alleging that the Minister of Forests "has, by sponsoring, defending in debate and voting in favour of Bill 28, sought to derive a financial benefit," and was thereby in contempt of the House. The member has followed all the rules applicable to raising a matter of privilege.

Bill 28, the Forestry Revitalization Act, enacts as a matter of state policy a fundamental change in forestry tenures and provides for a compensation fund which could have the effect of a financial penalty to the Minister of Forests under section 5(1) of the Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act. Section 11 of Bill 28 creates an exemption from the penalty for the 2002-03 fiscal year.

In her argument she quoted section 2 of the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, which reads in part as follows: "2(1) For the purposes of this act, a member has a conflict of interest when the member exercises an official power or performs an official duty or function in the execution of his or her office and at the same time knows that in the performance of the duty or function or in the exercise of the power there is the opportunity to further his or her private interests."

Section 2, however, must be read in light of the definition of "private interest" in section 1 of that act, which clearly exempts the remuneration and benefits of a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the definition.

While standing order 18 was not specifically mentioned, it is modelled on the British practice to which the member alluded. The standing order 18 reads as follows: "Member having pecuniary interest not to vote. 18. No Member is entitled to vote upon any question in which he or she has a direct pecuniary interest, and the vote of any Member so interested shall be disallowed."

Numerous Speakers' decisions have dealt with the issues raised in standing order 18 as enumerated in MacMinn's Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, third edition, beginning at page 27. A review of those decisions and the twentieth edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice at page 412 indicates that matters of state policy or involving salaries and benefits of members are exempt from the rule. Examples given include members' salaries, pensions and a vote against a specific reduction in a minister's salary.

On the question of the application of the rule to advocacy, the following passage from Parliament: Function, Practice and Procedures by J.A. Griffith and Michael Ryle makes it clear that the rule does not apply to public bills being applicable, only to private bills.

On July 17, 1811, Mr. Speaker Abbot ruled that no member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question shall be allowed to vote upon it. This was understood then to be an ancient practice. But he distinguished an interest in common with the rest of His Majesty's subjects or on a matter of state policy. The vote of a member would not be disallowed solely because of such interests, and this is the governing doctrine today. In practice, members may vote on all business before the House except private legislation, where they have a direct pecuniary interest.

So in 1983, the Speaker ruled that members who were solicitors might vote on the home buyers bill, intended to remove their exclusive rights on conveyancing, as the bill was a matter of public policy, but on a private bill to regulate Lloyd's, members of that corporation were advised not to vote.

The member also quoted from the report of the Select Standing Committee on the Conduct of a Member, House of Commons, December 18, 1940. That report, however, dealt with an allegation that a member received a benefit from an outside party in exchange for advocating a course of action through political speeches and pressure on ministers and officials. That is clearly not the case at hand.

In summary, the authorities have on numerous occasions stated that where a matter of general or public policy is at the heart of a measure, personal and pecuniary interest is overridden. The minister, in presenting, debating and voting on Bill 28, is not in breach of any rule of this House or the precedents to which I have referred. Accordingly, I find that no prima facie case of breach of privilege or contempt has been made out.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 28; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Why is the minister leaving this legislation until the very last moment to pass?

The Chair: Member, that question is not appropriate for section 6, I don't believe. Would you like to stick to the section, section 6.

J. MacPhail: Well, section 6 is about compensation. The passing of this bill is directly related to section 6; it's the spending of money. Why did the minister leave it until the last moment to pass?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know, from the discussion she had in an earlier debate and from comments I have made, that the funding for the various compensatory sections of this bill derives from the funds that have accrued — will accrue — during the fiscal year we are in, and therefore there is an imperative around passing it in the existing fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: The Premier went on TV in an infomercial on February 12 and announced this very package. Is the minister incompetent by bringing it in at this stage? On February 12 this package was announced.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I'm very tired, and — my apologies — I'm going to try to show you the greatest respect. My apologies.

This section appears to place this act over and above any other act or regulation that governs forestry in B.C. — past, present or future. Section 8(1) makes the bill retroactive. Why?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is the section that ensures that in any action that might arise with respect to the taking back and reallocation of tenure contemplated by this act, it is the provisions of this act that apply with respect to the calculation of compensation or any other feature that might be relevant to that action.

Hon. M. de Jong: As the member will know, the drafting process is never actually complete until the final bill is laid before the House, and that took place, as the member knows, last week.

J. MacPhail: This whole package was announced February 12. It was announced again February 18. It was discussed in Finance estimates March 5. I'm just trying to figure out what parts of the legislation weren't ready.

Section 7 — didn't even ask one question. Clearly, no Liberal MLA would ask a question about it because once again it brings down the heavy hand of not allowing anybody to sue this government about anything. It's become de rigueur for this government to prevent anybody — a poor hospital worker, a teacher, the company of WOF and now forest companies — from bringing any action against the government.

Section 8 talks about retroactivity. I just wondered when that idea came into the mind of the minister or the ministry — about when that should be put in place. I guess the minister or his staff can't give that answer — is that correct? — about when that idea came into being. Section 7 isn't a new idea. It's absolute policy of this government — legislated thuggery — to make sure that nobody can sue them, no matter what. But section 8 is a new idea, so I'm just wondering: when was that dreamt up?

Hon. M. de Jong: The section does indeed confirm and establish parameters around the payment and entitlements for compensation. It is, I am advised, conceptually not unknown to this Legislature or to acts that have been presented by this and other governments in the past.

J. MacPhail: I love this minister who gives the defence that we're just as bad as every other government. That's his defence. Isn't that great?

Hon. M. de Jong: The example that might be applicable to explain the presence of section 8(2) goes something like this. It is where a licensee would ultimately find itself in court alleging a head of damages relating to, for example, a breach of contract that it would allege has occurred as a result of the application of this act and the subsequent takeback.

This section confirms that notwithstanding the fact that nowhere in the bill itself or in the statute itself is reference made to a head of damages called "breach of contract," this act and the regulations apply to govern the compensation that is payable to that licensee.

J. MacPhail: So section 7, taking away the right to sue, isn't heavy-handed enough. Section 8 we have to give an extra load to, just in case someone thinks: "Oh well, maybe we should try to accuse this government of taking away something unfairly." What's being anticipated by this broad brush?

Hon. M. de Jong: I do want to correct something the member has said. By virtue of the procedure that exists around the calculation of compensation, the arbitration process is very much a part of that — the application of that formula. It is entirely possible that a licensee, in the absence of…. Well, following an arbitrated process, the access to the courts has not been denied. The member, even based on her — it's not a criticism — recollection of some of the other circumstances that have gone on before during the life of her

government, might recall that access to the courts is not precluded by virtue of the application of these sections.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it is — under section 7. It is completely precluded. Section 7(3): "No action lies, and an action or other proceeding must not be brought or continued, against the government for compensation arising out of this act." That's a prohibition from going to court that the previous government didn't use.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we're now dealing with the previous section, but the line I would draw to the member's attention exists in 7(3) in the final line, which specifies that all of those things apply except…. And the operative phrase is "in an amount that exceeds the amount limited under subsection (2)."

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will give great comfort to people who think that maybe they deserve more compensation than what this government suggests they deserve. In effect, unless you agree with the government, you're denied access to the court. You can't sue them.

J. MacPhail: This section authorizes the allocation of $200 million out of the '02-03 CRF. Good work. We're able to pass this section today. Good work to the minister. He deserves that bonus for his competent work.

Why is the minister using this mechanism to pay compensation? It's clear from the discussion tonight that all the work to determine what is going to be compensated is yet to be done. The negotiations and the analysis haven't started, we don't even know who's going to be in charge, and the minister has up to three years to determine the full percent of the 20 percent take-back. So why is this necessary?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is an unusual section, and it would be particularly unusual for this member, because what it represents is an upfront acknowledgment on the part of the government that in exercising its political prerogative — that is, to effect a reallocation of the tenure owned by the people of British Columbia — there are fiscal realities associated with that. Sadly, that is not something that the previous administration was inclined to do.

This represents the government's best estimate applying the mechanisms, the formulas that have been utilized in the past for what that compensation is. It represents a clear signal to the people that are impacted directly by this legislation and the people who ultimately provide money to government — the taxpayers — that this government understands that in exercising its political prerogatives, there is a fiscal result.

It undoubtedly does strike this member as odd that there would be a piece of legislation that would actually take that course, because I don't actually recall seeing that with any regularity or at all in the previous administration, where there was no end of willingness to exercise those political rights. It's great to create a park — wonderful. Everyone likes it, except if you impact on someone's rights in the process. Presumably you would recognize that up front, as well, and ensure that there are funds available to deal with that.

In my job I am still dealing with the fallout of political decisions made by a previous administration that did not want to respect or recognize the fact that there were fiscal consequences associated with making those decisions. That's why this section is here. It does represent our best estimate, and it represents that pool of money out of which these discussions can now move forward.

J. MacPhail: The minister just earlier on talked about the examples he was going to use for a formula of compensation that was compensation by the previous government for land use decisions. His view on this is absolutely meaningless. He clearly doesn't even understand what article 9 is about either. Article 9 is getting the money out of this fiscal year. That's all it's about.

It's all very well and good for this government to stand up and say, "Oh, the buddies we hang out with every day, who donated $3 million to our campaign — we're going to pay them back," but there are lots of people in the province that understand the value of parks, the sharing of resources and the ownership of trees and forests. This minister deals with fallout from decisions about creating parks because he only listens to the companies. He only listens to the people who give him and his government the booty during election campaigns. It's pretty serious narrow-mindedness, not understanding what's going on in the rest of the world, that he would even make that argument.

But this doesn't have anything to do with that. This is about taking money out of this fiscal year. That's what this clause is about. It's actually meaningless when you're running a $4 billion deficit. Oh, no. I'm sorry; excuse me. I'm sure the member for Burquitlam, who is following this with the greatest of interest, would stand up and say: "No, the deficit is only $3.8 billion." When you're running a $3.8 billion deficit in '02-03, allocating an expenditure of $200 million is absolutely meaningless.

The government didn't have to ram this through. They could have reduced the deficit to $3.6 billion. Whoa. Then that would flow through, and in '03-04 the money could be allocated. It's like this government plays a shell game, and they want to get credit for it, and they want to claim that they're better than anyone else. It's a shell game. It's unnecessary. On top of it, the government's ramming it through without debate. They're using this clause as an excuse to ram this legislation through.

If this expenditure were not made in '02-03, we would have a $3.6 billion deficit — still a record. I wonder how the member from West Vancouver, a

solid economist, feels about that. A deficit of $3.6 billion would have occurred if we didn't need to ram this legislation through. That's all. That's the big difference. For that there's an abuse of parliament.

They probably don't even understand what's going on. If they did, the next question would be whether they cared. The answer to that would be no. Why not simply use a trust model — put the money aside until it's needed? It's a budgetary sleight of hand. That's all it is. It's a budgetary sleight of hand while compensation is being determined.

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me say to the member that first and foremost, we are endeavouring to present this important legislation in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. That applies to the allocation of the funding components for the various compensatory mechanisms as well. Insofar as payment out, as discussions move forward…. The member has heard me say that it's my hope that we will, in dealing with the 27 groups of licensees referred to in the schedule, be able to quickly come to agreement. We have provided a three-year term, but the hope is that we can, certainly with the vast majority of those licensees, settle the question of the reallocation much more quickly than that. As those arguments are concluded, the funds will be paid out in accordance with those settlements.

J. MacPhail: Well, it's my understanding, confirmed by the Minister of Finance, that you book expenses when they occur and you book revenue when it occurs. I'm asking: how is this going to be drawn down on? What's the format? Is it a BS fund you're setting up? Is it a trust fund? What is it? The expenses have not occurred. How do you draw down on it under generally accepted accounting principles?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that it is an accrual of funds triggered by the passage of the instrument that gives effect to the takeback.

Hon. M. de Jong: It means that within the ambit of generally accepted accounting principles, you recognize the cost at the moment that you can reasonably estimate what the cost will be. That timing is tied very much to the passage of the legislation, which the member has heard me say is tied to our own estimates of the costs that accrue as a result.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. I guess we have to accept the member's word, because no one is challenging him on it. Nobody's challenging him on it. Maybe the accountants would like to get up and challenge him on it, because the minister couldn't tell me what the formula's going to be, how it's going to be divvied up, who's in charge, what gets accounted for or not. Maybe he just didn't want to answer the questions. Maybe he does have that information, and it's on that basis that he gets to use the accrual method of accounting.

Did he go before the comptroller general, and did he get the comptroller general to sign off on this being the appropriate method for booking? The comptroller general would be asking these tough questions.

J. MacPhail: Then why is it that the minister can't answer the questions in this House? If the comptroller general has signed off, all of these questions would be asked by the comptroller general, and the minister would have to answer them.

I guess not only do we use the heavy hand of the majority of the sheep, but the minister is also withholding information from the Legislature. The comptroller general would have this information; otherwise he wouldn't be allowed to accrue it or book it in this method. Yet he stands up and just brushes me off when I ask these questions about how it's going to be paid out, what the formula is. He refers back to other compensation systems. I ask him specific details, and not one answer is forthcoming.

Okay, let me ask this. If you've got the comptroller general's approval for this, when did you get that approval?

Hon. M. de Jong: By the time the legislation was tabled before this House, we were satisfied that we had that indication from the official indicated.

J. MacPhail: A date, please. The Premier announced this on February 12. He announced the money, and he announced the budget it was coming out of. When did the minister have the approval of the comptroller general?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the member heard my answer. By the time this legislation was tabled last week, those sign-offs had been obtained.

The member might not like the answer, but I haven't tried to withhold anything from her — not during the course of this entire debate. If she doesn't like the answers, that's fine. That's her right. But as has been my practice in debates with her — and given the situation in this House, debates around legislation are generally between her and me — I have never tried to withhold information from her. I have tried to answer the questions as best I can. If she doesn't like the answers, that's fine, but I have never tried to withhold information from this member.

J. MacPhail: No, no. That's true. I just think the minister doesn't know the answers. That's fair enough.

The questions I have asked tonight about how compensation is going to be determined, he hasn't answered. "It'll be the Forest Service that will be doing it. There will be meetings. We're not sure how it's going to be divided up. It's our best estimate."

The reason why this is important is because the minister is ramming the legislation through at ten after ten, an hour and a half before he needs approval. He's ramming it through. He's abusing the House, and every single one of the little sheep is going along with him. What I want to know is why it had to be done when the Premier was on air announcing this very fact. Did the Premier do something, maybe? Was the Premier out of order then? He hadn't had approval yet by the comptroller general? Or had the comptroller general already signed off on it, and this government decided to wait until the last minute to ram through the legislation?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that the sums we are talking about in this bill and in this debate were referred to in the budget. Indeed, we were extremely conscious of the need to ensure that those sums were properly accounted within the existing fiscal year or so. Discussions took place with the relevant Finance officials. The member has mentioned one of them, and we can now move forward with that confidence.

J. MacPhail: Maybe we'll have to go back during the estimates of the Premier. I'll have to ask him why he was so far out ahead of announcing it on TV on his infomercial. Was he out of order? Or maybe he'll have to admit that this has all been ready for weeks — for weeks. In fact, there's been nothing new coming out of this ministry since December 12, 2001 — absolutely nothing — and yet here we are, ramming it through.

Hon. M. de Jong: I'll try again. The sum was arrived at and represents the government's best estimate based on the application of the conventional method for calculating the value of lost harvesting rights and, in addition to that, factoring in — based on the best available information — the sunk or hard costs that have been lost or will be lost following the proclamation of this act; costs that will be hard costs of licensees for the construction of harvesting infrastructure, the use of which will be lost to them following the actual reallocation of tenure.

J. MacPhail: Where would I go to find that estimate? Is it a document that I need to FOI?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know, given her former positions in government, that the government receives advice on a matter of this sort that gives rise to the calculation that is embedded in this legislation. Some of that advice is FOIable and some of it isn't, depending on its potential impact, for example, for subsequent negotiations.

J. MacPhail: Who in the industry…? When did the government start discussing compensation with the industry?

Hon. M. de Jong: There have been — as the member would expect — during the process of consultation, general discussions around the possibility of a tenure reallocation and the role that compensation generally might have in that kind of a framework, but I am advised that the first conversations around the conventional model for the calculation of the value of lost harvest rights first took place approximately a week and a half or two weeks ago.

J. MacPhail: This is a one-time allocation. Is that a one-time allocation from the CRF or a one-time allocation from the CRF in '02-03?

Hon. M. de Jong: The legislation, as the member knows, refers to an allocation from the fiscal '02-03 that represents, as I've said previously, our best estimate of the compensation payable.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member is bright enough to know. I've indicated that there is an arbitration process. I'm not going to try to deny the obvious. This represents our best estimate based on the existing formulas and processes. It is an allocation from '02-03.

W. Cobb: Under section 10(b), the impacts suffered by an eligible person…. I guess my question is: is there a list of these eligible persons? Would a contractor that is a limited company be classified as an eligible person?

Hon. M. de Jong: The answer is yes — a contractor holding replaceable harvesting rights.

W. Cobb: On part 10(3). I wasn't able to get clarification on the Perpetuity Act. I wondered what length of time this was. We'll go there to start with.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is, as anyone who has passed through a law school knows, a famous and yet incomprehensible rule against perpetuities. I don't

know if the member is inquiring as to the application of that general principle or some other feature of section 10(3).

W. Cobb: Well, I understand that this section would be in the agreement with the bank. I just wondered what it was. Does it go on forever? I guess my concern is why we would have money in a trust for an extended period of time when we know it's probably going to be three years, or up to three years, when this thing is all settled. Why would we put money in perpetuity?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, it is not there in perpetuity. The term of the trust is contemplated to be five years.

J. MacPhail: Section 10 establishes the B.C. forestry revitalization trust, a $75 million mitigation fund. What are the terms and conditions of the use of the trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: It specifically — and the member will undoubtedly have more questions — is designed to provide assistance to any displaced workers, either the processing side or the harvesting side be they employees, and in the contracting side, harvesters with replaceable contracted volumes — and to provide them with compensation for any dislocation associated with the tenure takeback.

J. MacPhail: Will capital expenditures — i.e., expenditures to help establish new businesses — be eligible for assistance under the trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope this is helpful to the member. Take the example of a harvesting contractor who qualifies for transitional assistance as a result of the impacts of a tenure reallocation and is in receipt of funding from the trust. They will be in a position to put that funding to work for them in a way that they deem best to attend to their specific needs.

J. MacPhail: Is the trust modelled on the central coast sustainability fund?

Hon. M. de Jong: It wouldn't be fair to describe one as being modelled after the other, and the distinction is an important one. The example that the member refers to speaks to a circumstance in which parts of commercial forest land were taken out of production. In this case, of course, we are talking about the reallocation of tenured rights but tenure that nonetheless remains available for use within the overall forest sector.

J. MacPhail: I'm not sure the minister noticed, but we've moved on. We're not talking about companies anymore. We're actually talking about workers. That's what this section is about. Maybe he could just get his head space out of the butt of the companies.

Hon. M. de Jong: Point of order. I understand that the member is angry. I understand that she does not like all of the answers she is receiving, but it's no reason for her, quite frankly, to be insulting.

J. MacPhail: Gee, that would set a new rule from this government if insults to the public weren't permissible. I was quite parliamentary in my remarks as well, so I'll just ignore or move on from what the minister said.

There is every reason to be insulting to this government — every reason. I'm not angry. I'm tired, I'm disappointed, and I'm worried. I'm worried about this legislation. I'm worried about the impact it's going to have on working families, on communities, which goes completely undebated in this House — completely undebated. I am worried that I am going to be responsible for a piece of legislation going through that has huge consequences, and those consequences are not debated because of this minister's government. That's what I am.

The central coast sustainability fund was about compensating workers. Perhaps the minister could say whether there's any overlap between how that fund works and what he plans for this trust fund.

J. MacPhail: I said modelled. I understand that the funds will be operating independently, but is it modelled on the same principle? Can the trust fund be used for pension bridging only?

Hon. M. de Jong: The board charged with the task of administering this trust — to be composed of two labour members, two members from the contract logging sector, two licensees and the government — will have wide discretionary authority to examine all of the options that might best provide transitional assistance to impacted workers.

J. MacPhail: What happens to workers who don't qualify for bridging provisions?

Hon. M. de Jong: If they are an eligible worker, then not qualifying for the pension bridging scheme that is specifically contemplated here does not automatically preclude them from accessing some other

J. MacPhail: We've been told that $43 million of the trust will be available to displaced forest resource workers and $27 million for contractors. Is that correct?

J. MacPhail: For displaced forest resource workers, $47 million, and $23 million for contractors?

J. MacPhail: The remaining $5 million is for the administration of the trust. What will that be used for?

Hon. M. de Jong: Those administrative fees would relate, for example, to things like the expenses associated with the trustee, any professional consulting fees that might be required both in terms of the initial discussions that would take place amongst the members of the board and any professional assistance they might deem appropriate for the development of, for example, a pension bridging scheme. The only other thing that comes immediately to mind would be out-of-pocket expenses related to the board members themselves.

J. MacPhail: Why do the conditions of the trust not apply to pulp and paper workers?

Hon. M. de Jong: They are not by definition precluded, but I do think it is fair to observe that our belief is that the impacts of the timber reallocation will not particularly visit upon them in any direct way — though, as I say, they are not by definition precluded from accessing the fund.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure that will come as news to pulp and paper workers — that they're not going to be affected by this. What assistance can pulp and paper workers in Powell River or Port Alice expect from the trust or the government if those mills are affected by reallocation of tenure?

Hon. M. de Jong: The selection of the trust and the trust board was done very purposely, and it was to create a genuinely arm's-length mechanism for just the kind of determination that the member has alluded to. That will be something that the trust board will examine and, with representation from labour, licensees, loggers and government, will collectively come to a determination around that issue.

J. MacPhail: How many workers does the minister expect to benefit from the trust?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, if I take one aspect of this and focus on it — and that would be the pension bridging — it depends in large measure on the nature of the program that one designs, first of all, and the eligibility requirements. And that in large measure is influenced by the degree to which the board and its component members enjoy success attracting support and participation and funding from other partners like the federal government.

J. MacPhail: The ministry has done excellent and, I'm sure, hard-duty work to figure out what appropriate compensation is for the companies. I understand they have done the same for the pension bridging. What is that compensation that's necessary for pension bridging?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, because of the nature of particularly the coastal industry, we've tried to work pretty closely with the IWA and in fact have done so. A range of options are available, and I can provide to the member the documentation that has passed between the IWA and the government and which, as I say, examines the various scenarios, the different programs based on different funding levels and the IWA's suggestions around what appropriate participation levels from various partners are.

J. MacPhail: Well, that was a straightforward answer. We were told by the ministry officials that it's $150 million. Were the ministry officials wrong?

Hon. M. de Jong: No, they weren't, but that is one model we have looked at along with the IWA. I think it's fair to say that under that model, it contemplates roughly a $50 million participation from the provincial government and additional moneys from other sources. So, no, the advice that the member got was not wrong.

J. MacPhail: So we have $200 million for the company. That's the government's best estimate of what it would take to compensate the companies. We have $150 million as what the estimate would be for pension bridging, and yet we have $47 million allocated from the provincial government.

Does the provincial government have guarantees? I think what the ministry official said was that the company would allocate $50 million and the federal government would allocate $50 million. What guarantees does the government have that this will indeed happen?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that all of it accrues to the accounts for the benefit of workers and contractors.

J. MacPhail: We're on section 11, which is entitled "Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act." Can the minister describe what this section does?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, this section recognizes something that the member has gone to great pains to point out. That is the fact that by virtue of the accruals that are taking place with respect to the compensatory aspects of this bill, that has had an impact on the ministry's budget for the present fiscal year. That creates an inconsistency as it relates to another piece of legislation, and that is dealt with in the manner the member sees here and which she clearly takes great umbrage with.

J. MacPhail: It's a straightforward question. Can the minister describe what the section does? I don't know what he was answering. What does the section do?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me try again. Maybe the member will accept this. It increases the budget for the ministry for the present fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: What does it do for the minister? The title of the act is Balanced Budget and Ministerial Accountability Act.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, the member, it seems, takes umbrage with the fact that the government has made a corporate decision to devote additional resources for the purpose of revitalizing the forest sector. Absent this piece of legislation and this section, in the legislation there are implications, which again the member has pointed out, for the individual member's salary — that is, an amount that is presently held back. It's not a bonus, as the member often describes it, but an actual amount of the salary that is held back. The government has made this corporate decision to increase for the purposes we've been discussing this year and to include in the legislation a provision that would save the minister, myself, harmless from that decision.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister describe where the $275 million will be found in public accounts?

Hon. M. de Jong: I am advised that the expenditure…. Well, the $200 million will most certainly show up in the public accounts as a charge against the Forests ministry and the trust, by virtue of how it is dealt with and established by this legislation, more likely as a separate schedule.

J. MacPhail: What if this clause didn't exist? What would be the consequence for the Minister of Forests?

Hon. M. de Jong: The bill as a whole, of course, leaves this minister, the Minister of Forests, in precisely the same position had there not been a bill.

W. Cobb: As this section 11(b) relates to 9 and 10, and the pension bridging and displaced workers, etc…. You indicated that in section 9, if there was an arbitration in regard to any amount over the $200 million…. Would that same thing be in effect for the $75 million that would be there for the pension bridging and the displaced workers — to increase it or make it more? If, like you said in the other section, there was an arbitration that came down, you would have to deal with it?

W. Cobb: There wouldn't be the opportunity then, as in section 9 — if there was an arbitration that came down that happened to be more than the $75 million — to change that figure?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is a specific allocation to the trust fund. There is, of course, a possibility that the government or future governments might choose to make an additional allocation, but the member should know that this is a specific allocation at this time to the trust fund.

W. Cobb: What is the difference, then, between the…? This is a trust fund, compared to the $200 million that's available for major licensees. Is the difference that this is a trust fund that is put in there, and if an arbitration came in that happened to be more, there wouldn't be the ability to increase that amount?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think the point that I want to emphasize to the member is, of course, the fact that in the former instance we are talking about a negotiation that takes place with government, and in the latter we are talking about the administration of a fund by an arm's-length trust body. Again, the option of injecting additional funds into that trust instrument exists, but the member should know and those observing these debates should know that the sum appropriated here is a fixed sum.

J. MacPhail: What does the minister mean by saying that if this section weren't here, nothing would have changed for him?

Hon. M. de Jong: The statement I believe I made was that had this bill not been introduced in its entirety, the Minister of Forests would be in no different position than the Minister of Forests is now.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, because the $275 million wouldn't have been expended. Yes. I said: if this section weren't introduced, what would be the consequences for the minister?

Hon. M. de Jong: My understanding is that a portion of the salary holdback would not be returnable to the Forests minister.

J. MacPhail: I wonder if it makes him feel more comfortable to talk about himself in the third person.

Is there any minister other than the minister who is doing the talking right now who would be affected in that fashion, or is he uniquely affected by the passing of this particular section?

Hon. M. de Jong: I've always thought of myself as unique, but to the best of my knowledge, in these circumstances the relevance would be to a single minister.

J. MacPhail: I can understand the minister not wanting to actually identify himself as being the person to not be affected negatively by this penalty and therefore to have $4,000 more in his own pocket. I can understand him not wanting to say: "I will not be penalized by $4,000." Did the minister sit at the cabinet table when this legislation was discussed?

Hon. M. de Jong: My withdrawal from any cabinet debate, as the member knows, would be a matter of public record, and I'm not aware that the member would find a record of my withdrawal.

J. MacPhail: Did the member participate in the decision on this at the cabinet table?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, I am in receipt of additional advice as it relates to the question of cabinet privilege. The member is aware of the records that exist around members who absent themselves from debates in cabinet, and I commend those records to her.

J. MacPhail: I fully appreciate the Speaker's ruling earlier this evening, but it is interesting to note just how the minister answered that question. This section makes a mockery of the Ministerial Accountability Act. It's a decision that directly affects his ministry. It will be booked against his ministry, and this government is using the sheep effect — the 74 sheep to put up their paw to vote to allow an exemption from the penalty for this minister. Nobody else. It's an exemption from the penalty so the minister will take home $3,900 more in his own pocket because this legislation is being rammed through.

The minister sat at the cabinet table, made the decision and didn't exempt himself. If anyone in this government stands up, particularly the Finance minister, and crows about his Ministerial Accountability Act when the first time there would be a minister who overspends his budget, the government brings in legislation to exempt that minister and that minister alone, the Finance minister will be a fool. In fact, the Finance minister already is a fool by crowing day after day after day about how every minister….

The Chair: Member, could I ask you to take your seat, please. Could we please be parliamentary in our characterization of other members.

J. MacPhail: The only time that anyone has actually even had to work to meet the requirements of the Ministerial Accountability Act and fails, this government brings in legislation and rams it through at 11 o'clock at night.

I'm sure I'll be the only one voting against this section. I'm sure the Minister of Forests will feel no compunction to withdraw from a penalty that will put $3,900 more in his own pocket.

Hon. M. de Jong: Immediately upon passage, and I should say — actually, perhaps even in advance of that — we will be devoting our attention to the preparation of the regulations that are necessary to give effect to this and getting on with the task of rebuilding a forest industry in British Columbia. It is a rather incredible type of debate that we have had, where the difficulties facing that industry have been disregarded by some members in this House.

This is a piece of legislation that is about revitalizing forestry in British Columbia, giving hope to communities and workers and providing new opportunities to first nations. That is a fact that is recognized by every single member of the government caucus, who have worked tirelessly and diligently to ensure that we have a balanced piece of legislation that actually addresses the needs of our heartlands community and will represent the foundation upon which we can build a vibrant, revitalized forest sector. It is why every single member of this House — certainly on the government side of the caucus, I believe — is lending their support to this bill so that we can get on with rebuilding British Columbia's number one industry.

Hon. M. de Jong: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 28, Forestry Revitalization Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I am informed that Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor is on her way to the precincts. I'd ask everyone to remain seated, and she will be here momentarily.

Hon. members, we will ring the division bells when the Lieutenant-Governor is in the precinct. Everyone can relax for a few moments.

Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor entered the chamber and took her place in the chair.

In Her Majesty's name, Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor doth assent to this act.

Hon. I. Campagnolo (Lieutenant-Governor): I suggest you all get some sleep. Goodnight.

S. Orr: I do have a list of speakers, but it appears I'm the only one right now — myself and the member next to me — so I'll start.

My first question is: why establish interim authorities? Why not bring in permanent authorities now? Wouldn't that be easier?

Hon. G. Hogg: The process we've entered into is one of wanting to learn, firstly, from the experiences of other jurisdictions and from the experience of the Ministry of Health in this jurisdiction, so we introduced legislation last year which allowed us to have interim authorities to have the responsibility for planning and through a planning process. As we've gone through that, our interim authorities are doing the planning and developing capacity, awareness and understanding within the context of their jurisdictions with respect to the directions we're going.

By moving from there into permanent authorities, we're allowing a reasoned transition that allows for an increase of information, understanding, capacity, focus and direction. This is a much more eased process to go through the transition to get to the ultimate outcome. The interim authorities are helping us get there, they're providing advice, and we're in a co-management. Rather than just going from a system where the state or the ministry is responsible for everything to a system that says we're delegating, we're going through a reasoned transition from the ministry being responsible to a co-management model to a model that allows the authorities to take over responsibility. This is a process that is reasoned and transitory in nature and hopefully allows there to be a development of understanding as we move forward.

S. Orr: On hearing that answer, is there going to be a link between the regional planning authorities and the interim authorities that will be appointed under the legislation? Can you tell me how that link is going to work, or if there is a link?

Hon. G. Hogg: The planning authorities are the organizations and groups that are doing the planning who will have representation as we move to the interim authorities. There will be some overlap with respect to representation. Certainly, as we look at the example of the community living authority, community living B.C., a number of the people sat on the planning authority — I think it was something like 24 — and about half of them transitioned to be a part of the appointment of the interim authority, so we had a 50 percent turnover and a 50 percent consistency.

I think that type of modelling allows us to have the development of institutional knowledge. That knowledge continues through the organization with that type of involvement of the planning into the interim. As we move from interim into permanent authority with legislation proposed for this spring, we'll be going through the full board resourcing process to ensure we do have the people in place who can manage and handle the difficult challenges associated with running a region.

S. Orr: Thank you for that answer. Certainly, I think the regional government's models are going to be very good. What I want to know and the question I'd like to ask is how will the government ensure that services delivered to the public are going to meet the provincial standards?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a number of steps the ministry is taking to ensure that we do have the standards met. One of those is that we have a set of readiness criteria which have been developed, and no region will be delegated authority for any of the service provisions until they've met the conditions of those readiness criteria. Those criteria are quite strident and rigid in terms of their direction and focus, and they cover the full range of services from human resources to accounting principles to service delivery.

Combined with that, we'll be going through processes of accreditation both within the ministry and within the regions and authorities to ensure we do meet international standards of accreditation so we'll not only be able to say that we have our internal standards to meet but that we also meet standards which have been accepted by international agencies at the levels that one would expect if you're going to have a high quality of services. It's not just the state that's making those decisions. We're throwing ourselves open to the review of international standards as well.

S. Orr: Thank you for that answer. I'm sorry. I just want to ask a question, and I probably should have asked it after the first two questions, but it's a pretty simple one. When do you expect the interim boards to be up and running?

Hon. G. Hogg: The interim authority for the community living sector is up and running. We expect to have the interim authorities for the aboriginal and non-aboriginal areas approved some time within the next two to three months ? hopefully sooner than that. We're in the processes of going through all the necessary approvals. There are names in place for each one of those regions to go through that approval process.

S. Orr: Those are my formal questions. I think I'm going to stop right now because there have been a lot of questions asked, and I can probably get some of my answers from Hansard. Judging by the speaking list, I have a feeling we have a lot more that will be covered, so thank you.

L. Mayencourt: This weekend I had the pleasure of attending an event with the Minister of State for Women's Equality, and it was on the issue of sexually exploited youth. We gathered a great deal of information, but what came clear is that there are an awful lot of very young people that are sexually exploited working in the sex trade.

What are you doing about those kids, particularly the ones that are in the downtown east side, here in Victoria and in Prince George?

Hon. G. Hogg: The responsibility to address the needs of sexually exploited youth lies with families, with communities, with organizations, and certainly there's a responsibility through all levels of government to issue and respond to and put preventative measures in place as well. As we move to regional authorities, then certainly the regional authorities will be closer to and more available to respond to those types of needs. There is an assistant deputy minister's committee on prostitution and sexual exploitation of youth, which involves many ministries and coordinates an inter-ministerial strategic plan to address prevention, intervention and the supports required to assist sexually exploited children and youth in achieving and maintaining safe and healthy lifestyles.

We remain committed to the development of a safe care model. We will have a discussion paper out this year around the principles of safe care as we move forward to developing legislation to put in place and to be focused on particularly the needs of sexually exploited youth. As the member may well be aware, there was legislation passed called the secure act, which was never proclaimed. It was much broader in its focus and didn't have the resources in place to support the needs of sexually exploited youth. We want to focus much more directly, through our safe care act, on the needs of sexually exploited youth.

Together with that, the ministry has also placed $1 million with the Overlynn Youth Foundation this year. That placement of funding is to make available for service providers around the province who can apply to Overlynn Youth Foundation to have strategies to put in place to respond to the issues and needs of sexually exploited children and youth.

Further, as I think the member is aware, Youthquest! has done a wonderful job of responding to the needs around the province in looking at issues. We've had some pretty good resources in some of the metropolitan areas, but through Youthquest! we've been able to have an outreach program that has gone across the province. Certainly, this member has been instrumental in helping to develop and put that program in place. We certainly appreciate the activities you have undertaken and the coordination and assistance you've provided the ministry in developing responses more broadly to deal with the issues of sexually exploited youth and youth who are challenged around those types of identity issues for themselves.

L. Mayencourt: On the safe care legislation you're talking about, can you tell me a little bit about that as opposed to the secure care? I'd like to get an idea of what the focus of that is instead.

Hon. G. Hogg: The notion of the Secure Care Act was an act that was put in place to try to deal with children who were on the streets, and there were no ways by which parents could get them back into the home — no legal structure to hold onto them. Many of these youths are or have been addicted to different types of substances. Often we have to get them off the street and hold them for probably up to five or six days in order to detoxify them, to be able to move into some positive programming with them.

Under the Secure Care Act there was a large amount of money put into the administration of the system. There was the development of secure care

boards around the province who would allow for the warrants to be issued. We felt it was much more important to have many more resources at the back end of the system: safe houses and places where children could be held while they detoxified and had a chance to focus on any type of therapeutic responses they might need, or programmatic responses to better fit within the society or move back into their homes.

We're moving towards a safe care model. The safe care model will be one which will use the court system and all of the checks and balances which are inherent in the court system to ensure that when a child needs to be picked up, the issue comes from the court. A condition, an argument, has to be placed before the courts to make a determination with respect to whether or not a child should be picked up. We have dedicated our funds to resources that will assist and support those children when they come into a safe care facility and are held for perhaps 48 hours or 72 hours — whatever is necessary to detoxify and to start developing a plan. The courts maintain the checks and balances in that to ensure that there are no abuses. That's the focus and direction we're moving towards.

We're trying to focus that more on sexual exploitation, which is the big concern we have across this province with young people. Rather than just targeting children who are running away, where we have some resources to reconnect them, we want to see that this administrative and judicially overseeing response is one that focuses primarily on the needs of sexually exploited children. We've met with a number of parents across the province who have been in those circumstances and are looking for alternatives to start managing and dealing with those issues. We believe we're coming very close to being able to develop a good social policy around that, and then we'll have to move to the legislative requirements of putting that social policy in place to support it.

L. Mayencourt: Certainly, some of the themes that ran through this presentation I saw on Saturday relate to the model you're talking about. People were really speaking about the need for those resources behind the scenes that are going to help them. They spoke specifically of safe houses, detox centres, emergency sheltering — all of those sorts of things.

One of the themes that came through for me was that the youth that were participating in this and the people that were engaged in the sex trade were really hoping to find a way to participate in the creation of those kinds of resources. Just as you go out with your consultation process, I just encourage you to keep that up and keep those people involved in that consultation. It's certainly been my experience in the last little while that as you try and roll out programs, sometimes they don't actually meet the expectations of the people we're trying to help. If we could do that, that would be terrific.

Hon. G. Hogg: We are developing a discussion paper which will be circulated, and we'll invite people to comment on that. That will be placed on the website so people have the opportunity to see it and to respond to it on the website. As well, some consultations will be happening around the province in each one of the regions to look at the types of needs that exist there. We certainly encourage anyone who has an interest in this to comment on it and to help us shape it in ways that will be most responsive to the needs of the sexually exploited youth in the province.

L. Mayencourt: I'd like to focus for a few moments on the aboriginal authorities. I noted that the minister mentioned that within the next two to three months he expects to have these authorities up and running. Can you give us some sort of sense from your plans what the aboriginal authorities are going to cost? What's the amount of money that will go into those?

Hon. G. Hogg: In each one of the five regions there will be about a million dollars allocated for the planning processes. As we develop and move into the actual service delivery part of it, we're working at developing with them a fair share model, a model that looks at how we should take the amount of money that is allocated to a region, and when we have the aboriginal and non-aboriginal authorities in place, how we will develop a socioeconomic model that responds to and divides the money into the two allocations — for aboriginal and for non-aboriginal.

The two groups have been working very well throughout the province — the aboriginal and non-aboriginal. They have one interim chief executive officer that works for both of them. They're very cognizant of the need to ensure that they have an infrastructure that is simplistic so that they can have as many dollars as possible flowing to actual service delivery rather than being put into an organizational structure. The planning process is $1 million for each of the regions as they develop their plans to go forward. Then as we move into the actual service delivery model, that'll be contingent upon the funding formula.

Just as we've been working on funding formulas that are evidence-based and socioeconomic factors tied into it…. Just as we've worked on that for the development of our Community LINK programs for schools, we're also looking at and working on the same type of modelling for the services as they divide out. Certainly, there are different types of demands in the north. There are large issues of transportation and travel issues that have to be blended in. The formula can get somewhat complex as we try to ensure that there is a fair allocation of the money between the two different authorities.

L. Mayencourt: When will the permanent aboriginal authorities be in place? When will they actually be up and running?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is a recognition that there is a need to build a capacity within the aboriginal commu-

nities. In some parts of the province the capacity is not there and as well developed as in some of the non-aboriginal communities. We've asked that they try and have those in place by '05-06 at an outside. Certainly, as soon as they meet the readiness criteria, they can be up and running.

Some of them are working very hard at trying to meet those readiness criteria. Some of them hope they are able to do that even within the context of this calendar year or into the next calendar year. As soon as they're able to meet them, they don't want to have standards which are any different than the standards we have in the non-aboriginal communities. As they meet those readiness criteria and get things in place, they will be given the authority to move ahead.

When the legislation passes, it doesn't mean we will then instantly create all of those permanent authorities. The legislation will be the framework which will allow them to take place. The authorities will be approved at different points in time when they do reach the readiness criteria. We could have the non-aboriginal in the Fraser region and the aboriginal in the north put in place theoretically at the same point in time. Each one of them will have the platform in place, but as soon as they meet the readiness criteria, they'll be given the delegation to provide the services.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, minister. I think that's really good news. We were with a group in East Vancouver where they've moved along quite effectively to develop their authorities and they seem to be chomping at the bit to get this going, and I support that. I'm glad to hear they will have that opportunity if they get everything in place to do that.

Who is managing the process to move towards and establish these interim authorities? Who is doing that kind of work?

Hon. G. Hogg: We have an interim chief executive officer in each one of the regions, and we have our staff working at it in the mandate that has been given to them with the aboriginal community. We have an interim joint aboriginal management committee, which is a number of aboriginal leaders from across the province. This committee came into effect by the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Premier, the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and myself. This committee has come into place, and they are overseeing the aboriginal developments. They are developing policy.

Within each of the regions, we are trying to push out so that decisions are made within the regions. Those are being driven by the interim committee. There is a chairperson in each one of those regions that is a chairperson for the planning board in each one of them. That is already in place. I meet with them about every two months on the direction they're going in. We've developed a provincial workplan. That workplan has been interpreted for each of the regions and what it means for the regions, so that the regions are working on their workplans to work towards the ability to actually take over responsibility for the provision of services.

There are the interim chairs and the interim chief executive officer. The interim chairs have a full board that works with them, and our staff is in a full management model working with those boards and with the ministry as we're trying to transition this along rather than….

One of the problems that existed with the Ministry of Health when they went through regionalization was that one day they were in existence and the next day they had the authorities in place. We're trying to make sure there is a logical and reasoned transition that allows them to take on responsibility, to understand what the process is and to step up and get running. We're comanaging as we go towards that independence.

L. Mayencourt: Since aboriginal children and families receive a disproportionately greater share of ministry services, there is a real concern — and I don't know how valid it is — that as your ministry cuts some of its costs, they will be disproportionately affected by those costs. This really goes back to that fair-share idea that you talked about a little earlier. What are we doing to ensure that the aboriginal community can be assured they're not going to be paying a greater price as a result of these changes?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member is exactly right. The population of the province in terms of aboriginal children and youth represents about 8 percent of the youth population of the province. Right now the number of children in care is about 45 percent, so it's substantially disproportionate. We have not as a province done a very good job of dealing with aboriginal child welfare, and that is the reason the aboriginal community is so anxious to be able to take responsibility for and to work with their children. They have a long tradition in terms of the utilization of extended families, and there's a great deal we can learn from the aboriginal communities about how we can more appropriately deal with all children, in particular with the aboriginal children.

As we build their capacity and build their resources, they will be in a better position to be able to manage and to do that. We have a committee that has been working with the aboriginal leaders and with our staff, working on this formula that was made reference to. We're hopeful that as we go through this process, we can take the numbers and be able to develop them in a way that makes sense for the aboriginal leaders.

When the ministry hosted a feast in the Semiahmoo lands last summer, as we were building toward the memorandum of understanding, Chief Stewart Phillip, who is the president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, commented at that feast that he felt that by working in a cooperative relationship, we could actually look at the budget targets we had and could make them in a way that was reasoned and cooperative.

Rather than being prescriptive, which has been the traditional way by which ministries have said, "Here's our budget target, and now you're responsible for cutting 10 percent or 20 percent," we recognize there are a lot of differences in terms of the efficiencies and effectiveness that each organization has. We want to work with them in a cooperative way to be able to develop models they understand, can buy into and be a part of rather than having it dictated to them. That's part of the transition the budget committee is working toward trying to deal with in concert with the aboriginal communities.

L. Mayencourt: It has certainly been my experience over the last several months in talking to first nations communities about these issues that they do feel included, and I do want to salute you for that. I think you've done a very excellent job of making them feel like they are part of the process and that they're genuinely making some changes for their own communities' good as well as helping you with the challenges you face.

I want to move to the supported child care program. Are we proceeding with the 28 percent budget cut on supported child care?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, the supported child care issue has been one of the most pressing issues with the ministry. It's one of our top priorities. As we were going through and building our budget targets, given the direction we were given by Treasury Board, that was a real sensitivity. We've been able to reduce that to about 10 percent by making further reductions in headquarters staff in terms of reducing those numbers and being able to refocus those dollars on supported child care.

We're optimistic we could create other efficiencies through the year. We see the supported child care program as being a very important and integral part of the services we provide to special needs children, and we're hopeful we're going to be able to manage that by efficiencies and another generation of funds that we can find through the course of the year. We've got it down to 10 percent, and we're still working on that.

L. Mayencourt: Why are changes being made to that program? What's driving the change?

Hon. G. Hogg: As the member is no doubt aware, this ministry has a 23 percent budget target that we have to address in the future. There are no easy solutions as we go forward with that. There are a number of challenges we face in addressing that budget target, and we've gone through a very principled review of every program that we provide, looking at wanting to ensure, firstly, that the most vulnerable are protected, that the services to the most vulnerable and most needy are protected. That's where we're trying to focus our dollars.

At the same time, there are many programs within that that have to be looked at, changed and reconfigured in ways that are going to allow us to meet our budget target. This is one of those programs as we went down that list that was right at the cutoff line in terms of doing it. We must meet those budget targets. This is one of the challenges that we have in it. Certainly, you can compare them with all kinds of other options.

If the member is asking us to show supported child care up against what happens in terms of sexually abused children or up against child protection needs, there's a whole range of those things. We're really at a difficult challenge. The ministry still has in care somewhere over 9,500 children, and we're responsible for the care of those children. We have to have the services in place to support them in their initial needs in terms of support, of room and board and the support that comes with that.

That has to be the first priority as we work our way down, as we're parents in loco for dealing with those. It came down to the very difficult challenges and decisions as we start looking at that. Each region will start to apply that differently, as they'll have some flexibility within the context of regions to look at the application of that. There are no easy solutions as we get down to those very, very difficult decisions between issues of programs of supportive child care or programs that start to look at some people who may have different types of abuse issues. The ministry has such a wide range of programs dealing with so many vulnerable and fragile people in the province that cutting in any area becomes a challenge.

L. Mayencourt: I appreciate the complexity of the choices you have to make. It must be very difficult to do.

What about the child and youth mental health plan? How is that going to be affected by the budget cuts?

Hon. G. Hogg: In the first phase of the child and youth mental health plan we have been able to make some efficiencies out of the Maples Adolescent Treatment Centre. We have entered into a contract with UBC for $10 million to help with the development of a platform for delivery of this program. That's in the first phase, which is putting the infrastructure in place, training of staff, helping the development of a set of up-to-date criteria for evaluation and treatment. We will be adding funding as we move into the next phase, which is two years off. At this stage, the plan will be funded out of current resources to get us to that point in time. As we move into the next phase, I believe about $12 million will be added into it in subsequent budgetary years to build up into the actual service delivery side of it.

The whole issue of mental health and the youth justice part of our budget is being maintained as much as we can as we move forward. That's another one of

those difficult decisions that had to be made. That was one that deals with capacity and deals with our ability to respond to needs within the community.

L. Mayencourt: What about my favourite topic, school-based programs? I know you've got some money set aside for it now. I guess you're trying to figure out how to spend it. What's the status on that? Who are you meeting with? How is it going to be spread out across the province? Are there ways that communities that are interested in this can dialogue with you about that issue?

Hon. G. Hogg: We're putting the final bits of review on this, and we'll be able to make an announcement within the next two days around the allocations that will take place with that. We have been meeting with a number of advisers, which includes representatives of the parent advisory councils, the B.C. School Trustees Association and the Association of Community Educators of B.C., to look at different types of modelling. There has not been a full and exhaustive review of the allocation of Community LINK as we're calling it, which is the school-based type of programs, that has taken place in this province for over ten years.

We've had the chance to actually do some pretty exhaustive research around the efficacy of these types of programs. We have looked at all of the OECD countries. We have hired a contractor to look at and do a full review of these programs. We've compared the programs across Canada. The only program in Canada that comes close to having the same degrees of focus, accountability and efficiencies as the ones we're proposing for British Columbia is in Saskatchewan, and we seem to be somewhat ahead of them.

We have used the work of Clyde Hertzman in looking at the types of modelling that would be in place. We recognize there are about 705 schools in this province that have over 10 percent of their students coming from families on income assistance. We know that those students tend not to perform as well. There is one school in the province that has 64 percent of its students coming from families on income assistance. There is a wide range as we move up to that. I think something like the top 460 schools have about 18 percent of their students from families on income assistance. If you're a child from income assistance in a school that has over 10 percent of the students coming from families on income assistance, you're in double jeopardy in terms of your educational performance because once it reaches 10 percent, then the educational performance of all the students falls off.

We actually have been able to find, through the research, what works. What tends to work — it doesn't matter whether the program tends to be a community school or a hot lunch program — is a program that has local involvement of the teachers and the parents, that the community is involved in and that is locally generated and locally delivered. We're looking at delivery methods and systems which support that model, and we'll be making some announcements around those dollars within the next two days as we're able to put the final touches on that and advise school boards of the funding we have.

We have challenges. We want to ensure that the money goes to those who are most in need. We've been able to look across the province using a set of about 16 criteria. We've had the assistance of Clyde Hertzman and others in developing those criteria to ensure that we allocate the money across the province in ways that make sense. We'll be asking school boards to do the same thing within the context of their school districts to ensure that they allocate them based on those same sets of principles.

There were three school districts, as an example, in this province who have not received any funding at all. That has been unfair. There have been some school districts which have had a disproportionately high percentage of the funding, and that has been unfair. The advisory committee that has come to us is recommending we move toward a much more evidence-based approach to the allocation of funding. We'll be able to announce that, as I say, as we get the final touches ready over the next couple of days.

L. Mayencourt: That is great news, because I think a lot of people are waiting with bated breath about the programs they have in their communities that they think they need.

I'd just like to say we travelled the province with the safe schools task force a little earlier this past year, and I was really impressed by the passion people had for this particular topic and also their understanding or belief that if there were going to be some cuts, they wanted to just make sure the money got as close to the kids in need as possible. I think people will generally support that, knowing the constraints you're under.

My last comment — and it's just a comment; it's not a question — is that the other thing I ran into with the Education Committee and the Finance Committee and the safe schools task force as we went around was Youthquest!, which you mentioned in your first answer to me. I just wanted to say I've really appreciated the help that you and Alan Markwart have provided to that organization, which does good in a lot of communities throughout British Columbia. It makes a big difference to gay and lesbian youth that are perhaps the object of bullying and harassment behaviour within the school system. The support you have given and continue to give to that organization is greatly appreciated by this member and by other members of the House but, more importantly, by the kids that drop into Youthquest! when they're feeling a little scared, so thank you very much.

Hon. G. Hogg: I think the example the member gives of Youthquest! is a wonderful example of how organizations out in the community who are plugged into their community, who are a part of and understand the nuances and needs of their community, can provide services much more effectively than govern-

ment can. They're in there. The trust factor isn't an issue as it sometimes is with government, particularly in dealing with gay, lesbian, transgender and questioning youth. It's important we have an ability to reach out across the province, and Youthquest! has done a very credible job of doing that. We're delighted with their ability to work on behalf of the people of this province to ensure that those people have the type of services they need to work through the challenges they face.

Again, I thank the member for this assistance and support of the ministry in developing that relationship and that service delivery through Youthquest!

J. Nuraney: Minister, I had the pleasure of sitting at various meetings with you when you announced your innovative plan to regionalize and form regional authorities to bring decision-making closer to communities. I think that was the underlying intention in your new model.

One of my concerns is that as you start forming these regional authorities, would there not become a layer of another bureaucracy? What kind of measures are you going to put in place to make sure they do not really become once again a remote body that handles things that are unknown to the ministry and are performing according to what the original intent of forming those regional authorities was?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, we will put in place an accountability framework. There will be an accountability contract which will exist between the ministry and the regions for the service delivery. If we simply move Victoria into five mini-Victorias in each one of the five regions or the 11 regions, if you include all of them, then we've failed miserably. What we need to do is to ensure that in each community in each part of the province there is an ability to provide and meet the standards the province sets as well as to meet the statutory requirements the province has. Once those are met, then there's a need for those communities, those regions, to be able to ensure that their service delivery responds to the nuances and needs of the various communities, and each one of those is different around the province.

We don't have the same ability in the ministry as it exists today, which is the largest bureaucratic service delivery model for children and family services anywhere in Canada — our ministry today. We need to be able to break that down so that, actually, we are freeing up the enormous potential that social workers have to do the kind of work they want to do. We've tied them down with different types of bureaucratic restrictions, with different types of rules and regulations, and we want to be able to free that up. Social workers are telling me they spend 60 to 70 percent of their time before their computers, working in their offices, instead of being able to get out and respond to the types of needs that exist in the community where they really want to be.

Through this process, if we're able to free up social workers to be involved in the community, to be involved in community development, to be relating in a very personal sense with families, then they're actually out there doing what most of them became social workers for with the expectation of doing. Not only will that start to free up more time, but it'll mean that the quality of services provided are much more effective and much more responsive than they are today. That means, ultimately, do we make a difference at the line level? Do we make a difference when a social worker is involved with a family, with a community organization, with a vulnerable child? That's what the intent of this is: to give them more flexibility and freedom to do that, to make sure they have the authority locally to be able to respond in different ways to those types of needs.

Currently, we give social workers the authority to go in and apprehend a child, which is an enormous power to be granted in a free and democratic society — perhaps the greatest power than can be granted. Yet we don't give them the authority to actually be able to spend money — $25 to assist and support a family that might need some support. We need to have those decisions being made locally so that we have in place a structure which supports their ability to provide, in a much more holistic sense, the services and needs that a child has, that a family has.

Through this process we plan to get to exactly that point so we're not putting another layer of bureaucracy, another layer in the way of decision-making at a local level, but actually freeing up the potential that does exist in communities for those decisions to be made. That's where the test is. That's what's important: what happens in the communities.

So often when things go wrong in a big bureaucracy we have an inquiry or we appoint a new ombudsman or a child and youth advocate, and it doesn't really influence or affect what happens in a community at the service delivery level. That's what this is about. That's what the test has to be: what happens in a community when those issues and problems, which we all know, arise within the family and at the community level? That's where the decisions and solutions should come from as well, and that's what the intent is: to give the freedom, flexibility, power and resources for those decisions to be made locally so that we can have a more responsive, empathetic and positive way of dealing with the issues and challenges which face families today.

J. Nuraney: If there is a client who is not happy or satisfied with the decision of the person that they're dealing with or has a problem or feels they have been unjustly treated, is there a process of appeal or some way of addressing those problems that would be running parallel to this model?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, in this model the minister will still ultimately be responsible for service delivery, so the ultimate responsibility sits there. If there are

issues that happen within communities, the first line of response is going to the supervisors within the context of those communities and certainly going to the boards that will exist in each one of those regions. The boards will also be able to respond to it. We'll still have the position of the ombudsman. In the issue of the community living side of it, we'll have a service quality advocate that will be able to respond to and look at that, and clearly, the responsibility of all MLAs is also to be a representative of the issues and needs of the people within their communities. So there will be all of those checks and balances which will be there to allow and to ensure that there is a voice for those people who feel they've not been treated appropriately nor received the service which they think they require.

J. Nuraney: In these regional authorities you say there is going to be an aboriginal body for first nations people. Will this be a separate regional authority for the whole of the province, or will this also be broken down according to regions?

Hon. G. Hogg: There will be five regions for aboriginal authorities just as there will be five regions for the non-aboriginal authorities. Their boundaries will be almost exactly the same. The only difference is in the interior where, to respect some traditional aboriginal territories, we've had to adjust the boundaries somewhat, but there will be an authority for each one of those in each of the five regions.

J. Nuraney: I presume also that while these authorities are being formed, you would be very sensitive to the issues of culture and values. I remember you giving us an example some time back about this child who was apprehended and not allowed to live with their family because there were four or five people living in the same room ultimately with a tragedy that happened in that family. Those cultural sensitivities, I presume, will be taken into account as you begin training the people who will be dealing with these authorities.

Hon. G. Hogg: Yes, they will. Certainly, there is ongoing training with respect to cultural sensitivity and appropriateness of response as part of the delegation which we will provide to the regions. Part of the accountability contract that will happen will include a section with respect to the issues of ensuring there are culturally appropriate ways of responding to the statutory requirements that exist through the ministry.

J. Nuraney: My last question is what is the future of the Maples? Do we have any idea as to where it is going? Do you have any time frames on how and what you are going to be dealing with in that regard?

Hon. G. Hogg: The Maples will continue to be our primary residential response to mental health needs as they exist with children and youth. It is our residential treatment facility for managing that. It is a backup response to the needs that we have within our child and youth mental health plan. As we move out and provide a number of community-based responses and services, those are the most effective, but within that continuum we at some point need to have a residential response as well. The Maples will continue to be that.

R. Nijjar: Some say the community governance model that you are proposing is a downloading of responsibility or a downloading not of responsibility but of things they say government wouldn't want to be responsible for. I don't agree with that; however. I do have some concerns about shifting responsibility to regional levels. What would your answer be to those who say that all we're trying to do is shift responsibilities so that we don't wear it?

Hon. G. Hogg: My response would be, I guess, at least twofold. Firstly, the state is responsible for providing the funding ? the resources for the delivery of the statutory services that exist out there. The state is responsible for funding. Secondly, the state is responsible for setting standards and setting the statutory requirements that exist out there. This process we're going through is one that takes the resources we have as a ministry now and places them there and leaves ultimate responsibility with the minister. The minister is ultimately responsible, just as the minister today is ultimately responsible for the delivery of those services. That will continue, but there is a delegation or an agent, which is not in place today, that will be providing a number of those services. That agent is there to provide that extra level of sensitivity and awareness in responding to the needs of various communities.

Ultimately, the state is responsible for setting the standards, setting the legislation and providing the funding for those services to take place just as it is today. There is no change in that. What is changing is the method by which that is being delivered and the method by which the needs are identified within communities for those services and the service plans that come about. We will have five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal service plans which are distinct and different and responsive to the needs of those regions. We don't have that today. We're making a big step forward in that sense so communities can look at and provide services that do meet their needs.

R. Nijjar: I assume you will have a provincial authority much like we do through our health system? We have a provincial authority that looks at those standards and makes sure those standards are being met.

Hon. G. Hogg: The provincial authority will have responsibility for those services which are of a provincial nature. The Maples will fall under a provincial authority, as will our youth custody centres, which take children from all of the regions to respond to their types of needs.

The ministry staff will be going down from over 5,000 to about a thousand. The responsibility of those ministry staff will be to ensure we do have the accountabilities, standards and tests in place for that type of service delivery. They'll be responsible for helping and assisting to coordinate those as well.

Consistent with that model of coordination, we're starting what we're calling the minister's forum. The minister's forum is meeting once every two months at this stage. The chairs of each one of those five aboriginal and five non-aboriginal…and the representatives of the community living B.C. authority — 11 people — meet with the minister on an ongoing basis to ensure that we do have that coordination; that we do have the policy in place; that those standards are being addressed; and that the people of the province can be assured that the quality is there and that the standards exist across the province and are delivered in a way which we can be proud of in the end.

R. Nijjar: I appreciate that, and I understand that model. You've explained it to me and to the community members often. My concern, though, like the concern with the restructuring of health care that I sometimes have, is that we have made or are making regional authorities and community members responsible for, basically, the delivery. While they follow a certain framework, they choose within those general guidelines how and what they are going to do. Ultimately, we are responsible. What real recourse is there for government when the regional authority contradicts or refuses to act upon the stated goals of government, whether they are slightly separate from…coming from the authority or something else that you as the minister have stated, in a different part of your ministry, is a goal for, say, aboriginal services and so forth?

Hon. G. Hogg: While I'm not able to foreshadow legislation, I can assure you that the part of the planning process for the development of the permanent legislation will have in it the ability of the ministry to, firstly, assign a staff member to go into an authority and look at and help structure it and, secondly, go in and find advisory — go in a stronger capacity. Thirdly, the minister will have the ability to remove all members of a board and place an administrator in to provide the direction and authority of the board. The ministry and the state and the people of this province maintain the ability, at all points in time, to take over the operation of any one of those authorities should they fail to meet the direction they're given in their accountability contract and the service agreements which grow out of that.

R. Nijjar: In regard to social equity programs and that envelope, when the minister became minister of this portfolio and looked at how these programs were being funded and implemented, what did the minister find as the logic or the rationale between the funding in one region versus another?

Hon. G. Hogg: There did not appear to be any logic or rationale to the allocation of funding, other than, perhaps, that the regions who were positioned well to make pleas to government for funding seemed to be most successful in terms of doing that.

We've applied a number of different strategies to look at how that funding may have been generated. We've had outside people look at it, and we're satisfied that there isn't a basis we can look at in terms of sociodemographics which would suggest why the model existed the way it did. There wasn't one in place. That was somewhat frustrating, given that there were three school districts in the province which received no funding at all. They tended to be school districts which were geographically farther away and perhaps didn't have the same ability to contact and put forward their arguments. I'm not suggesting that any one of them didn't require money, but certainly the money that was allocated was not allocated in ways which ensured that it was going to those children who had the greatest needs.

There were also, as we looked at the international research and had done research locally…. There are some primary elements which need to be in place for a program to be effective, and those elements were not in place. The auditor general did a review in 1998 of the school-based child care programs and was very critical of the fact that there were not goals and focuses and outcomes in place to do that. The program allocation didn't seem to have a rationale or basis to it. Nor was there a focus that would suggest the programs that were funded within those allocations were addressing the principles which need to be addressed if you're going to have a successful outcome which will reflect itself in improved educational performance.

That is the direction we're going to, to ensure that we do put in place programs which meet evidence-based research, which meet the test of best practices that exist, and we test that against educational performance and improvement in the educational performance. There's a dramatic shift in both the way the money is being allocated and the focus which must take place with that allocation.

R. Nijjar: I understand that the ministry has been spending a lot of time looking at the different types of models for service delivery. I've worked with the minister in that regard.

Just to clarify here. There is an advisory committee that will recommend to the ministry. I'm sure of that. When does that advisory committee make the recommendation?

Hon. G. Hogg: The advisory committee has made its recommendations. The advisory committee is recommending that we move to an evidence-based model that ensures that, based on a number of sociodemographic criteria, we do meet the needs through that modelling of those children who are most vulnerable and most in need and where we have the potential to

have the greatest impact on their educational performance. That committee has submitted its recommendations.

That committee is made up of representatives of the B.C. School Trustees Association, the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, the Association of Community Educators of B.C. and representatives of our ministry. We have a pretty generic, cross-sector committee that has reviewed and looked at and tried to provide a pretty objective set of criteria for the delivery of these services.

R. Nijjar: What was the mandate this committee received? I ask that because I'm curious as to how many different types of models they've looked at, or if Hertzman's report came out simultaneously or earlier, and thus, they focused more in a direction that followed Hertzman's report. Can the minister tell us how many and what type of models did they look at?

Hon. G. Hogg: I have just been consulting with the legendary Les Foster, who is actually our representative on that committee, and everybody laughs at him whenever he's called legendary.

He tells me there were over 20 models that were looked at in the committee in terms of looking at different ways of providing those services. They were based around three primary principles. The first principle being that of income assistance — just looking at the issue of income assistance simply as an allocation method. The second one was looking at some of the sociodemographic data, including income assistance, that is evident in Clyde Hertzman's work and, indeed, in work that we've found in the research around the world. The third was a more limited model that focused on whether the allocation, rather than going to schools, should go just to students. Looking at those students who meet the criterion of being vulnerable in any one of those models, should the funding be allocated based on a per-student basis within that?

Those are the issues the committee worked at, and they came to a recommendation that the model should be based on the sociodemographic model. That was the fairest way of addressing them across the province: addressing them to school districts rather than to individuals so that school districts had the ability to look at the services they provided. There are many regions of the province which receive a lot of funding outside of this ministry for various programs as well. We don't have the ability to blend that in yet — school districts do — to come to a model which is more effective. They did look at a pretty blank slate, a tabula rasa model, when they started and were able to come to this model based on the best research and evidence we could provide.

R. Nijjar: If we were to follow the committee's recommendations…. I understand one of the reasons why the minister had a committee and wanted to look at the possibility of changes was because of the inequity of funding in one region versus another across this province. How would Vancouver, the area that I represent, fare with the changes from the old system? We'll put it this way: how did Vancouver fare under the old system relative to other jurisdictions, especially those outside of the greater lower mainland, and to what degree was there inequity?

Hon. G. Hogg: Independent of whichever model we looked at — whichever of the 20 models that were reviewed — Vancouver school district and greater Victoria tended to be disproportionately well funded in each one of those models. I don't have the quantum with me. That's part of the final work that is being done to determine what those allocations would look like, but it is clear those two jurisdictions did receive more funding than they should have if one were to go to the model the committee recommended, the socioeconomic model that was suggested.

R. Nijjar: As an MLA that represents a particular riding, like we all do, we're responsible to the constituents of that area when we speak in the Legislature and speak to our caucus colleagues about the needs. I believe that I'm responsible to keep the needs of my community in context and make it relative to the needs of all the children across this province.

As an elected official, yes, I answer directly to those that are from Vancouver-Kingsway, but as a true legislator and someone…. If we wish to act with some degree of dignity and morality, I believe we have to treat all our children equally, so I have no problem defending the fact that we need to make our funding more equal, and I've made that point public. Whether my community likes that or not, I feel that the onus is on me to do that.

However, one of the questions that comes up in the community — or at least, the statement, and I'd like to know how the minister would respond — is that they believe there may be a greater need for funding in Vancouver or Victoria, because of the more critical mass of those in need, and that you can't just look at children as individual numbers and say you have 200 or you have 20 or you have 2,000 and say, then, that you get 1/2,000 or 1/200 of a part of funding.

As the minister had stated, when a school has 10 percent greater of children of need, it starts to affect all the pupils in that school. The argument used in the community is that the same effect happens in Vancouver and thus creates a different set of needs that need to be funded and therefore justifies having funding, more so than the smaller towns across British Columbia. How would the minister respond to that?

Hon. G. Hogg: That's one of those issues where, when I go to the rural areas, they're arguing that Vancouver already has those resources, that they have a number of support services and a number of agencies that provide services, and they don't have those in the rural areas. We get the dialectic or the dynamic that each area feels they're poorly done by in terms of that process. The modelling we looked at and the direction

we took with that modelling tried to blend in every different variable that the member makes reference to in terms of critical mass numbers. Some of the 20 models that were run and variables that were looked at with respect to that addressed that.

For me the issue gets down to if we believe from a principled perspective that as a province our responsibility is to allocate our funding in a way that is evidence-based, that is supported by research, that is the best practice we could have…. If we believe that that is part of the model and responsibility we have to do to ensure that that gets to each school district in that way, then it must become incumbent upon each school district to do exactly the same thing.

There are clearly pockets within the Vancouver school district, as the member has appropriately referenced, where there is a great deal of poverty. This program, the funding…. Just as we've had this funding around this province in areas which we've overfunded certain school districts based on those models, there are certain schools within Vancouver which fall subject to the same type of criteria and the same type of judgment, certain schools within Vancouver which have been disrepresented, which have had more money allocated to them than they should have if we're focusing on these criteria and if we're focusing on the educational performance. It will now become incumbent upon our regional authorities to work with those school districts to make sure they now apply those same sets of criteria.

Last week, last Thursday, I was at Grandview Elementary School in the east end of Vancouver, which is one of those schools which comes from an area of a high degree of poverty. It is my hope and my belief that as the Vancouver school board receives its allocations, schools such as Grandview will receive the full allocation they have to date and perhaps even more as they look around and have to make those difficult, challenging decisions just as we're making today around how we should be allocating it provincewide; that they will do their due diligence and ensure that the students and the schools with the greatest need within Vancouver and within Victoria and, indeed, within all school across this province will have those criteria and be able to make those decisions in ways that make sense as well.

R. Nijjar: I'm sure I've made it clear, as the minister has, as to the need to make it more equal and my desire to assist the minister in making sure that, while I represent Vancouver, we do make the system fair. I do appreciate the fact that Vancouver has at times maybe received an overly unequal share. However, while we move to the new model, which I fully support, regardless of the details, I'm sure there will need to be adjustments to that model to ensure that we continue to move to the most factually based funding system.

As Hertzman's model numbers continue to change as the demographics change, I would hope we will have some mechanism set in place in the ministry or through that advisory council that would be called that to continue over the years to work to create the most equitable, reasonable system we can have.

Hon. G. Hogg: The steering committee will continue to meet, to look at and to manage that. At this stage as we come forward, one of the recommendations which will probably be made is that 50 percent of the funding should be allocated based on the current model that's out there so that we don't look at any too dramatic a shift in terms of the funding models that exist as some schools provide their types of programs, and that the other 50 percent of the funding be allocated based on this socioeconomic model. The committee will continue to meet through the course of the year, evaluate this and provide recommendations to us.

On top of that, we're entering into some contracts with a number of agencies to assist and support that, ensuring that we do circulate to all school boards evidence-based research and best practices that exist. The B.C. School Trustees Association is entering into that with us and looking at doing that. Breakfast for Learning is bringing in their expertise and their national experiences to help us ensure that the quality of the meal programs is the best possible. The Association of Community Educators is bringing in their experience around the issues of community schools and their expertise to ensure we provide those resources to school boards and to schools in terms of making those decisions as is the BCCPAC. The B.C. Confederation of Parents Advisory Councils is wanting to work with us as well.

We do bring together our partners who come to the table with us to ensure that we have a delivery system which is the most efficient and effective and accountable possible, that it does provide the services in ways that do make sense to us. As we move forward, we'll continue to monitor that system. We'll continue to monitor the way it's delivered and continue to develop what I believe will be the best, most accountable, most efficient and most outcome-oriented system that exists for those types of supports anywhere in Canada.

B. Locke: I'm hopeful that I won't ask questions that you've already had, but I probably will, so I'll apologize right now.

One of the issues we face in Surrey is rapid growth. With that growth, I don't think we've kept up with all of our social safety net needs. That's a pretty large issue for us. I'm wondering if you can help me in understanding how the new regions will help with that in ensuring there are programs shifted to our area.

Hon. G. Hogg: I made reference earlier to some of the socioeconomic modeling, and as we go to regions, the ministry is going to a socioeconomic model. The decisions will be made based on population and based on need that exists within the context of those populations. It's the first time that, as regions, we're actually

going to be able to take the amount of money we have and allocate that based on need and population.

Within that model, Surrey is in the Fraser region. The Fraser region will be allocated their funding based on that model, and then Surrey in turn will have the types of services provided as necessary to them within the context of the Fraser allocation. We actually will be able to turn to a model and say: "The allocation to the Fraser region is based on this set of socioeconomic factoring." As we phase into that, by the second year Surrey will, as part of that, have its full share based on that model.

B. Locke: One of the issues we face in Surrey is that we haven't, as a community, identified need or identified our inventory very well. I'm wondering if the minister can comment on whether the new region will have a role in helping us identify that. If they are, how will that include the community?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, the Fraser region, and Surrey as part of that, has held I think over 300 meetings in the communities to generate the types of comments and concerns that exist within those communities. As we move forward with the mapping that Dr. Hertzman has been involved in, the Fraser Valley will be part of that mapping process to ensure that we're identifying the needs as they come through that.

We'll have the needs identified through socioeconomic modeling, through the mapping processes that Clyde Hertzman has led and through the service providers and the people who generally come forward to these community meetings to comment on what those needs look like and how they exist as well as to provide input through the website, as we constantly get that.

Hopefully, we have a pretty exhaustive process, which will include the ability of people in those communities to go forward as the permanent authorities are set up, to speak to those authorities and tell them what they see as being the needs that exist. Certainly, they're welcome today to go forward to the interim authorities or the planning boards around the issues they see as being important for their families and their community.

B. Locke: Can the minister tell me how Surrey is doing with respect to keeping families together and reducing the number of children in care, specifically in our city, but also in our region?

Hon. G. Hogg: The current rate of children coming into care in Surrey is below the provincial average, and, indeed, below the national average. Consequently, because we haven't seen the same declines in the number of children in care in Surrey, that can probably be partially equated to the fact that the number of children coming into care has been lower. Hopefully, we've been focusing on those cases that we cannot find alternative ways of dealing with within the context of their families and their community.

There has still been a slight increase in the actual number of admissions, and the Fraser region has received many children-in-care cases transferred from the Vancouver coastal region over the past year and a half. These are children in care who live in foster homes in the Fraser region and were previously managed by social workers in the coastal region. This is a very transient population, and a population that we have to ensure we build appropriate resources for to make sure they don't fall through the cracks as those transfers occur.

Surrey, as the member is so well aware, is growing very rapidly and has a number of young families. There's not the same degree of aging-out that is happening in other parts of the province where we're seeing that the highest number of children in care are in the upper age group, and over the next three years about 20 percent of the population of children in care will be becoming adults and aging out of the system. Over the past year Surrey has experienced a statistically significant increase in the number of child protection reports — many other areas of the province have seen a decline — and discharge rates have been pretty consistent with the rest of the province. I think those factors would probably explain the matter that the member refers to.

B. Locke: I want to ask a really quick question, if I can, involving the private sector. I know there's a lot of non-profit money that goes into all kinds of great programs. Do those non-profits or philanthropists themselves have access to any of your people to get a good idea of where they're allocating their own private sector dollars — that they're putting it in an appropriate and needy place?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, the new authorities will have both the legal and administrative ability to fundraise and to seek partners in terms of the issues they have, so part of their service plan will show where they believe the greatest needs are as they exist across the regions and within communities. If there are philanthropists or people who wish to make donations to contribute to specific parts of it, maybe from a particular part of a community, they have the ability to come forward and say, "Here's an issue. How does that fit into the overall plan that exists for that city, for that region?" and be able to respond to it.

Certainly, there are a number of partnerships which exist out there today with a number of service providers. Those partnerships we expect to continue and hopefully fit in to the overall focus and direction that the region has for the provision of a coordinated, integrated social service delivery model.

R. Lee: My question is, again, on community schools. You probably answered the question already,

but I will try again. Community schools are a model which provides community education by bringing citizens and community partners together to serve the needs of students and the community.

In my riding of Burnaby North community schools play an important role in developing the neighbourhood community. For example, the Lochdale Community School is one of the first community schools established in this province. Over the years it has provided many programs connecting the students, parents and the local neighbourhood. Gilmore Community School not only has provided much needed services such as the very successful hot lunch program to the students by volunteers, but it also has cultivated the establishment of various local organizations such as the Heights Neighbourhood Association and the Heights Merchants Association.

My question is this: under the restructuring of funding to community schools, how can those various programs in the community schools be protected not only for students, but for the whole community?

Hon. G. Hogg: The allocation which, in the modelling we're looking at, will go to the Burnaby school district will be based on the socioeconomic needs that exist there. That is based on a belief that the primary responsibility we have is to ensure we improve educational performance. We know that students who have parents involved and the community involved tend to have an increased educational performance.

I made reference earlier to visiting Grandview Elementary School. They showed us the figures on the performance of their students on the foundation skills assessment — the testing that's done at grades 4, 7 and 10 — and how they improved dramatically in their educational performance by having a community school, by having much more participation and involvement of parents and community leaders within the context of the community.

Those decisions will be made within the context of the school district. We as a province are looking at the allocations based on socioeconomic need. We will be allocating to each school district the amount of money we have on a percentage basis based on the need that exists, so we'll use that modelling.

Then it will be incumbent upon the school district to use the best practices available, looking at the evidence and research that exists, so they can ensure that they do fund those programs which are most effective, be they a meal program or a community school program or a community-based or school-based child care worker program. They will be able to make the decisions with respect to how they see that allocation most reasonably being effective within the context of their school district.

That's how they can protect it. They can protect it by meeting with their school district, by ensuring that their school board responds to the needs of an effective program which exists. That's what we want to fund. We want school boards to make decisions around those schools that have the greatest need and therefore could have the most effective program exist within them. We're not making that decision within the context of schools, but only within the context of what is allocated to a school district.

R. Lee: The new criteria is focused on the needs of the students, but one important element of community schools is to support the families, especially the new families in the community, so they can get support from the established families or even support each other. Do you see a role for community schools as efficient facilities to support the families in the community?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, there are very many effective community school programs that exist in the province. The research talked about a set of principles that were effective whether it was a community school or a lunch program or whatever it might be. Those criteria can be met through a community school. They can be met probably through a lunch program. There are a number of ways they can be met, but they are the energy that coalesces around a school program when you bring in parents, when you bring in community members, when you allow decisions to be made by teachers and by parents and by community members at the local school area. That is what makes it effective. It is not the fact that it is a community school program, because a community school program, as such, may not be nearly as effective in improving educational performance and involvement of families and communities as a lunch program or a breakfast program that may bring all of the families to the school to assist and support that.

It is those principles that are important, much more so than saying: "Here is the label of what the program is." It is the principles of involvement, commitment and energy that actually have an impact and effect on bringing families together so they become supportive of their children in a learning environment and also so there is less violence, more positive collegiality that starts to exist and better educational performance. Those are the principles that are more important than what the program is. We trust that school boards are the right people to make those decisions around what those programs should be.

R. Lee: Suppose a community lost its community school and the community programs as a result, but then, later, more social problems arose for the youngsters or the students. Would the ministry review the needs of the community periodically?

Hon. G. Hogg: The scenario which the member posits is one which I trust the school boards will be the first to become aware of and to make decisions about whether or not the allocations they have made within their school district are the appropriate ones. If they are starting to see evidence of some kind of educational performance falloff or some other types of problems

that may start to exist within a community, then one could question whether or not the allocation within the context of the school district was appropriate.

The Minister of Finance has said clearly to me that if we are able to show that these programs are effective, that these programs work and that they've showed the positive outcomes we want, we will be able to continue with higher levels of funding and be able to go back and make arguments for more funding. We want examples of programs that are working well. We want examples across this province of things that are effective and that can show, through evidence-based research, that they do have an impact on educational performance. When we do that, we will use it as part of a presentation for the allocation of funding, as it exists across this province, to those areas that we will have the greatest impact on.

R. Lee: My other question is on child care. In my constituency some children with special needs are on the waiting list for child care facilities. Sometimes the waiting for additional support for special needs is quite long. Would there be any improvement in the coming year?

Hon. L. Reid: The question, actually, is two-part. The actual space is funded through the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. The support service that would go along with that to provide specialized supports under the supported child care piece is, frankly, the piece we're refocusing, as the minister responded earlier. There will be probably a 10 percent reduction over the course of the supported child care programming that unfolds. Indeed, we have children today — young adults, if you will, approximately 200 of them — that receive care under the supported child care model that isn't always developmentally appropriate for them, so we are going to make some changes in that in terms of refocusing it.

We also want to honour the transition piece, if you will. The infant development program in our province is zero to three years of age. In some instances, we miss a lot of children who are three to six years of age, which is a very critical group for us as a government, because that's where the research says the expanded learning need in that area can indeed create better opportunities and better outcomes for the child.

We intend to refocus the program much more strongly around the zero-to-six population and do some things differently around the older population. Certainly, the answer to your question is that the process is unfolding, and we will not have that work done for probably another month or two.

R. Lee: I also have a question on service providers. One service provider in my constituency who is running four child care facilities in Burnaby has had his funding reduced from over $400,000 to under $200,000, a reduction of over 60 percent. Some staff are leaving, and he has some difficulties in recruiting new qualified workers. My question is this: do you have any advice for them?

Hon. L. Reid: Again, the actual funding for those child care spaces falls under the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, the hon. Minister for Women's Equality. She could probably give you some guidance in terms of why in that particular instance those changes were made. I am not able to provide that information to you.

R. Lee: Are there any increases in support of early childhood development, such as support workers with proper training in child care facilities? What I mean is that if some qualified workers are not working, then the support for early childhood development may suffer in some of the child care facilities. I guess my question is this: would there be increased support to qualified workers?

Hon. L. Reid: I can tell the member opposite that I appreciate the question. There is opportunity for us to do a much better job around the training piece and to connect those pieces of early childhood development together much more effectively. In terms of the qualifications of those who would work in a child care setting today, that's determined under the early childhood education registry, and that piece, as well, will flow from the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. Their estimates actually follow our estimates, so those questions should more properly be put directly to the minister responsible for Women's Equality.

R. Lee: I'll go back to the community living model. On group homes and individualized funding I believe a well-funded individualized funding program will work, but for some people with disabilities, it would be better for them to stay in a group home than to be looked after by institutions. Would there be any choices for people with disabilities?

Hon. G. Hogg: One of the principles of the whole of community living B.C. is to ensure that we create options for the developmentally disabled so that they will have a range of choices that will exist for them, including individualized funding and group homes in that model as well as family care homes.

We're wanting to move away from the institutional models more and more to the family care home model, because we know that model will result in better care and better services to the developmentally disabled. The whole principle behind this is creating some options for them as they move forward. We don't want to have a great disruption in the system, but we do want to create options so they can find the model of service that best meets their needs.

E. Brenzinger: I have a number of questions. I'll start with the child and youth mental health plan. Then I'm going to go on to supported child care and then

foster care. I'd like to get a couple of definitions so that I, as well as my constituents, am clear on a number of things. I think what my questions are going to focus on is zero to six, and I'll stay in that area.

When I read the child and youth mental health plan, I understood it was for serious mental illness. That's the wording you're using. Can you define for me what "serious mental illness" is?

Hon. G. Hogg: The figures we used when we were looking at developing the child and youth mental health plan came from standards that UBC helped us develop. They're standards that exist across Canada and indeed across North America for looking at what constitutes needs with respect to child and youth mental health. The broad definition of that was any type of impairment that prevented the normal functioning of the individual. It was an impairment which may seriously affect relationships, their ability to function within their family and their ability to function within school so that learning processes can take place. That's the broad spectrum of definition that was used as we developed the plan, and we were able to use standards that existed, as I say, internationally to do that. They're not unique or particular to British Columbia, but they're standard across the field of mental health.

E. Brenzinger: The reason I'm asking that question is because I'd like to know how the definition of "special needs" fits in with this "serious mental illness." The reason I'm getting to those definitions is because in supported child care, it's set up so that it's inclusive for children who need extra supports. I'm trying to see a relationship between the three.

I guess the question I have now is on special needs. Is that inclusive of serious mental illness? For instance, Tourette's syndrome: where would that fit in?

Hon. G. Hogg: The research suggests that, internationally, about one in seven youths suffers from a mental disorder that results in an extreme functional impairment. In British Columbia that represents about 140,000 young people across the province. As the member is well aware, all types of special needs may exist. They may need to avail themselves at different points in time of mental health services, just as each of us may.

The mental health services that become available when an acute issue arises are there to respond to it, whether it's a special needs child or whether it's not a special needs child. We have those services available at the point in time when the impairment exists or when there is a need to be able to respond to that type of issue, and then hopefully, they move on and back into whatever special needs responses they may have had. They may or may not have a chronic mental health impairment which would require ongoing services.

E. Brenzinger: Well, it does, but I'm more concerned about what we are doing rather than statistics. I'm trying to see if…. A child is born with some special needs. Often the infant development program would pick them up in the hospitals. But if a child's born with a special need that's not shown, and they're going through life, and they're not in the system at all, how are we finding these children so that we can ensure we provide the supports that would be needed if they're not in a preschool or in a child care setting?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are a number of invisible disabilities that exist, as the member is aware. We have to, at some point, rely on family physicians and on family members to make those types of referrals to start to identify what they might see as issues that may be impairing what they would see as normal development or normal functioning. When that occurs, they would make that appropriate referral, usually through their medical doctor to the Ministry of Health which would usually make decisions with respect to type of assessment. Then decisions with respect to services would flow out of that process, as it does with autistic children.

E. Brenzinger: I know that autistic children are identified in the system. People know there's somewhere to go if your child is autistic. I'm concerned about the kids that are identified as special needs or with a serious mental illness that are not in the system but need to be helped. That's the next question I have: a definition of early intervention, where the children have a place to go between the age of zero and six if they're identified with special needs other than autism or FAS or things like that. I'm thinking of the kids with late development in different areas — three areas — or Tourette's syndrome that shows up. I'm not sure where that fits in anymore. I'm trying to figure out…. If you can just tell me, maybe.

One question is how parents with special needs kids or kids that are just a little bit different than the rest of the kids, and they're young…. Where do they go? I'm concerned that if they go to a child care setting, they're not getting supports they need because (1) the child care givers may not have been educated or given the information they need to identify the children, and (2) the parent may be unaware that this is abnormal or not typical. I'm concerned because of the cuts to supported child care and because of the way it's working right now. We're not reaching the kids that need to be reached with the supported child care program. I'm wanting to know what we are going to do down the road here to make sure we reach those kids so that they don't end up in school needing TAs and more work than if we had helped them when they were young.

Hon. L. Reid: Further to the minister's comments earlier, in terms of how children are identified in the system, one of the challenges that's brand-new to the country as a whole is the extended maternity leave. Indeed, you have babies who are with their families till they're at least a year old. In the past they probably would have been in some kind of day care setting

when they were two or three or four months old. The opportunity for us to expand our reach and increase the basket of services that are available….

Indeed, families who have questions about whether or not this is typical development have a place to ask. We have a whole range of services today. We have family places, family resource programs. We have building block programs. There are all kinds of opportunities for families who aren't in a day care setting to avail themselves of expertise and front-line support to ensure that their questions are answered.

We also have a fabulous program underway in terms of the learning sites across British Columbia. You will know that last year we had three learning sites. We had the Boston Bar–Hope corridor, we had Port Alberni, and we had Prince George. I'm happy to tell you that we've increased that number at least by eight. We're up to 11 learning sites today, and we have one or two more that we may, indeed, bring on line in the next number of months. They are centres of excellence, if you will, in terms of mobilizing community resources.

The intention is to prevent a particular child from falling through the cracks. If more people are concerned about early childhood development, more professionals work together and they hopefully collaborate better and share information more effectively. Will that, indeed, make a difference to ensure that children don't fall through the cracks? We believe it will, and we're having great, great support from the individuals who deliver those programs today.

You will see that in the next six to 12 months, that research data is folded into the work that Dr. Clyde Hertzman is doing at the University of British Columbia. When you see a map of this province that lists the assets of an individual community, you will see the learning sites highlighted, and they will have a very clear sense of whether or not we've managed to craft a better and quicker response. I believe the answer to the question would be yes.

Hon. L. Reid: I am not able to tell you today which ones are up for future consideration, but I will have an answer to you in probably the next two to three months.

E. Brenzinger: I have a question on foster care. I would like to know: when a child is born in Vancouver with special needs, for instance, and is then adopted out to a family in Surrey — which happens on a regular basis, because the families are out there — does the money follow the child?

If I'm a foster parent in Surrey taking care of a child that was actually born in Vancouver, would I go through the Ministry of Children and Family Development in Surrey to get the services I need for that child, or do I have to go through the Ministry of Children and Family Development in Vancouver to get the funding for this child?

Hon. G. Hogg: If I correctly assume that the type of services the member is referring to is post-adoption services, so if a child is adopted it moves to another area, that funding is currently at an established level, and is provided centrally from Victoria…that goes with them. If it's a person who's in foster care and they move from the Vancouver to the Surrey region, then their funding would be provided from the Surrey region or the Fraser region. In Surrey the level of funding would come through the ministry staff in that region, in that area. So there are two different types there, and hopefully I've hit one of the ones that the member is making reference to.

I have one last question. We have child care settings out there that are inclusive, and the goal over the last ten years has been to provide inclusive child care settings. The past government has closed down the specialized centres for special needs children.

In the document off the Internet it does say that each community makes its own decision on the type of services they provide. Does this ministry have any problems with a non-profit agency deciding to just have a specialized program for their community? If so, would they be supportive of it through the supported child care model, so that there would therefore be choice for families with special needs kids to go either to specialized programs or to an inclusive program with supported child care supports?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, one of the principles we believe in is the principle of choice and the ability of areas and communities and regions to make those decisions around how they can best respond to the needs of a group of special needs children within their community. Certainly, if there were a group of special needs children and their parents came together with a model they felt was the most appropriate way of delivering those services, that is something we would expect the region to respond to and to provide those types of services.

There is clearly a set of principles which would have to be addressed in terms of ensuring that the quality of service was there and that the needs of the children were being met in the most appropriate fashion. That is one of the range of models or options which we would see as being available.

E. Brenzinger: One last question, I promise. I did ask at the beginning, but I wasn't very specific.

Early intervention has had many definitions out there. Can you define early intervention for me? Is it intervening to help all children? I'll let you define it.

Hon. L. Reid: Certainly, the intention of this administration is to reach all children who are between

pre-pregnancy to six years of age and to launch every single child with the best possible start in life. That's the baseline with which we approach this issue. There will be additional supports required for a variety of children across that continuum, but the base should be the best possible early childhood development opportunities that we can provide as a government.

B. Suffredine: In my view, early childhood development offers great potential for savings and is probably one of the best approaches to long-term planning. To see in the statement from the minister the description of the human early learning partnership, acronym HELP, I was gratified to see that they described it as "HELP is underway," rather than just "on the way."

Because ministerial statements and plans are often very general and brief, could the minister outline it so that people in the communities have some idea of where these programs are going and how they'll work? Could she describe for us what the program is that is coming forward, how community groups can get involved, and how it works in general terms?

Hon. L. Reid: I am happy to provide some level of detail around the human early learning partnership at the University of British Columbia. The partnership, in fact, is a consortium. It's a collection of well over 100 researchers today that are available to provide on-the-ground support to communities who wish to advance a particular research question or understand better a parenting practice, an early intervention practice — whatever that might be.

The second part of that partnership that we have with Dr. Clyde Hertzman is around what's called the EDI, the early development indicator. It's an indicator that looks at physical well-being of children, social maturation of children and social competence. It looks at their emotional maturity, it looks at their language and cognitive development, and it looks at their communication skills and general knowledge. What we're looking for in that instance is almost a sense of what every five-year-old should have on their résumé as they cross the threshold into kindergarten. What kind of skill sets should they have that best equip them for learning?

This is about creating a learning community — individuals who come onside prepared to learn. The next part of that process is Dr. Hertzman's work around community mapping. Knowing all the different supports we have in place, the options the minister has acknowledged and the kinds of baskets of services we're engaged in around early childhood development, how do all of those services reflect on the best possible learning outcomes for children? That information will be available to our province probably within the next four to six months. I can tell the member opposite that we will be the first province in Canada that has a snapshot of what early childhood learning looks like across the province.

It's vitally important that we continue to enhance what we know about family literacy, that we build on durable parenting practice. All of us can be wondrous parents on the really good days. What do you do on the days that are much more challenging? What kinds of supports do you reach out for? What kinds of opportunities do you create for your child to better handle the material before them as they proceed to being a very, very skilful learner?

B. Suffredine: The member for Surrey-Whalley was interested to know if there would be a learning centre in her region in the near future. That's something that isn't known yet. How do groups within communities, like communities in my region, express interest and bring that forward so that they might be considered for learning centres?

Hon. L. Reid: One of the contentions of the Premier was that we would go forward in this area driven by the best science of the day, which is why we have contracted with Dr. Clyde Hertzman. As new communities come on line, they will be driven by the research.

The second part of the member's question was this: how do they indicate an interest? Simply by writing to me. Let me know that your community has an interest in being considered. As this research continues to come on line, and Clyde's reach continues to expand across the province, we will have a very clear sense of, strategically, where we should position the next centre of excellence. That will certainly be reflected in the provincewide snapshot we will have before us very, very soon.

B. Suffredine: I happen to be aware of a program in Nelson called the Nelson Family Place, which is very interested in showing off what they already do in early childhood learning. Is there any chance I could interest the minister in touring to see a program like that?

Hon. L. Reid: Absolutely. I would be delighted to come. Certainly, the member opposite suggested the member for Surrey-Whalley's interest in a learning site. I can tell you that we indeed partially funded a family place that came onside very recently in Surrey, attempting to meet the more immediate need.

In terms of your particular riding, I'm happy to visit, happy to have that conversation.

J. Bray: I have several questions, first stemming from the service plan and then some questions stemming directly out of the budget. Just as a preamble, having worked in policy shops and headquarters of ministries prior to the current chapter in my life here, I appreciate the amount of work that goes into service plans to make them actually quality, useful documents. I want to compliment the minister's staff for the service plan they put forward this year. It's a very detailed plan. It provides a great deal of information about the direction and the choices the ministry is making. I appreciate that.

My questions are just seeking a bit more clarification for my own community, my own edification, that stem out of the service plan. For those following at home, I'm starting on page 4, which highlights changes from the previous service plan, which is a valuable section to make sure that we're tracking from year to year what's happening in the service plan. One issue I'm very intrigued by is the second bullet which talks about the accountability statement for the Ministry of State for Early Childhood Development, which is a change from the service plan last year. I'm just wondering if the minister could comment on exactly what this section is referring to and what this accountability statement should do for early childhood development in the years to come.

Hon. L. Reid: For those who don't have the service plan in front of them, I'm happy to put on the record for those hearing this debate: "To a community-based service delivery system that promotes choice, innovation and shared responsibility." The member opposite is nodding.

That's a really big piece for us because it's an expansion of our thinking around resiliency. How, indeed, do you build resiliency in community? Is it about continuing to impose programs from Victoria, or is it about suggesting that one size rarely fits anyone and allowing communities to craft programming that best reflects their need and best grows with that community? We're taking the latter view, that the policy that drives implementation of programming in a variety of communities in British Columbia should be driven by the residents who live there. They know best what their community looks like, what their needs are, what their birth rate is, how many babies they have that are underweight — not full term gestationally. All of those pieces are part and parcel of driving a process that hopefully will get this province to having the 40,000 babies which are born annually born full weight and full term so that, indeed, we can drive down the instances of learning disabilities in this province.

That's our general framework. How individual communities reach that consensus is absolutely something we'll respect community by community and hopefully will honour community by community. The reality is we want different outcomes as a government. If we truly want different outcomes than what has come before, we have to allow communities to reach decisions differently and to reach different processes and engage more people at the community level to ensure that those kinds of opportunities are before them.

This is my opportunity. We're welcoming innovation. We want people to think well outside of the box and, frankly, some days to ask, "What box?" and to say: "What is it we can do as a community that would allow us to have plump babies in the province of British Columbia, which have a far better health record, a far better likelihood of success in their educational program, a far greater likelihood of being in secure employment once they reach employable status, a far better chance of being in a long-term relationship that supports them and a far better chance of having a support system?"

Those are the things that each of us has in our lives. Those are things that are equally important for every single resident in this province. All the research that Clyde Hertzman has done for us, the research that Dr. Fraser Mustard has done, absolutely suggests that the coping skills you need for all of those challenges later in life are pretty much imprinted upon you before you're six years of age. If we accept the research, we have to accept some responsibility for those early years of learning.

J. Bray: Mr. Chair, I appreciate, through you, that answer from the minister. I share her passion for this area. I also appreciate the recognition of the wisdom and experience of the variety of communities around the province and that we're all trying to work for the same goals, though we may have some different ways of achieving them. We're not eliminating some of those good ideas simply because they don't come from Victoria and the policy shop. I really appreciate that and was very pleased to hear those answers and that change in the service plan.

Moving on to page 14 of the service plan — and I appreciate for those listening at home that we're skipping around a bit. This is the objective that is referred to in objective 2.2, which is the general objective to target evidence-based individualized services to those children with special needs and their families who must require them. Flowing out of that are some of the strategies that are coming from that. In 2.2.1 it talks about reviewing all programs and services to ensure that limited resources are committed to science-based interventions. I'm wondering if the minister could just advise how we're doing that evaluation with respect to evidence-based and how that process is currently underway.

Hon. L. Reid: I could give you a number of examples. Let me begin with one in terms of the autism work we're doing, where we've moved to individualized funding for families — direct funding so they, indeed, take those dollars and purchase the service that best meets the needs of their family. We are, in fact, taking that program, taking what we call the early intervention program, also for children with autism, and having Dr. Pat Mirenda at the University of British Columbia craft a research analysis that will give us some guidance as to which program produces the best outcome. As a government, we truly want to know that the dollars we're investing on behalf of the taxpayer actually matter in the life of a particular child.

We're engaged in work around the Roots of Empathy program. When we talk about what it is we want from learners today, we want them to be compassionate. We want them to be understanding. We want them to have all those skills as well, but we want them to have a sense of what it is to look out for a child who is

more vulnerable. That research is being conducted by Dr. Kimberly Schonert-Reichl at the University of British Columbia. We are being true to the Premier's passion that we go forward from the best possible science.

Those two, amidst a plethora of very fine researchers, are very skilful individuals. We'll have that information back before this government in very short order.

J. Bray: Thank you to the minister for that. I'm very pleased to see this ongoing growth between academia and policy and reality. I think it's a very exciting move forward, and this ministry certainly is leading the charge. I think, ultimately, we're going to see better services for British Columbians.

Moving in the same objective to 2.2.4. The minister briefly touched on this. Certainly, this is an area which is talking about increased choice by introducing individualized funding to families. I'm wondering — to both ministers — if they could expand on all the areas where this is currently underway or being explored.

Certainly, in my community there have been a lot of constituents who've talked about the desire to move to having more choice and flexibility with respect to the services they purchase, to marry that to their own individual supports that extended family members may be able to provide and trying to not always fit the square peg into the round hole. I'm wondering what areas within the Ministry of Children and Family Development the ministry is looking at increasing choice by introducing individualized funding plans for families to purchase service?

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to expand on this area for the member opposite. I'll give you the example that I want to put on the record in terms of where we're headed around autism services to begin with.

Certainly, we have had in the past commentary given back to families that said we fund a particular program around your child's need, and until seven or eight or nine other children move into the area and demonstrate the same learning need, we won't ramp up for that. All the years I spent in opposition since 1991 in this province, that was, indeed, not an uncommon refrain. You take, as an example, the child from Powell River who happens to have autism. The likelihood of six or seven or eight other children moving into that area also having autism were slim to none, so, in fact, services were not delivered in a timely way. That's part and parcel of what has driven our decision to individually fund: to say that because you happen to be a child of one or two or three, you indeed can access some of those services.

In terms of an expansion of that thinking, we very, very recently — in fact, probably effective tomorrow — will have a program on line that looks at providing individualized funding to families, paid probably twice yearly, to allow them to purchase after-school services for children with special needs, children with autism, from 3 o'clock in the afternoon to 5 o'clock, and hopefully to purchase some kind of summer program for them — huge.

Anyone who's dealt with children with autism knows that the biggest affront to their learning is a break in routine. The discontinuity is very, very problematic, so to maintain some semblance of order as they move back into an educational program each September will be an enormous win for the school system, but an even bigger win for the child. They will absolutely have the ability to see some regular, routinized unfolding of their program. It will allow them to focus much more effectively come the introduction of schooling each September.

In terms of our expansion of individualized funding beyond that, we will certainly have opportunity to look at the research that's before us, and should we be pleased with those research directions, absolutely I think we're open to having a discussion around expansion. Again, we're driven by the Premier's commitment that we will go forward from the best possible science, so we will probably wait until that research is in, in terms of expanding what the next recipients might be.

J. Bray: That's very exciting news. I look forward to more information tomorrow. Certainly, having several families, in an urban area, dealing with children who live with autism, this sounds like a very positive move forward. I look forward to getting more information from the minister.

Moving on to page 17, objective 2.7, which states: "To establish coordinated, community-based mental health services for children and youth." For those who have worked in the field of community social services, mental health or health in general, this has certainly been an area of youth mental health that has really not had a lot of attention over the last 10, 15 years. Yet, certainly in my community of Victoria where we're dealing with some issues around homelessness and lack of coordinated services, some of the people we're seeing living on the street are in fact individuals under the age of 19 who have concurrent disorders — that is, people who have both a mental health issue and a substance abuse issue. Services at the best of times for people with concurrent disorders have been difficult. For youth it's been much more difficult.

There is a lot of very good work happening locally with respect to improving services for youth with mental illness. I'm wanting to canvass, based on the service plan, a couple of the objectives I see here. The first is this: I'm wondering if the minister could advise us with respect to strategy 2.7.1. and just expand a bit on the first strategy, which is implementing a child and youth mental health plan.

Hon. G. Hogg: If I could put a footnote on the comments with respect to individualized funding that the member asked in the previous question, that footnote would be that I think we want to look at individualized funding as a range of options in virtually all of the services we provide where it starts to make sense.

Parents across this province are looking at that model and wondering whether or not it starts to make sense within a metropolitan area, in a rural area or wherever the service may be. We've had great success with microboards in the past, where actually one child or one person with needs has a board formed. The funding goes to that board, and they make decisions around that. That's a form of individualized funding that starts to focus on that and one that we'd like to see expanded and broadened.

With respect to the child and youth mental health plan, there are two phases to the plan. In the first phase we're building the platform for the delivery of services, which includes the infrastructure as well as the knowledge base. We've entered into a contract with UBC for about $10 million to help build that platform, to help circulate that knowledge and to put in place the issues we need to put in place.

The research suggests that one in seven children and adolescents may have a mental disorder that results in extreme functional impairment. That could mean as many as 140,000 children in British Columbia. The member made reference to dual diagnosis. Certainly, as we see those impairments showing up in later life, something like 60 to 70 percent of them had indices of symptoms in place by age 11 which suggested that there was a need for some type of intervention. This child and youth mental health plan will allow us to start looking at those earlier intervention needs and be able to respond to them much more effectively as we move forward.

When we move into the second phase of it, there will be a further $12 million in '05-06 that will go into the full-service delivery part of that model. We will at that point have the information system, the infrastructure in terms of knowledge, and the training in place to provide that service. Hopefully, at that point we'll be able to provide a full range of services within the context of this plan.

I think as the member is well aware, this is the first child and youth mental health plan that any province has adopted in Canada. We're very proud of the fact that we had so many partners, so many people in this community and in this province who were so interested in taking that type of leadership and putting forward a model that would start focusing on them rather than simply the model which we've inherited, which was the adult mental health plan. We now have one that's complementary. It allows us to transition and provide, hopefully, a much more comprehensive set of responses to the mental health needs of the people of this province.

J. Bray: Certainly, that is very exciting news and one of the areas that I'm particularly encouraged about. I think just focusing the community's attention on the needs of youth with mental illness already is starting to see some synergies occur that I think are only going to build positive momentum as the ministry and the province work forward in this area.

Further to that, on 2.7.3. That strategy is: "Develop and implement inter-ministry policies and protocols to provide for more effective transition of clients from child and youth to adult mental health services." Certainly, one of the areas of concern I've heard in the past is the sort of on/off switch when somebody reaches the age of majority. All of a sudden all the advocacy and all the work that family caregivers had done to get all the services in place literally stop, and those parents finds themselves starting all over again. In the meantime, there aren't services being provided.

I'm wondering if the minister could expand a little bit on some of those inter-ministry policies and protocols. Where are they at in terms of trying to develop more seamless service provision between those who are under the age of 19, and those who are over the age of 19, to deal with some of those issues?

Hon. G. Hogg: With the terms of reference of the child and youth mental health plan, the committee that looked at that addressed a couple of primary issues. That was one of them. The second was the transition from acute care, from hospitalization, to community. There are two transitions that were seen as problems with respect to service delivery continuity: hospitalization to community, and to the age of majority. Some great gains that may have been made in terms of services were being hurt by that.

Those have been identified, and there are strategies in place. Those protocols are part of what we're doing in this first phase of the child and youth mental health plan. That's part of the work that we have ongoing with UBC as part of the contract we have with them to develop this platform. Those protocols are being developed through that process, and you've correctly identified one, and perhaps two, of the most important transition points with respect to that. One of the great issues of coordination across social services is that we have so many ministries involved in those issues.

That's why we're wanting to go to that community-based model that allows us to have a better coordination and integration happening at the community level. To that end, we're setting up meetings with our chief executive officers, the chairs of our boards, the regional executives in the Ministry of Health, as well as the Ministry of Human Resources staff people, to cover those regions so we can have a more integrated approach to, and understanding of, the needs as they exist within those communities. Those are two of the most important issues that provoked the issue and the need for having a child and youth mental health plan in the first place.

J. Bray: Certainly, it sounds like even more progress has been made on that front since the service plan was published. That's something I'm very pleased to hear, and I know that it will resonate well in my community.

Moving on to another area I know well, the executive and support services. Recognizing, as I spoke last year at this time to the minister…. Obviously, the Ministry of Children and Family Development is going through a major transition with respect to its staff, how

it's going to relate to its staff and how staff are going to perform their duties in the future. I'm very pleased to see a lot more detail this year with respect to the employees in the ministry, both those that are going to be transitioned into the community and employed by the community, and those that are going to be providing the support functions in the headquarters setting.

I'm just wanting to explore a couple of the objectives in 3.3, which is: "To develop and implement an organizational structure that supports government and ministry priorities and optimizes public service renewal." Certainly, there's a lot of both excitement and anticipation among professional staff in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I would suggest this is one area where to maximize the success of this transition, certainly working well with the employees will help.

The first strategy, 3.3.1, is to develop and implement the workforce adjustment strategy to meet the priorities and goals of the ministry. I'm just wondering if the minister can expand a little bit on how that process is going with respect to dealing with the employees, and how it's proceeding to ensure that it does meet the priorities and the goals that the ministry has set out during this transition.

Hon. G. Hogg: As the ministry has certainly been focusing on the voluntary departure and the ERIP programs, it is our hope and belief that we will be able to reach the targets that have been laid out in terms of staffing levels by this process and not have to get into the process of laying off any staff. The issue of balancing that with different parts of the province obviously becomes a challenge as we proceed with this.

In terms of looking at the staff and working with the staff, we've been meeting with the BCGEU in wanting to ensure that as we make these transitions, all of the wages and benefits can be protected for staff. We've had great cooperation and support from the BCGEU as we've been working through this. More recently we've been meeting with the Superannuation Commission to ensure that superannuation will also be able to transition and have a favourable response. In fact, their board has now passed that type of continuity.

As we go forward, certainly there is some uncertainty that exists with staff. We're trying to build in all of the safeguards and comforts that we can within that process while still moving towards the model that we believe is by far the best model. Certainly, many staff members also see this model as a model that gives them the opportunity to get into and be involved in the service delivery models in ways they see and want to be.

I've met with two or three staff members who qualified for early retirement. One of them said to me: "I've worked in this ministry for 30 years, and this is the first change I've seen that has been significant and important enough to allow us to address and provide services in communities the way I believe they should be. I'm not going to take my retirement. I want to be here as a part of this. I want to be a part of this change, because I believe it's the right thing to do."

We've seen that type of commitment from some of our staff members as well. At the other end of the continuum, there's some uncertainty as we're transitioning to new forms. Any time there is change, there is a certain amount of angst and uncertainty that goes with that change. We're doing everything we can to build those comforts into that modelling and into those changes.

In the end, we are a ministry that provides services primarily through people and by people. The confidence and trust they have in themselves and how they feel about themselves are integral parts of how the service they're able to provide comes across. We need to be able to work through them and provide that and ensure that in a changing culture, we're providing the comforts necessary for them to actually be able to be the very best they can be in terms of the provision of those types of services.

J. Bray: Actually, the minister answered a couple of questions all in a row there, which was great for me, so just two other questions from the service plan, dealing with the human resource management plan.

At the end of this transition will be two groups of employees. There will be those that are now working for community organizations, primarily the front-line workers. My first question for them is this: how will their continued professional development be overseen by the ministry to ensure that they're able to practice social work to the maximum scope of their education and training and that the process, as it has been in the past, is carried on once we're in that new model?

Hon. G. Hogg: There are, perhaps, a number of responses to that. Firstly, across the organization. For an organization to be accredited and meet those standards that come through accreditation, there are certain requirements with respect to staff development that must take place. Another part of that, of course, is that as we're transitioning to agencies and societies to providing them to be agents on behalf of the state, for example, for child protection services, they have to meet certain standards before they're delegated authority to be able to be full child protection workers. Those standards won't change. The requirement of the state to delegate them will still be in place, and they will have to meet certain standards before they are given authority to be a child protection worker.

At the same time, it should be recognized that the volume of work is not going to be changing dramatically. However, we expect our ability to respond to that volume of work to change. The only experts that exist in this province today around the issues of child protection are employees of this ministry, so they are going to be very valued employees of organizations and agencies as we move out.

Their expertise, their training and their knowledge will be integral parts of the success of this whole shift to community-based governance. Their ability to have

greater flexibility to exercise their training, knowledge and experience will be an integral part, also, of this transition, which will result in better services to people in our communities.

J. Bray: I'm certainly glad to hear that. I believe this new model will allow social workers to go back to actually doing social work. Their time will be freed up from some of the administrative burdens they have dealt with that have been piled on over the years to actually getting back to the practice of social work, which will greatly enhance families.

I am very reassured by the minister's answer that, in fact, the professional development of our professional social workers will continue and that it will again be working in conjunction with the communities and the agencies and not in isolation, which I think will further enhance professional development, the quality of social work that is done and also the job satisfaction for social workers who really are in the caring professions and can get back to developing their skills on how they interact with the community and serve families.

The second half of this transition, of course, is that at the end of the transition, there'll still be some employees directly employed by the Ministry of Children and Family Development. An overarching goal of this government is to renew and revitalize the public service. It's going to be quite different for those employees, primarily in the support and headquarters settings that are left, to make sure they're a part of that revitalization, that they continue to get their professional development and their opportunities to grow and expand in their areas of expertise.

I'm wondering if the minister can expand a bit on the human resources management plan, on the steps and opportunities that might be available for those employees that are left to be part of the revitalization for the public service.

Hon. G. Hogg: There will be approximately 1,000 employees left with the ministry who will have responsibility in terms of ensuring the accountability of the service delivery that exists in the region and ensuring that there is an understanding of the standards and policies and that those are being carried out in each of the regions. Each employee of the ministry will go through the standard employee appraisal annually. As part of that, there is a review of any of the educational opportunities which they think they should be a part of and which their supervisor thinks they should be availing themselves of as well. That will be the individualized focus around that.

In terms of the more generic, broad-based focus on revitalizing the staff which are working with the ministry, there will be programs looked at that address the changing roles and the changing needs the ministry and ministry staff have. There will be programs provided to ensure that we provide our staff with the skills necessary to be able to carry out the changing role the ministry will have as it moves more to the issue of setting standards, monitoring and providing accountability within that.

Moving into the actual budget, there are just some areas I want to canvass, starting with adults with developmental disabilities that the ministry serves. I'm just wondering if the minister is able to advise how many adults with developmental disabilities the ministry currently serves.

Hon. G. Hogg: Just to give the member a sense of the quantity provincewide, about 1 percent of the population has developmental disabilities. Of those, about one-third receive services from the ministry, which is about 8,700. The other two-thirds receive services within the context of their family or the homes and don't avail themselves of services through the ministry.

J. Bray: I'm wondering if the minister can advise us how many community care facilities are contracted through the Ministry of Children and Family Development that fall under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

Hon. G. Hogg: The actual numbers that fall under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act…. We don't have those figures but can see if we can get them for you. The number of residential care beds, based on residential capacity in the province, however, is 5,142. The number of clients receiving supported work programs is about 1,500. Hopefully, that gives a sense of what happens with that. The number of residents costing between $100,000 and $200,000 a year — the number of clients — is about 1,100.

Quick as a wink, there are approximately 1,050 licensed adult youth and child residential facilities in the province that fall under the Community Care Facilities Licensing Act.

J. Bray: I just have two more questions. Who will be responsible for setting the standards of care and the expectations for the community living services?

Hon. G. Hogg: The overall provincial standards in community living will be established by the ministry, by the state, and the community living services authority will be responsible and assume responsibility for carrying out those standards as part of their operational functioning.

J. Bray: My last question from the budget is…. The overall budget reduction is 19 percent over three years compared to 23 percent in the previous service plan. I'm wondering if the minister can explain why that difference exists.

Hon. G. Hogg: The major influence and change falls in three areas: the additional funding we have in

the out years for the child and youth mental health plan, the funding for the school-based programs that we're moving into the Community LINK program and the funding for the safe care program, which is coming forth. Those are new additions to the budget which add on to it as opposed to the full reduction. That moves us from 23 percent to 19 percent.

R. Sultan: I have some questions for the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. On March 5 of this year your ministry sponsored an information session with Dr. Clyde Hertzman of the University of British Columbia on the subject of early childhood development and community asset mapping.

We learned that community mapping is a relatively new concept bringing together academic and community partners to analyze child development in the pre-school stage. Dr. Hertzman examines populations of young children in different communities, assessing how well they're doing.

He believes systematic differences in child development emerge across communities depending on the richness of what he calls community assets. He measures community assets by such factors as average parental income, parental education, marital status, nutrition, safety and access to high-quality child care — which, by the way, he says isn't parking your child with a neighbour who will have your child in front of a TV set — and so on. He plots these assets on a map, neighbourhood by neighbourhood.

Similarly, he measures early childhood development through kindergarten surveys. Are the kids learning to read? Is there evidence of anti-social behaviour? He plots these outcome measures on a map as well, neighbourhood by neighbourhood. All of this made for some colourful maps.

Dr. Hertzman has applied this technique to the city of Vancouver, where I grew up. My home was the Mount Pleasant neighbourhood in East Vancouver. In Dr. Hertzman's maps the neighbourhood where I grew up was one of those dark-blue shaded zones with community assets just about off the negative end of the scale. While his measures were taken recently, it was his opinion that the relative standing of the assets of Vancouver neighbourhoods have not changed much over the years, confirming my own impressions.

Similarly, according to Dr. Hertzman, Mount Pleasant is not at the head of the class in terms of early childhood development either, which was his point. Community assets heavily influence early childhood development. The gap between Vancouver communities such as Kerrisdale and Mount Pleasant is painfully obvious. That's no surprise to those of us who grew up there. Dr. Hertzman's visual correlations merely quantify the obvious.

The more controversial point was made by Dr. Hertzman when he drifted away from sociology into the realm of economics. He moved from correlation to cause and effect. He claimed that society can accelerate early childhood development by investing in community assets. Indeed, I recall his saying there's a high economic return by doing so. One might say his findings really ended up in the realm of finance and economics. I don't think any of us would argue with the point that crime, family breakdown and poor health, not to mention talent undeveloped, all impose a heavy economic burden on society.

At the briefing — and I found this very interesting — Dr. Hertzman gained some unsolicited support from private members of this very Legislature, who pointed to the economic success stories of Hong Kong and Singapore, which these private members said drove their societies forward by investing heavily in early childhood development. They said these city states went from the Third World to the front of the industrialized world in not much more than one generation, in part by investing heavily in their children regardless of what strata of society they came from.

I'm a believer. For me, Dr. Hertzman's charts evoke memories — not all of them wonderful. There are memories of my half-sister who ran away and became a street person, probably on drugs, earning her living by means my family won't talk about. There are memories of my return as a Harvard graduate to Florence Nightingale School in Mount Pleasant, where the principal wasn't really much interested in my scholastic achievements, being much too busy with that long lineup outside her office, sorting out kids without breakfasts, kids working the street as prostitutes and kids asking to stay at school overnight because they're afraid to go home. This was and remains the primary school of my neighbourhood. Dr. Hertzman's correlations are convincing to me.

Dr. Hertzman made another point. While the social condition of the darkest blue areas on his map is well known, particularly focused on Vancouver's famous downtown eastside, his charts actually showed the problem is broader than that. About half of the Vancouver children at risk resided west of Main Street. If we simply put all of our money into the downtown eastside, we would only be helping 20 percent of the Vancouver children at risk. Lots of other neighbourhoods, such as Mount Pleasant, need help too.

Dr. Hertzman has combined social science with economic science. I'm more familiar with economic statistics than social statistics. I'm acutely aware that our financial resources are limited. Furthermore, we don't do much for early childhood development if we saddle toddlers of the next generation with debt and interest payments through indiscriminate spending today. Since the government purse is so limited, it's obvious to me that we should target the funds we have into places where they'll do the most good.

Therefore, Mr. Chair, I have four questions for the minister. I'll give them to you all in one blast.

1. Could you elaborate on the extent and nature of community influences on early childhood development as you and your ministry see them?

3. Would you subscribe to the view that targeting our social early childhood and early schooling budgets

neighbourhood by neighbourhood — we're not talking city by city; we're talking a narrower definition than that, neighbourhood by neighbourhood, where they would have the most leverage and help the toddlers most at risk — makes sense?

4. Since the need is so great and the government's resources so limited, isn't this a situation where non-government resources — private sector assets, if you will — should be enlisted to supplement community assets? As outlined in your service plans, what opportunities do you see for expanding partnerships between communities, governments and the private sector?

Hon. L. Reid: I couldn't be happier that this particular member has asked this question. We will have succeeded as a government if individuals across the spectrum appreciate the inextricable link between social policy and economic policy. Truly, we will have succeeded.

In terms of your particular questions, what is it we can do that will actually matter in the life of a child ten years out? For me, it's about relationship building. You take an example of the Strathcona branch of the Vancouver Public Library. The literacy levels in the neighbourhoods adjacent to Strathcona Library are probably the best in the province. They are that way, according to Dr. Hertzman, because of the outreach librarian, because of one woman who takes her message daily to the day cares and the preschools that surround Strathcona Elementary School. She reaches out to very young learners and their families and promotes the concept of family literacy — vitally important.

It's one person. It's not a huge financial outlay on behalf of the government. It is a single person who believes that if you build a relationship with the families, it will matter in the life of a child. That is the piece of Clyde's research that always makes people sit up and take notice, because it can be that type of relationship that will actually make a difference — vitally important.

When we talk about how we honour parenting, how we craft durability, how we honour resiliency, those are the pieces. Those things only work, frankly, if people feel truly connected and feel valued. That piece is vitally important. It works incredibly well.

What is this telling government? It is all about whether or not we as legislators, as community members, as communities and as front-line agencies are prepared to honour family. Government, over the years, has had the pendulum swing no differently in British Columbia than in any other province. We have either focused on the child or focused on the family. The reality is that you have to do both of those things simultaneously. You can't hope to separate a child from its family and expect the family to do well or, frankly, the child to do well.

We have learned some amazing lessons in the last 20 or 24 months as a government that truly are important to us. This government will be two years old on the fifth day of June — a toddler in terms of early childhood development — but if we learn best those early lessons about how you connect family, it will make a difference. It absolutely will make a difference. If we can put out there, for the public at large to understand, the necessity for durable parenting, we will have made an enormous difference in the lives of kids. This isn't about teaching other people how to better interact with your child. It is about modeling and mentoring and encouraging the best possible parenting practice.

Can we make a difference? Absolutely, we can. We can do it within ten years. This is the conversation the Premier and I have repeatedly about what it is that we want to leave this province with as a legacy: we want happier and healthier five-year-olds, ten years out.

It is vitally important that each member of this House commit to that notion: that if, whether or not you are talking to the Attorney General and he talks about treaty negotiations, the person who sits at that table is grounded in good, solid early childhood development. Whether or not you are talking new forestry practice or new issues around transportation, the person who works in those sectors, who negotiates those deals on behalf of government is dependent on the calibre of their learning when they are very, very small.

The research is clear, whether it is Dr. Fraser Mustard's work, whether it is Clyde Hertzman's work, whether it is the World Bank. They know what works. As a province, are we ready to embrace it and make it matter for the future economic prosperity of this province and for the future health and well-being of its citizens? Those things are parallel tracks in the minds of many folks. The really thoughtful folks — and I'm putting you in that category, hon. member — know that those things are inextricably linked. You cannot separate them. The purpose of balancing the budget — and that's the comment you made earlier — is for the purpose of having available resources to better the learning important for children and their families — vitally important.

You talked about how we bring other partners onto the spectrum, if you will. Certainly, the $10 million community partnership fund that the Premier announced, which was discussed in terms of the budget, is vitally important. You will see in the next six to 12 months an infusion of probably $20 million into the area of early childhood development. The province has put $10 million on the table. The central credit union movement of British Columbia hopes to match that sum of money, an enormous infusion of dollars — more than we will have seen at the grassroots level in our province, ever.

Will it matter? The member opposite talked earlier about communities making decisions that matter to them. If those $20 million end up driving best public policy, whether it be for Terrace or for Haida Gwaii, it will matter in the future economic prosperity of this province. The people who will seek employment, seek educational opportunities, go to graduate school or have children will have a better grounding in what it

It is a package. I think we've moved well away from the notion of having the health piece of a child, the social services piece or the educational piece, unless we're prepared to see children and acknowledge that we share the same child. The ministers of this government, the private members in this government and the province all have responsibility for the same child. When we talk about sharing information and sharing responsibility, nothing would make me happier than to see non-aboriginal people seeking service from aboriginal agencies and the reverse. We have much to learn from the aboriginal communities of this province — an enormous, untapped resource for us and great opportunities for us to pull together and to almost band together and suggest that children are the focus.

I've all kinds of folks across the province who say: "Well, it's not exactly my issue for today." The reality is — we can dither about a bunch of other things — all we're doing is allowing those children to get older and to miss some very, very productive, fruitful opportunities.

I. Chong: I first of all want to say that I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and I apologize at the outset to both the minister and the minister of state if these questions have been canvassed. Due to certain timing and that, I have been away at other meetings and committees. If the questions have been asked and the minister wishes to refer me to Hansard, I will happily do that, but if the ministers are willing to recommit to those answers again, that would be appreciated.

I have a number of questions regarding the service plan and then two or three items in particular, dealing with things I have been approached with in my constituency. In terms of the service plan I just wanted to get some overall information. As we know, with the service plans a number of performance measures and targets have been drafted. I know those are still to be determined over the course of the year. However, there may even have been some developments since they were first tabled.

One of the strategies, 1.2.2, talks about the development of creative options, increasing the capacity of families to keep adults with developmental disabilities at home. I do recall that the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill asked in that area as well. My perspective is to ask the minister just exactly how many families have been able to take advantage of this shift. Are we monitoring that? Do we have that information available? If so, what are those numbers? Therefore, can that be related, as well, to the decline in the number of people who are using what was previously called institutional care, as a result? Have we seen a significant change, and has the strategic shift made this difference?

Hon. G. Hogg: The member asks specifically with respect to the numbers, and we don't have specific numbers that have taken advantage of that process yet. We are in a comanagement model with respect to the services we're delivering. As we work through this process, we're continuing to develop baseline information and are looking at the data that will be used to be able to provide the member with answers to those questions, hopefully, in the months and years to come. It's a relatively new process of measuring those types of outcomes and the models that we need to address those.

In the comanagement model we're working with the community, working with the regional authorities, to develop those, to put those in place, and working with service providers so that we have a collaborative partnership in the delivery of those services and these shifts.

I. Chong: I'll look forward to receiving that information over the course of the year.

As the minister knows, when we were in opposition, I think some of these issues had always been raised. For adults with developmental disabilities — who didn't start out to be adults, who actually were children, and over the course of the years became adults — a lot of the support services they received when they were children disappeared, and the options disappeared for parents.

I know the strategic shifts this ministry is looking at are going to go a long way to remedying those kinds of things. My questions are related to that, to ensure that we are tracking that information. I think plans that are developed are best served when we have real results, and I know the ministry will take care of that.

The other strategy is 2.1.2. Again, I apologize if this has been canvassed. This talks about providing essential community-based alternatives to custody in order to promote the rehabilitation of youth and minimize reliance on expensive custodial resources. I'm wondering whether the minister can provide us with any alternatives that have actually been successful at this time in rehabilitating youth through community resources — any prime examples of that?

I. Chong: I apologize if I've got the wrong numbering here. In any event, it's one of the strategies, which is about providing essential community-based alternatives to custody in order to promote rehabilitation.

Hon. G. Hogg: The new legislation which is coming into effect tomorrow, the new Youth Criminal Justice Act, moves towards community-based alternatives as responses to custody. This province has had a strategy of community-based alternatives for a number of years and, in fact, has probably been the national leader in

diverting youth from the courts and coming up with alternatives for working with them. We have had, historically, amongst the fewest children per capita in custody in this province. That is because of the positive alternative programs which have been developed and utilized over the past number of years.

As we move forward with this, we're starting to look at alternate dispute resolution methods, looking at, perhaps, the introduction of tribunals which will help look at group family conferencing models within the youth justice system. We've been running a pilot project in the Burnaby area for looking at alternate dispute resolution around these types of issues. We will continue to work at those. The services we will provide will continue to look at alternatives, which include moving closer to family models of care services. It may well be that for youth who are in conflict with the law, who have been in institutional settings, there may well be group homes that will be alternatives. They may well be able to move into a foster home as an alternative to the institutional setting.

We know from the research, over and over again, that the more we move into institutional settings, the less likely we are able to respond to the specific needs of change that youth have. We also know that if you take a youth who is low risk, low need, and process them through the court system and through an institutional setting, the probability of them reoffending, the recidivist rate, almost doubles when we get them involved in those situations. We'd be better off to not even touch them, to leave them all alone.

I think the recidivist rates would run about 30 percent, and they almost double the moment we get involved with them and get them involved in institutional settings, which reinforces the need for us to have less intrusive, more community-based responses for dealing with that. The least intrusive is putting services around a child within the context of their family or their extended family and the resources they would need to function within that context. The more we move down that continuum — if one end of it is institutions, and the other end of it is their family — the more we move towards the family base and the family-based model, the more likely we are to be able to have good outcomes and reduce the recidivism rates of young offenders.

I. Chong: I gather from the minister's response that community-based alternatives are, to some extent, still a work in progress and are still being developed. I would imagine, in his comments as well, things like restorative justice models, when he spoke about tribunals, are also areas to explore.

My concern, I guess, is once these community-based alternatives are developed, whether they will again be siloed — for lack of a better word — where a parent looking for alternatives is going to be able to find a continuum of help all along the way. This is sometimes what we find has been lacking in the past. We're not always clear what is going to be available where a family is needing assistance with the youth. As a result, the parents find some services, and then they find that they need more. There's no connection if there needs to be a progression of services. Are these community-based alternatives eventually going to be linked? Are they being developed so that they can be linked, so that as every increasing need occurs that is going to be available? I would hate to see that we are in a position where they get one set of services and then it stops, and we don't realize that there's another set that they may need to explore to continue to get the help they need.

Hon. G. Hogg: Historically, these services were provided by the Attorney General's ministry in this province. With the creation of this ministry, part of the expressed intent was to ensure that there was a coordinated, integrated method of service delivery. As we're moving forward with the new organizational models and the regionalization, it is expressly the intent of the regionalization model to ensure we have coordinated, integrated service delivery models that exist within communities, so the youth justice workers are working alongside mental health workers and child protection in a coordinated model. Those services will be transitioning to the authorities, and in some cases the authorities will be contracting some of those services with service providers. The intent is to provide greater coordination.

The whole approach to this governance shift is one that will respond more appropriately to dealing with the issues that exist within communities and the issues that we have there. When an issue arises in a community you'll be able to go to a resource, and they will have a full range of services available. They will be able to do an appropriate assessment as to what type of intervention is most appropriate, and how we can manage that. They will be able to have identified a case worker to work with them around the issues and initiatives that are necessary to ensure we are able to provide the resources and services necessary to ensure there isn't the type of escalation of behaviour that often does happen.

We certainly do not want escalation to happen as the result of an unintended consequence. We want to ensure that if there is an escalation, it is not as a result of inappropriate responses to services. The state must provide the services and supports to those families in ways that will be most responsive to those types of needs over the long term.

I. Chong: I did have some other questions on strategies, but I do recall hearing others canvass this, so I'm not going to ask the minister about it. They had to do with the measures to fight child prostitution and youth crime and also the child and youth mental health plan. I know he's given many answers on that, so I'll check Hansard.

Just as the minister was concluding his remarks and sharing with me on how these are going to work, he was leading up to the next area that I wanted to ask

about. That had to do with the development and implementation of interim ministerial policies and cooperation and protocols. The minister has alluded to the Attorney General being involved in mental health, and those kinds of things.

It's important because of the transition of the constituents we're dealing with, especially as they move from a child and youth to an adult situation. They move out of one ministry into another, and that's how in the past they've been forgotten. I'm just wondering if, in fact, there is a specific protocol that has been developed to prepare for some of the transitional planning process, whether that is still being worked on and whether the minister can share that with me.

Hon. G. Hogg: There is a general policy statement that has been put out around this coordination and cooperation within the context of each of the regions. There is the development of policies and protocols for those services that are being developed, and part of that is ensuring we do have meetings with the CEO of the health authority and the chair of the board of the health authority, meeting with our staff in similar situations and doing the same thing with Human Resources and their chief staff person in each of the regions. Those protocols are being developed. We're also meeting with school boards to ensure that there is coordination of services that do exist there.

Those protocols are being developed out of practice. There are some in existence in some parts of the province, and in other parts of the province there needs to be a further articulation of those. But from the principle of provincewide services, we have certainly been moving towards and encouraging the development of those. The principle being: how can we ensure that this system starts to make sense from the perspective of an individual or a family member in a community rather than from the perspective of sitting here in Victoria? We divide up our services amongst ministries, which does not make sense, because families don't work and communities don't function based on the way we organize our ministries. They function from a whole different perspective. It's incumbent upon us to start looking at service delivery from their perspective, rather than from the perspective we develop here in Victoria. That's all part of how we turn that culture around, how we turn that service delivery model around so that access becomes much more reasonable and understandable than it is today.

I. Chong: The next area I'd like to raise with the minister has to do with a particular matter I've been working on for the last six months. I know the minister is aware of it. I'm not sure whether he's been briefed and updated on this. The matter started last September and culminated in October, November. As recently as two weeks ago, it's still ongoing in terms of discussion. That has to do with the matter of the Queen Alexandra Centre for Children's Health. The Leader of the Opposition asked these questions last week, as it was her opportunity to canvass this ministry. Unfortunately, she didn't do an adequate job on it. No disrespect, but she was not as fully aware of the circumstances surrounding it, so I want to bring it to the minister's attention, as it is a matter that concerns a facility in my area.

This is where the interministerial, I guess, protocol is very important to ensure the success of the transition that occurs. Just by way of background, a number of families with very highly specialized children had been using the Queen Alexandra Centre for respite services. A number of these families, moms and dads, have jobs and are working and get assistance throughout the week, but on weekends they often need to have their children who have these high special needs in respite so that they can re-energize their batteries so that they can continue to take care of their children. This is exactly in keeping with what we've said our government wants to do: provide the supports for these families.

Unfortunately, the Vancouver Island health authority that is the lessor of the property, the Queen Alexandra Centre, requires those facilities for other children's services, and the 20-some-odd families have been asked to vacate. The difficulty they've encountered that I've been working with them on is that a transition plan was not put in place at the earliest opportunity, nor was the development of a transition plan in place. The anxiety these parents have has been extremely high over the last six months. In addition, it sounds as if we are still in that state where they're going month to month or two to three months at a time before they realize that the respite services they need will continue.

I know one of the staff members was meeting with, I think, VIHA as well as the ministry's staff to determine whether or not interim service would be provided beyond March 31, which is today. We originally were told that it could go till the end of June, but because we're looking for another facility or another group home or another option that is available, if it's not available by the end of June, then what happens? The anxiety that continues on that level is great. I'm wondering if the minister has any additional information he can provide on that basis — whether or not any kind of commitment can be made that until such time as a facility is found, even though they say an interim plan will be in place, the parents actually do know that they aren't going to go till June 30 and find themselves in yet another period of uncertainty. If the minister could provide that information, it would be most helpful.

Hon. G. Hogg: I give credit to the member. She's been vigilant with respect to this issue, and she has asked many questions and been a wonderful advocate on behalf of the initiatives and issues that exist for those families.

There were, I believe, 23 families that received services through Queen Alexandra, which was an acute institutional setting. The models we're moving forward to are much more community-based, and most families want to have respite that is much more community-

based. I recognize these are children that have very acute special needs in terms of the delivery of those services. I think a number of them have transitioned out of the Queen Alexandra, and other options have been found. The local region was working with a group of parents. There is a parent who has been working with them, and they've identified and have gone forward with a requisition for proposals.

They've developed a set of criteria that they think addresses the needs of the parents. At my last discussion with them, they were putting that out to tender and seeing what type of response they got to ensure they did address the needs of these children. There was assurance from the interim regional chief executive director Jane Cowell that there would be services provided and that no one would be left without services as we make this transition and try to find the services as are necessary.

As the member appropriately pointed out, this was a service that was provided in a health setting by the Vancouver Island health authority. They made the decision that they were going to discontinue that, asked us to provide the respite care and transferred some $400,000 to us to start effecting that transition. The transition, I believe, for all but three or four families, was…. Part of that has taken place.

There is a need to ensure that we do develop a sensitive and appropriate response for all of them, and my understanding is that the region is in the process of doing that and has made the commitment that there won't be anyone left hanging there. There will be a service found for them that does address the needs of the strategic shifts we've made.

I. Chong: Before we recessed for the dinner break, I was asking the minister some questions regarding the Queen Alexandra Centre, where parents were using that facility for the purposes of respite for their special needs children. I had asked about the interim service that was being offered at the moment because of the new models that this ministry is looking at to provide more options, more flexibility for parents and community-based services for them.

I think the parents understand the need to have community-based services and the options and the flexibility that are available. Their primary concern was the transitioning that was in place and, to be quite frank about it, that they feel didn't work for them. I bring it to the minister's attention because I'm hoping that should this occur in other areas around the province — should there be services that are being provided in one way and then we go to a shift and there's a transition…. A transition plan truly needs to be in place. If there's anything we've learned from this, it's the fact that it's critical for parents to be able to adapt to that, because they are dealing with so many things with their special needs children that that has to take place.

Before we broke, I didn't get a chance to ask the minister about some other matters regarding that, and that also had to do with the scheduling of the respite. They've been offered the services that were previously provided on the same average, so that if parents in the past have had two days of respite a week, they would somehow still get two days of respite while we're in this transition phase. That's fine up until perhaps the end of June, when the summer rolls around. What was happening in the past was that the parents would be able to have respite services offered for about a week, so that they truly could have a week's holiday with their spouses and their other children. At this time we haven't been given any idea of whether that kind of respite will be offered.

We were hoping, if the minister has any ideas whether the budget will provide for that or whether the transition will provide for that. I know this is a critical year for some of these changes, but these parents with these medically fragile children are very concerned that by the time they get a new model in place — it may take longer than anticipated, because of a facility being found and the zoning that sometimes is required — they may not have these options available to them that they previously had. If the minister can even provide some idea whether he's aware of that, or if he isn't, whether he would ensure that he is able to follow up on that so that I could give some assurance to these parents.

Hon. G. Hogg: I understand one of the staff members for the region met with the parents last week, so they are still having some ongoing meetings, and we'll have to get specific answers to the member's questions with respect to that.

We certainly do understand that these are very medically fragile youths and children and that the services needed for them are different than in other parts of the province, which is probably why they were at one point part of the Island health authority and this transition has taken place. There have been transitions around the province that have gone very smoothly. This one, perhaps, has not gone as smoothly as some of them, but there certainly has been goodwill on the part of staff and many of the parents that we're trying to move through this to find a solution that works for them. That solution has involved parents to an extreme degree, in terms of being able to come up with one, so I trust we'll be able to go through this process and find something which is a resolution for everyone. That involves moving to a community-based model, because Queen Alexandra, as we're well aware, was the institutional model.

I will ask that our staff look into that and provide an answer to the member sometime within the next

I. Chong: I do thank the minister for that. I want to say for the record that his ministry and his staff have been extremely helpful in this time of transition.

I think, as I say, at the very beginning there was much concern and anxiety, and while there still is some, the certainty is becoming more clear. I know parents are very much wanting to be part of the solution. They're very much wanting to make sure the changes to the community-based services that the ministry is developing and implementing are going to be successes. They want to be part of that success story — I do believe that — but they have to give voice to their voiceless children, and through me they've been doing that. I know I will continue to work with the minister and his staff on that.

Before I leave this area, I just would like to ask the minister about the Queen Alexandra Centre. Is that at all being used in any way, shape or form by this ministry, or has that now become completely turned into services only being provided by the Vancouver Island health authority?

Hon. G. Hogg: The only services I'm aware of that are continuing to be provided there are the early intensive behavioral intervention program for autism treatment.

I. Chong: On that note then, whether you or the minister of state can provide the information, is that intended to stay there for quite some time? I say that because of the minister's comment about the Queen Alexandra Centre being considered an institutional setting, which is a model we want to move away from. I can tell you, having spoken to these parents and others who now use the facility for early intervention and intensive behaviour models, parents don't feel it's an institutional setting. I know that's a difference of opinion.

While the other services that once were being provided by the Ministry of Children and Family Development aren't required, when we move into the early childhood development programs — and they're still being provided — are we going to eventually move out of that facility as well because that's not deemed to be the kind of setting we wish for these families? I would like to be ready for the next phase, if it were to happen.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm happy to respond to the piece in terms of the process around direct funding. The member may know that Dr. Pat Mirenda from the University of British Columbia has been brought on to evaluate the effectiveness of that program. Should it continue will be directly dependent on its success. Certainly, the Premier was very clear that we're going to go forward from the base of the best possible science and hopefully from that, drive the best public policy. The dollars are in place for this fiscal year, beginning tomorrow, and subject to a successful evaluation. We trust that those dollars will continue.

I. Chong: Would that mean those would continue then? Would the program continue or, I guess, would the infrastructure and the structure itself of the program stay at the Queen Alexandra Centre as well? If the minister can give me some clarity on that….

Hon. L. Reid: The location for that type of programming is determined by need. Five years from now if there weren't sufficient little souls living in Victoria who had autism, yes, the program would likely move. The reality is we want to have a centre on Vancouver Island, we wish to have a centre in the interior, and we have one in the lower mainland. I trust that those locations will stay.

I don't anticipate a huge shift in the number of children who have autism or, frankly, where those families choose to live when they have children who have autism and do require ongoing services. They're pretty much looking for service in southern Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the interior of British Columbia. It may well be that we have an increase in the number of children with autism in a different location of British Columbia, and we would choose to move a program or hopefully craft a new program. We don't have that level of detail yet, and we certainly don't have the evaluation results in to us yet.

I. Chong: The next area I want to ask the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development is in regards to wait-lists for children who are needing care, particularly in early intervention. When we had been in opposition, we heard from parents, and in fact a piece of legislation was drafted by people in the community. I know there were some issues with that, but it was primarily to deal with a wait-list.

I know the minister is aware two of the proponents of that were Jim McDermott and Penny Kellett. I think Penny lives in the riding of Victoria-Hillside, and I'm sure she's been in contact with the member. I know they brought that forward, and I know at that time the minister, who was then the critic, was very receptive to talking with them and listening. That's about two or three years now. Things have changed. Whether that wait-list still exists, whether legislation like that is still relevant or not, can the minister give me an idea of where we are with children on wait-lists as they described it back two or three years ago? Have we been able to make some progress in that area?

Hon. L. Reid: The member opposite references Penny Kellett and Jim McDermott. It was my pleasure in the last number of weeks to visit Victor School with both those individuals and to meet his daughter and her grandson Austin. It's a wondrous achievement that those little souls are being well supported in the community in terms of their wait-list issues generally.

Certainly, we are working through it. It is not a speedy process but indeed we've been able to bring to zero the wait-list for autism services in the province ? an enormous collaboration, an enormous partnership

between health services and health planning. Our challenge is to continue to bring those wait-lists down. Infant development program British Columbia ? the wait-lists are down. Little tiny special needs souls who require some kind of specialized intervention ? we've been able to reduce the amount of time for those little souls are on wait-lists.

Is there work before us? No question. There is therapy work before us in terms of occupational therapy, physiotherapy, speech language therapy. Speech language therapy poses the greatest challenge to us. I can tell you today there are probably nine positions vacant for speech language therapists in the northern region of this province. It is not for lack of funding. It is for lack of an available trained resource. Those positions have been funded and have been posted for well over a year. They have not been able to secure individuals to fill those places. We are hoping that at the end of April or early May we'll see some new graduates from speech language, audiology and pathology at the University of British Columbia that indeed can be encouraged to take their practice to northern British Columbia. That, indeed, would drive down that particular wait-list.

There has been improvement. Are we all content with where we are today? No. There always is opportunity for us to continue to drive those wait-lists down.

I. Chong: I thank the minister of state for that. Too often, you hear about stories and you don't realize that everything possible is being done, it is just that there is another party to it or another side to it. Sometimes it is not what government can do, but what is out there in the community and what we can provide. It is very helpful for her to provide that information for us as members so that we can relay to our constituents that it is an ongoing problem and a challenge, and we'll work on that.

The last area I'd like to ask the minister about is the healthy start program. I know she recently was up in…. I'm not even sure what community. I thought I had seen it on one of the information circulars we've received, that she was going to talk and look into the healthy start program. Of course, this was something we talked about as well when we were in opposition, and we were, I think, very much encouraged by everyone involved.

If the minister could just give me an idea of what we have initiated in this province of the healthy start initiative and whether we will be fully integrated by a certain time with that healthy start model and what phases we are looking at on that particular initiative.

Hon. L. Reid: I'm delighted to talk about this area. In fact, we have a number of different options in the basket, if you will, in terms of the basket of service. We have the Healthier Babies–Brighter Futures program and the Building Blocks program. We also have some head start programs operating in the province.

I have had the incredible opportunity in the last number of months to visit many of the aboriginal early development programs that we have on site. The member may know that, in terms of the aboriginal early childhood development strategy we brought on line last year, we now have 37 communities doing wondrous things in terms of having healthy babies. The programs have delighted and made a real difference in the lives of families.

Certainly, I think we have a glorious partnership with Health Canada around both of us coming together to understand what it is both the province and the federal government funds, and frankly, highlighting the areas that neither of us funded.

We have indeed managed to extend the dollars a little bit further into communities across British Columbia. There are aboriginal communities who have great opportunity to do some wondrous things. The Yekooche, Kwadacha and Tsay Keh communities that I have had the enormous privilege to visit and to see how the general consensus is around producing healthier babies.

The Dawson Creek program — I'm not sure whether that was the one the member was referencing — is a glorious partnership. That school-based population, if you will, the five-year-olds, have the opportunity to participate in what is called a kinder Cree program, and they take their kindergarten year in the Cree language. It's a glorious undertaking on behalf of the province in terms of supporting what it is the local community has asked for and has believed to be important.

There are some great partnerships. The Burns Lake Healthier Babies–Brighter Futures program. Ninety-four percent of the women engaged in that program either reduced or eliminated their alcohol consumption during pregnancy. In fact, for the first time ever we have second pregnancies in that area being born healthy, alcohol-free at birth. A huge win for that community, and a glorious partnership between business, industry, local chambers of commerce, the college. Everybody has come onside and said that this is important to us.

We have a whole array of healthy baby programs that, frankly, communities have individualized to see if they can get the best possible outcomes. I'm delighted to tell you that there are some great success stories today in British Columbia.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I'll be looking forward to her reporting to the House from time to time on the outcomes. We'll find a way to have that information put out there. I think, truly, a success story like that needs to be told time and time again.

The last areas I need to canvass, I think, go back to the minister. I just want to let him know there are three general areas left that I want to ask about. One has to do with foster care. One has to do with the interim regional planning committees that he put in place. Finally — I know this has been canvassed — I'll ask one more time about the inner-city schools and where we are with that. Even a week ago, I think, when the opposition leader asked about those…. Things may have

changed since then, so I'll give the minister an opportunity to update us should things have changed in the last week.

In the area of foster care, can the minister advise if there a goal we are trying to reach regarding the number of children in foster care? Trying to reconnect children with their biological parents I know is the goal we want, but are there some performance measures the minister is working on to see how we get to that target?

Hon. G. Hogg: We're wanting to reunite every family that can be reunited, ensuring that it's safe and appropriate for the child in question. We are also looking at national standards as kind of benchmarks to work with. The national standards are just over nine per thousand of population. We've been well over 11 per thousand of population, and we're working our way down to try and do that. It's just a benchmark so we can compare ourselves to other provinces. Certainly, each case should be measured on its own merits and the issues associated with that for the determination.

I may, as a postscript, add that I have a little further information on Queen Alexandra. The Queen Alexandra will be providing respite on an interim basis until the end of August. We anticipate a contractor to be hired by June. The request for proposals was posted. A proponents meeting occurred last week, and they will be choosing a contractor shortly. They will be working with that new contractor to arrange for families to continue to have the one-week break they've had in summers past. Staff have just been able to get this information hot off the press.

I. Chong: I thank the minister for that. I know that will probably lift a huge burden that they were concerned about off the shoulders of these parents. Any time we can get that kind of good news out so quickly…. I certainly appreciate staff working so hard to provide that information.

In the area of foster care, as I mentioned…. The reason I raised this — and I had not intentionally thought of doing this — was because in recent weeks, in fact, in the week that I was in the constituency, a matter came before me. I will eventually bring this to the staff's attention. The constituent brought into question the programs we had in foster care and how we were reuniting. Where the opportunity doesn't exist for the child to be reunited with the parent and there's a fostering relationship that currently exists, the opportunity for that foster family to then go one step further — the adoptive route…. That has come to my attention.

This particular family has known this particular child from the time he was three years old — I believe he's about ten or 12 now — and has had a major influence on this young lad's life. The biological parents are not able to and have…. I wouldn't say "relinquished," but they have agreed to allow the child to have more involvement with the foster parents or any, I guess, parents willing to adopt or become full-time foster parents. Yet what's occurred, apparently, is that the caseworker or social worker assigned has seen it necessary to unite — not unite but associate — this child with a completely new family.

My question is this: what kind of criteria, what kind of links, do we have in place to ensure that whatever bonds have been developed with existing foster parents, if they wish to continue that, are not broken and a new one has to start with a total stranger who may also live in another area — as far away as another town? Do we look at those criteria? Does the ministry get involved in that? Or is this something that ends up before the courts, and the ministry has no involvement? Can the minister share with me that kind of a transition from fostering to perhaps even adoptive or full-time foster care? I think it was rather sporadic while the mom was trying to take care of her child. As I say, that's not a possibility now.

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, in some of those instances they are before the courts for extended periods of time. I don't know the specifics of this case, but I would be happy to sit down with the member and work through the details of that case. The courts do maintain jurisdiction over cases for extended periods of time and in many cases right until they reach the age of majority. That may be the instance in this case.

With aboriginal children, we know that the research is pretty clear. Generally speaking, the outcomes for children are better when they're reunited with their biological families. If we're able to put the resources and supports into a birth family to achieve those outcomes, the outcomes on a number of different measures are better, whether it's education, health or employment. All of those criteria have a more positive outcome when we're able to keep those families together.

However, we still must make those decisions. Social workers must make those decisions and recommendations to the courts based on the best interests of the child in the specific case. There are as many different circumstances that exist as the families and the children that are part of those families. They always have to use their professional judgment and all the support information they can gather to make a good decision with respect to the child.

At the same time, many of the adoptions that take place around this province are with foster parents who choose to adopt a child. Many, many of those adoptions come through that route. In fact, this year we've had more adoptions than any other year in the history of the province, and the number of adoptions has actually doubled over the past two years. We're over 300 adoptions this year, which is a dramatic growth and, I think, a very positive statement on the people of this province and their willingness to take on the responsibilities and express their love and caring for children through a full adoption. That also speaks well of our staff and to the work that they're doing and the supports that are provided to those parents. It certainly speaks well of the wonderful foster care that we see across this province on a daily basis.

I. Chong: I do thank the minister for that. I'm not going to get into the details of the case. I will be visiting staff in his office in due course and trying to determine what happened here. I think this particular case went sideways somehow. I need to know if it is just an incident that can be rectified immediately, or if there are other issues. I'll deal with that directly.

The other area I want to move on to is, again, to do with the Vancouver Island regional planning committee that was struck to deal with the interim authority, dealing with the new models that are going to be moving forward for programs and services for children and families. Before I do, I want to say that I was very pleased to have attended this meeting. The interim chair of this, Anne Geddes…. The minister appointed an excellent, excellent choice who really cares about the communities. I, along with the member for Saanich South, the member for Victoria-Hillside and the Minister of Human Resources, was able to attend this meeting. I received such an insight into the work that they were doing, and I want to just quickly share with the minister some things they said.

I think about 20 of these people who are on this regional planning committee…. I took these notes down because I just thought they needed to be shared with him. One person said that this committee was of high integrity. Another said that it had so much potential. There was great collaboration and teamwork — all the people involved. Some had said that there were so many talented people and so many experts in so many different areas that it made the committee a joy to work on.

Another said that there was sound commitment. There were dedicated people. One person said: "Finally, a chance to really make changes." This particular person had been called on a number of previous occasions by various other governments and other administrations and had always been involved. They said that they weren't prepared to work on another committee just to be pushing ideas around but felt that there was finally a chance to make change. This, again, goes to the credit of the minister and his staff and the strategic shifts that he's trying to do.

Another individual said this process has allowed the coming together of many aboriginal peoples — again, another very positive statement. One more person said this: "Where we've come from and where we're going — it excites me." I just wanted to share that with the minister, because I walked away from that meeting enlightened, encouraged and excited, too, that these changes are going to be very good. However, as with every meeting, there's always information you learn.

I want to just find out, if I can…. I know that this ministry, through its shifts, is looking for different options, different models, and therefore for savings in as many areas as possible. However, we are looking at making some rather substantial changes in year '04-05, and we were told by some people who were there that they had seen models that were, I guess, tried in other areas such as Alberta. During the period of transition is when the incidence of more need usually occurs and therefore a greater concentration of dollars. Then it will drop off thereafter, because by then you have implemented the plans you want to do.

Looking at our three-year service plan and the outcomes we're wishing to achieve, I'm wondering if the minister can share with us whether he sees us following a different model and whether we're going to be able to adjust to the transition, given the service plan he has prepared and what the challenges are that we're going to be looking at in year '04-05.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, I appreciate the comments from the members of our planning board. Certainly, we have a number of people across this province who are excited. There are volunteers who are working on the planning process and are actively involved in and a part of their communities, coming forward with a wonderful set of plans they are able to develop for their communities. They've been holding meetings around their regions, and they are actively interested, committed and excited.

I've had the privilege of meeting with the chairs on a number of occasions, and I'm meeting with them again, I think, in two weeks. Anne Geddes has been a very appropriate and eloquent spokesperson for Vancouver Island on the issues and initiatives. She and the members of her committee and their interest in, understanding of and commitment to change in a very positive way is pretty exciting. There are lots of people around the province who are reflecting that.

Consistent with that, there are certainly challenges we have to face. We have had discussions earlier today with respect to the service plan and the targets we have in terms of the fiscal demands that come out of it. One of the options, given that we were making these transitions and given that we have the fiscal priorities and that the challenge is to reach a budget plan, the question arose: is this the right time to be making change?

We could, alternatively, do the traditional way of meeting budget targets, which would be very prescriptive, where we would write a letter to our regional authorities, our regional staff, and say, "We have to cut your budget by 23 percent. Tell us where we're going to cut it by 23 percent," in a very prescriptive kind of way. It's my belief — and I so firmly and fervently believe it — that this is the right organizational model to entrench within community service delivery that makes sense.

I believe that if we had twice the budget we have today or if we had half the budget, this is still the right direction, the right focus and the right way to provide services in communities. In the best of all possible worlds, we wouldn't be doing it at the same time we're having to reach these budget targets, these reductions, but we are. We're trying to manage it in very positive and unique ways.

The member made reference to Alberta. Alberta delegated and gave the money and said: "See what you can do." We've gone through a transition process.

We've met with the people in Alberta. We have people from Alberta who have helped us as consultants, and they said we're doing it the right way. We started with the transition process. We've put the planning in place. We're using the planning group to talk about the development of the service plans.

We're entering into comanagement, and we're starting to use them to help us understand the process, so when we move to the full management, we're going through a transition process that requires them to meet — each one of the regions must meet — the tests for readiness criteria before it's turned over to them. It's not like Alberta, which said: "Okay, here's the legislation. Go do it." We're actually involving them in a process, and we have readiness criteria, which means that different regions will no doubt reach their ability to move into service provision at different times as they're able to develop the capacity, ability and responsiveness to be able to provide those services.

This transition, I think, provides for us an orderly method. We've had some of the best experts in the world. We've had blue-ribbon committees with representatives from all over the world looking at this, ensuring that we are implementing the best practices, the best procedures and the best methods of getting to service delivery.

That clearly doesn't take away from the fact that we do have some fiscal imperatives we have to work to and manage, and we're transitioning to do that. We have contingency plans around those targets. We have looked at the targets. We've developed the systems. We know what we have to do to reach those. We know the impact that's going to have. Our primary focus in terms of doing that is being able to address the number of children in care.

The member asked earlier about the number of children in care and if we have targets. We do have a baseline, which is the national average. We believe we should be very close to those national averages. In order to get there, for each 1,000 children we reduce in care there is somewhere in the neighbourhood of a $40 million savings to government. Not only is it fiscally prudent, but morally it's the right way to move in terms of being able to keep children in the context of their family. We know the outcomes for them will be better.

We know that 65 percent of the children that come into care come in from families on income assistance, usually single parents, usually women who need to have different types of supports. Often those women are exasperated by the issues they're facing. If we can provide them with a little bit of support, we know we can have better outcomes for the children, we can keep families together, and we can do it much more responsibly, both fiscally and morally, than we have been today.

I. Chong: For that response I want to thank the minister. He addressed the issue. I think that was a bit of an uncertainty. The fact is that he is thinking and looking ahead and contingency plans are also being developed should they be necessary. That's definitely what forward planning is all about, as opposed to in the past, when we've seen plans put in place without any kind of thought of how they could succeed. The fact that we've got people in the ministry and staff looking at this, ensuring that we're going to succeed, is certainly reassuring.

Because of the new application of a socioeconomic formula, I'm wondering if the minister can advise: if one region in a heartlands community, for example, is much more successful than was originally anticipated, will those savings they find or dollars they may not be in need of be able to be moved to another region? Or will the regions all be given a budgeted amount that they need to work with in their own region on this socioeconomic formula? Will we be able to move them from different parts of the province if the need arises and changes? A lot can happen in two years.

Hon. G. Hogg: The intent of this whole process is to ensure that regions have the ability and the flexibility to meet their service plans with the allocations they have. If they're able to generate savings and that, the expectation is they will be able to reinvest those within the context of their regions. We're all well aware of circumstances in the past where people and organizations and societies have worked hard to generate savings only to see them scooped rather than being rewarded for their efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of services. It is our intent, through the process of this regionalization, to allow them to look at models and to ensure they do have effective models and that they do reinvest any savings they have in building capacity and building more effective and responsible programs.

I. Chong: Finally, the last area is inner-city-school-based funding. I know it's been canvassed, and I heard the Leader of the Opposition ask some questions. I think she attempted to ask them for this area in Victoria, but I, along with my colleagues Victoria-Hillside, Victoria–Beacon Hill, Saanich South, Esquimalt-Metchosin — I know the member has seen us in his office a number of times — are continually asked about this. I know there is a reduction in the budget; however, I'm confident the reduction is based on the fact that we will find a better model. We're working on that.

Here in the Victoria area in particular I'm wondering if the minister can give me any idea on how that is working. When we Victoria-area MLAs met with the school board trustees about a month ago, they indicated to us that every single dollar they received was absolutely used for the programs, and that there were no administrative areas of savings. Of course, at the time, they didn't share with us what their models were and what was being looked at.

From our perspective, we hear from constituents asking us what's happening here. We're sharing with

them that new models are being looked at, but to be quite frank, I don't know what those new models are. I know a committee has been struck. I know that School Trustees Association people have been involved and PACs. If the minister can advise us even who is on these committees here in Victoria, where we have an opportunity to hear from them or ask them to share with us how they're developing a model for Victoria — which may be different from Vancouver, which may be different from Nanaimo — that would be of great help to those of us here in greater Victoria.

Hon. G. Hogg: This matter was canvassed a little earlier this afternoon with the member for Victoria–Beacon Hill as well, in some detail. Perhaps I could give a snapshot of some of the issues the member is referring to.

There has been an active amount of research, an exhaustive review of literature and review of the allocations that currently exist, that has taken place in at least a decade, and probably ever, within this province. Towards that end, we've looked at international studies and information, and we've contracted different reviews to take place so we can be sure that we have the best evidence available in terms of school-based programs. We've tried to move away from the word "inner-city" — that seems to be laden with a lot of emotion — and we're moving to something that we're calling Community LINK.

Community LINK stands for Learning Includes Nutrition and Knowledge. The principles the research reflects say very clearly that there are some principles that have to be in place for this to work, to improve educational performance with students. Those include that it has to be locally generated, have the involvement of teachers and the community. Then through that local type of participation, we can see successes, so Community LINK also refers to being linked to the community and being locally delivered as part of that process.

We have researched that actively. We've looked at an enormous amount of data and information, and we've had Clyde Hertzman look at it. Clyde has looked at some of the things we have done and said that they're unique; he's not aware of any type of research around that that exists anywhere else in the world. That is because we've been able to tie in educational performance with our foundations skills assessment and compare the performance levels of schools that have active, working programs and those that do not.

We will be announcing within the next two days the modelling that we're using. The committee the member has referred to has been part of us building the initiative and process. It has representatives from the B.C. School Trustees Association, from the parent advisory committees — I guess we're getting called to vote pretty soon — from our ministry and from the Association of Community Educators.

They have made recommendations around what the model should look like, and they're recommending that we go to a community-based socioeconomic model and use the data that is associated with that to develop the appropriate modelling. That is the direction we're going, that's the type of modelling we're going to have, and that means there will be a change in the allocations across this province to ensure that it goes to those areas that have the greatest need. I trust that school districts will do the same type of rationalization within the context of their school districts as we're doing within the context of the province so we will ensure that the funding does go to those students who have the greatest need.

I. Chong: Just before we quickly adjourned for the vote, I had asked the minister to share with me, if he could, the members on the committee looking at these models with the school-based funding formula for the Victoria area. If he could provide that to me, that would be good.

Hon. G. Hogg: The school link program steering committee had its meeting on February 17. The attendees were Annie Ehman with the BCCPAC, Charley Beresford representing the B.C. School Trustees Association, Christopher Zimich from the B.C. Principals and Vice-Principals Association, Enzo Guerriero from the Association of Community Educators of B.C.,Jane Cowell from our ministry, Janine Wear from the Ministry of Education, Lee Southern from B.C. School Trustees Association,Les Foster from our ministry, Patricia Whik Thibault from the School Trustees Association and Tom Grant from the B.C. Superintendents Association There were support representatives there as well.

They went through and their recommendations…. I can provide the member with a copy of the minutes. Their decisions were that the funding should be allocated by MCFD to its regions and MCFD regional authorities once they are established, indicating the amounts to be allocated to each school district for Community LINK. School districts will make decisions in conjunction with the MCFD regions regarding the allocation of funds within the district. School districts will be accountable to the ministry's regions and then to the regional authorities once they are established, who in turn will be accountable to the ministry.

The funding allocation will be based on the MCFD model used to allocate funds in its regions and regional authorities once they are established. The ESL enrolment will be added as a factor for socioeconomic index. They're saying the socioeconomic model we're using to

provide the funding allocations within our regions is the model they believe is the right model to make determinations with respect to how much funding and how the funding should be allocated to each of the school districts.

They have some further transition recommendations, but that's the majority of their recommendations.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for giving us that information. It sounds as if a number of trustees, provincially and locally, were involved. That's important. Parents were involved in this. I think that's always a good sign of a good solution to a particular challenge.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the Minister of Children and Family Development, his staff and the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development for providing me with those answers. I've had a good opportunity to canvass the areas that are of concern to my constituents, and I just want to thank you both and all your staff for your assistance.

Hon. G. Hogg: I should add that the minutes I just read to you and the recommendations that came out of them were the unanimous recommendations of that committee. There was apparently a great deal of discussion, but they came to a unanimous conclusion that that was the right and the best way to ensure that the allocations occurred across the province to ensure those children with the greatest needs would receive the appropriate funding.

W. McMahon: As I travelled the province with the Select Standing Committee on Education, we as a committee certainly heard a lot about community schools. I've recently received an e-mail from a constituent in which I've been asked to help her determine what is happening with community school funding provincially as well as what can be expected locally. This has come from the city of Kimberley. She goes on to say:

Is there an update on any of these issues that the minister could provide me with that would help ease my constituent's concerns?

Hon. G. Hogg: We have made a commitment, as the member said, for the program to run at its currently funded level to the end of the school year. We will be able to make an announcement within the next two days with respect to what that funding model will look like. I just read into the record the minutes of the meeting that was making recommendations regarding that allocation and how that allocation should take place. As the member made reference to some of the concerns of her constituents, it might be pointed out that there are three school districts in the province that are not receiving any funding at all under this whole model that we're calling Community LINK.

We believe, based on the information coming from the recommendations from the committee and the research that has been done, that that is not an equitable distribution. It is not ensuring that those school districts and, more importantly, those children with the greatest need, do receive some funding. Revelstoke is one of the three school districts that has not received any funding in the past.

As we go forward, we want to ensure that we do respond to that more equitably. The quantum, the amount of money that will be allocated to this program, will be clarified within two days, as I said. We'll be able to provide that information.

I should say that on top of the amount of money that will be coming forward, there are also four contracts that are being entered into to ensure that we do have accountability and that we do have best evidence-based research to ensure that the programs that are offered are more efficient and more effective. Those include contracts to Breakfast for Learning, which is a national non-profit organization that has expertise in the provision of meal programs. That includes the Association of Community Educators, which are involved in community schools and have expertise in terms of that type of knowledge and conveying that. It includes the B.C. School Trustees Association, who are active in being able to put together a booklet that'll share best practices and evidence-based research in terms of programs which work most effectively. The fourth one is the BCCPAC, the Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils, which are an integral part of the success of these programs. We're entering into contracts with each of those organizations to ensure that we have extra resources and supports to go to the school boards to ensure that the programs that are run are the most effective possible.

We've looked into programs around the world and indeed across Canada, and we're very satisfied that once this is put in place, with this type of modelling we'll have a more focused, more efficient, more effective and more responsive program than any other province in Canada. Perhaps Saskatchewan is the only province which is somewhere close to it. We believe that with these changes and these focuses on outcomes and educational performance, we will see the very best programs to ensure that the children in this province have an opportunity to achieve at levels which they have the potential to achieve at.

S. Brice: It's probably no surprise that after the thoroughness of my colleagues and the care taken by the minister and the minister of state, I have just a few questions left. There has been a tremendous amount of information that has passed back and forth here.

I would be interested in getting a reaction from the minister on this. My colleague from Oak Bay–Gordon Head commented on a meeting that we had gone to with the interim authorities chair, Anne Geddes, and expressed the support that was given to us that night for the model the minister has been embarking on. When these estimates first started — and I made a note of it — the Leader of the Opposition said: "The community is not onside." Those were her exact words. I made a note of it. I wonder if the minister would comment on that. Have we seen something here on Vancouver Island that is unique, because our authority is so enthusiastic about what is going on? Is this what you have seen elsewhere in the province? Is there any justification for the Leader of the Opposition's comments?

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, I think the enthusiasm which the member reflects having witnessed with the planning committee on the Island is pretty consistent with the planning committees around the province and the involvement they have. If there's a concern being expressed, the concern is not with respect to the model. They all believe, I think unanimously, that the model is the right model. I don't think I've talked to anyone from any of the service providers who don't believe the model is the right one to be going forward with — right across the political spectrum. It is based on evidence. It's based on research. It's based on practise. It is the best model.

The concerns that are expressed tend to be the concerns with respect to the fiscal imperatives that are there. If there are people that maybe are not onside…. I've certainly spoken to people who said this: "How can you be doing this? How can you be looking at fiscal targets that are going to see reductions in the amount of money and therefore services that may exist in some areas?"

If there is any validity to the comments that were made by the Leader of the Opposition, I think it would be reflected in the comments of those people who are saying: "The cuts are too deep. The cuts are not cuts that you should be looking at and taking at this point in time." That's the only negative I've heard expressed with respect to the direction and focus we're taking.

S. Brice: I thank the minister for that clarification. It certainly matches what I have read in the media, comments you've made about how doing this without having to make these major reductions in expenditures would certainly have been your preference if you'd had your choice.

Aboriginal children. Minister, you made comments about numbers. You said there were 1,000 fewer children now in care and 4,300 aboriginal children in care. If I made my notes correctly, you said 45 percent of all aboriginal children are in care. One in 20 aboriginal children are in care as opposed to the one in 100 non-aboriginal children in care. Could you give me some more detail around those kind of mass numbers? For instance, are the number of aboriginal children on reserve in care higher or lower than those off reserve? What about length of time that those children are likely to be in care? Could you take those numbers and just add a bit more to it so I've got a sense of what's happening out there?

Hon. G. Hogg: The age profile of aboriginal children is younger than the non-aboriginal children that exist in the province. The number of aboriginal youth is growing dramatically while the number of non-aboriginal youth is shrinking. The percentages reflected in the 45 percent actually remain about level. The number of aboriginal children in care has remained about level, but because of the overall shrinking, the percentage has grown. So the actual numbers haven't increased, just the percentage as a result of the dynamics that are taking place.

There is a need for us to have better coordination with the federal government. The federal government funds aboriginal children in care of the state who are on reserve. They therefore provide a financial incentive for keeping children in care, because if you stay in care and you're on the reserve, you're funded. The reserve receives the funding necessary to provide that type of support, or we receive the funding to manage that.

There is an incentive to keep children in care, yet all good social work practice would say that we have to move towards getting children out of care and being able to reunite them with their families and their communities and providing the supports for them to be able to most accurately and appropriately function.

One of the problems we have in this whole process is the disparate directions in social policy which are reinforced by the funding models that the federal government and the provincial government put forward. I've been to Ottawa, and I've expressed that concern with five federal ministers. We've talked to them about that. I've also had a number of meetings here with Stephen Owen and others about a need to coordinate this.

One of the really appealing possibilities that exists in the development of the aboriginal authorities is not just that the aboriginal communities are wanting to take responsibility and are wanting to take the initiative, the focus and the direction to provide better services that are more responsive to their children's needs, but they're wanting to do that in a coordinated way. The Métis; the United Native Nations; which is the off-reserve aboriginal people; the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs — the four elected leaders — have come together for the first time in the history of this province to say: "We want to focus on the best interests of our aboriginal children." They have strategies, and they are building the capacity to be able to respond to and work with that so that we can have a much better system.

The models we're working at are hopefully going to come together and be able to say to those regional aboriginal authorities: "You now can develop the social

The funding from the federal government and the provincial government will come into that and won't be pulling communities apart. One of the sad commentaries, I think, on governments has been that we have pulled aboriginal communities apart by our funding formulas rather than pulling them together.

That's not just a commentary on aboriginal communities, although it is most dramatic there. We do that in non-aboriginal communities as well. We don't allow communities to develop a good sense of what the social policy should be to respond to the needs of the people within their communities. Instead, the federal government offers, through whatever the ministry might be, a funding formula that says: "We'll fund you if you do this." People who are contract writers and proposal writers respond to that, and then the province offers something else, and you get all of these…. Their goal is to get money, not to have a coordinated social policy.

Governments pull them apart. We need to get together and say: "Let communities develop what their social policy is and what the best way is for them to respond to the needs of their community." Once they've developed that and have that structure in place, then we need to fund that independently of the directions we're going.

The aboriginal communities can pull that together. We and the federal government can put our money in. Hopefully, the ministries of health, Education, and Human Resources can look at putting funding into the aboriginal authorities, and the aboriginal authorities can make consistent decisions that will ensure the funding goes to what their social policy is and to the direction and the focus that they want to have, rather than continuing to have to fragment them in terms of responding to whatever the magical funding formula might be for the day.

We all know the stories: if you tell people that anybody who is wearing a blue shirt will be funded, the next day everybody shows up wearing a blue shirt. It doesn't reflect what the needs of the community may be, but it reflects what the needs of the funding authorities may be. That's the strategy. That's part of the intent and the focus on consistency that we need to address so that we can do a better job.

I don't think anyone would disagree that we've failed in terms of the services we've provided to aboriginal children across this province. We've failed because we've been pulling in many different directions, and we've failed because we haven't been sensitive to them. We've failed because we haven't involved the communities, and we've failed because we've applied a lot of non-aboriginal, middle-class standards to aboriginal communities, not respecting their best interests and their ability to move forward with that.

The member has asked for a breakdown of what those numbers might look like, and I'm not sure I have the numbers that could say how many are on-reserve or off-reserve. I can say that, whether they are on-reserve or off-reserve, we have not done a positive job of being able to reunite and respond positively to what their core needs are. It is with the leadership of many knowledgable and committed and well-informed and well-educated aboriginal leaders with an enormous amount of experience that we're able to move forward. They're excited about the possibility of doing something differently and doing something better.

I think we as a government are equally as excited about the potential that exists for us to set the record straight and to do things in ways that are going to make a big difference in the long term for aboriginal children. That's not just doing it in a remedial sense, but that's certainly using all of the work in early childhood development that's going to ensure that we're starting to also do a lot of the preventative things across our province to ensure that we will be able to say some day that we're very proud of the type of services which have been developed for aboriginal and non-aboriginal children — and that aboriginal leaders have been the people who've put that together and made it work.

S. Brice: Do you have a jurisdiction, a province in this country or a community that we might be familiar with who you think has handled the issue of aboriginal children well — some area that you look to, to emulate — or are you truly having to break new ground here?

Hon. G. Hogg: There is one part of Manitoba which I think has done a pretty good job in dealing with it. We have unique circumstances in this province because we have many more aboriginal communities than any other provinces do, and we have many different jurisdictions that work within our province. The advantage that we have over every other province and the thing that the ministers I met in Ottawa were surprised, if not amazed, to hear was the fact that in this province we have, for the first time, all of the major aboriginal groups together saying: "We want to work together in terms of this focus. We want to work together in terms of addressing the best needs of our children." No other province in Canada has that. We have that, and I give full credit to the aboriginal people for their willingness to say: "Our future is our children, and we have to do things differently. We have to do things better for our children." It's because of that, because the aboriginal communities have come together, that we have the opportunity to do something that's unique and better than any other province has been able to achieve.

We're looking forward to doing that and working with them to do that. We're in a comanagement model with them now, where the aboriginal leaders are meeting with us. They're planning the strategies; they're building. I expect that we're going to see the development of the capacity in the aboriginal communities to really do things differently and uniquely and positively with the support of the federal government. In that sense, there are some models out of Manitoba which are good, but we are unique, we're different, and we

have a unique and different opportunity because of the commitment of the aboriginal leaders of this province to doing things differently.

S. Brice: I have no doubt that somewhere down the road some MLA will bop up somewhere else in the country and ask where it's done well. After the work of this minister and this minister of state, they'll say you should see what they're doing in British Columbia.

Child and Family Development and Dr. Hertzman and the presentation that we saw. I'd like to ask the minister of state: as we look at the little dots — the blue dots and the red dots to map out where the programs are working or where emphasis is needed — how do you reflect on the fact that there are limited resources and that as you redirect some of your resources to one area that may in fact show an improvement in your mapping, you're not drawing from another area which you know has a program which is meeting a community's needs? With those resources taken away, in fact, the next mapping might show that there's been an adverse reaction to that.

Hon. L. Reid: I appreciate the question. If we truly believe we can tackle this issue, we will do so because we, in fact, increase the parenting capacity of individual parents, not that we put more resources in community X versus community Y. All of us can affect change while we're there. All of us can.

The challenge for durable change is what happens once you remove the program, or remove the resource or remove the expertise. Have you, in fact, enhanced any skill set on behalf of any care provider or any family member who continues to work with children? To me, that's the true test. We don't want to craft incredible change that only exists as long as the program is in place, because, in fact, these are people's lives. It's not piecing program to program to program. This is suggesting from preconception that hopefully there are some planning pieces that are in place so that we produce healthy babies in our province.

Do we wish them to craft some parenting skills of their own, acknowledging that they will at some point in their lives be parents? Do we want them to have the ability and the resiliency and the capacity to parent more effectively their own children? That's the Premier's contention. It's our contention that if we do a much better job of resourcing young children and their families, we will have stronger communities.

That piece, if you will, is not dependent on a particular program. It's dependent on a shift in terms of sharing responsibility much more effectively with the families. We've gone down the road, as have many provinces. To suggest somehow that we shouldn't trust families, shouldn't trust parents to care for their kids, I don't hold that view. We have to enhance that skill set, so those families can remain intact. We don't message many fine things about building community when we continually pull and push children back and forth in their family settings.

There may be instances where that's the only option, but in my view, there's a whole lot more opportunity to effectively resource that family so that, indeed, you're enhancing their skill set. Then I think you will see not so much the change…. In terms of Clyde's work, you won't see the colours changing on his map. You will see the most positive pieces expanding so that we've crafted a much more durable, much more comprehensive fabric of good child-rearing practice across British Columbia.

That's my view, but it's also my hope and desire that if we collectively come together to acknowledge that's important, more than us in this room who believe in this area will take it seriously and do some things that are important.

S. Brice: That drew me to 2.1.3: "Enhanced parental education initiatives to assist parents in having opportunities to make the most of their children's development." Having identified that as a strategy, could you just take a moment and tell me how you plan to implement that?

Hon. L. Reid: I love talking about this area. This is an opportunity to craft situations where parents are comfortable seeking the service and can be mentored in a very helpful environment. We've spent a great deal of time and effort in terms of enhancing funding for family places in British Columbia. They're drop-in programs. People come with their kids, and they see how other people engage with their children and hopefully learn some things about how to be a more effective parent.

We spent a great deal of time in terms of enhancing the funding for Building Blocks programs, where someone will actually come to your home if you're attempting to parent a high-risk infant or, frankly, even if you're unsure if your infant is high risk. If you have some questions, if you have some apprehensions, if you need some information, they can offer those kinds of guidance, those kinds of pieces of information.

The other part of that piece is how you take good, solid parenting practice and expand it. In terms of a targeted need, we have a Nobody's Perfect parenting program. We have opportunities to engage better interactive styles between moms and babes and dads and babes through like a Mother Goose family literacy program.

We want families to be, first off, comfortable, because they're then much better learners, but we want to give them a whole array of strategies that they can engage in with their youngsters. It's vitally important. I believe we're having great success with that. We have lots and lots of folks participating in a whole array of programs across the province. The reality is, in terms of the Premier's contention that these programs be enhanced parental choice and enhanced parental involvement — no question about that.

These are families who are seeking guidance, but they're not families that we need to impose a particular parenting program upon. Frankly, the outcomes

around that are marginal. If families are volunteering to participate and volunteering to enhance their skill set, they're going to do a much better job and are actually going to use those skills they acquire in a much better sense.

Certainly, the Roots of Empathy program is an incredibly durable parenting program, which starts off with five-year-olds. We have Roots of Empathy programs in our province that begin with kindergarten children. It teaches them about vulnerability. In terms of the Toronto school system, one of the unintended side benefits was that it reduced the instances of bullying in the public schools in Toronto. They didn't intend that.

It's just that once children had learned how vulnerable young learners were, they paid a lot more attention. They simply weren't spectators in terms of instances of bullying. They were actually intervening to safeguard those little souls. We want those children going through that program to remember those skills that they've acquired when they themselves become parents. I think we have an enormously fine basket of services.

The Chair: Yes, minister. Division has been called in Committee B, so we will recess until the division vote has been taken.

S. Brice: Just before we took the break, the minister of state was talking about the programs to enhance parenting skills. This leads me to my final question. It's of interest to my community. I would be interested to know about Saanich Neighbourhood House and what that community of mine can expect with regard to that program which is so highly regarded in our community.

Hon. G. Hogg: I promised the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, whose estimates are due up next, that we would move through this as quickly as we possibly can. He and his staff are anxiously awaiting, I'm sure, the opportunity to be here this evening. I think if he's listening now, we should advise him that probably we're going to go close to the closure this evening, and he can probably take his staff and do what he was planning to do — the thing he referenced to me.

In response to the member's question with respect to Saanich Neighbourhood House funding, the ministry and the region are committed to providing funding to support voluntary and preventative services, particularly those that help families access the required services and programs within the confines of their own community. The region provided Saanich Neighbourhood House with $58,000 worth of funding during the current fiscal year,'02-03, and plans to fund Saanich Neighbourhood House at the current funding levels for '03-04.

That commitment is pending a detailed action plan to implement the Vancouver Island interim authority's service delivery strategy for '04-05. The region is currently reviewing all programs and services funded in the region to ensure the services they deliver are efficient, effective and responsive. Within that context, the plan is to fund Saanich Neighbourhood House as an integral part of that service delivery model.

V. Anderson: I found it fascinating listening to the comments back and forth today. The image that came to my mind is that what's happening in this particular ministry at this moment is one of the best-kept secrets in the province, unfortunately. I'm quite aware that the majority of people in the province have no idea what's going on. I have a feeling that even many of the people in the Legislature really have no idea what's going on. It will come, I think, as a pleasant surprise to people when they discover what it is. I hope there is some way we can get out to the people in the province the process that's underway and what's happening, because I think it is not fair to them to not have the opportunity to grow with the change that's taking place.

Many of the people in the province right now are very aware that there is a shake-up in the province, that the province is being shaken to its roots. The image that comes to my mind is…. One day we had a gentleman in our house who stayed with us overnight and who imbibed in everything he could get a hold of to imbibe in. That was why he was staying at our place: to try and keep him out of reach of all of those products, except we discovered that the shaving lotion suddenly disappeared out of the washroom. The other thing that did happen was that he knocked over a plant that was sitting there, and it fell out on the floor. He apologized profusely, and we said: "That's fine. It wasn't growing anyway." After we put it back into the pot, it grew like anything. Because the roots had been stirred up, it had a new opportunity to grow. It's an analogy of what shaking up can do in the province we're in at this moment.

I do hope and encourage the ministry and the caucus and the government at large to try and get out a message to the community of what's happening. One of the realities I'm hearing as we hear the reports from different places is that the people who are involved in the process are excited. They don't realize that the people five feet away from them haven't a clue what they're talking about or what they're excited about or what they're part of.

I remember when this came home to me once. I had been very active in theological college in all the board meetings. I went off the board. I lived in the building where the board met. A month later I hadn't a clue what was going on within the board.

There is a need to get the message out in a creative way that people can understand, and it can't be done by press releases. It has to be a popular presentation, a readable presentation — pictures. The story has to be exciting the way it's been told today. The way the ministers tell the story has to be exciting so people can catch on to it. Perhaps some of the other people around the province who are part of the process will begin to tell their stories about it. I think we need some excitement here so people can get on board.

One of the things we heard from the minister of state was the cycle that is being encouraged here of healthy babies, healthy parents, healthy communities. Now, healthy communities create healthy parents, who create healthy babies. Healthy babies teach their parents, who are good in their communities. There's a cycle of activity that I think is being presented here tonight that we need to highlight and get out there in the community.

When we think of that, though, we have to realize, also, that there are some special needs. I'd ask the minister to respond briefly to the special needs out there. A very large percentage of our community are single parents. A very large percentage of our community that have family difficulties are single parents, partly because the culture looks down on single parents. The environment in which they have to go in a culture that's built for two-parent families is difficult for them to live in. That's one of these extra considerations that somewhere we need to take into account.

The other reality we need to take into account — theoretically, we do, but practically, I'm not sure we do — is that we live in a changing, multicultural immigrant population, where the children in our school system learn a new culture which is unknown to their parents. We create a family conflict by the very process of helping.

Another study, I remember, many years ago was done in Boston and had to do with culture. They took a group of young boys from the downtown area of Boston. In the research project one group continued to live in what was regarded by many as an unfortunate atmosphere. The other group was taken out, and they were put in Boy Scouts and Girl Guides and all those kinds of things and got what people considered to be a more traditional upbringing and opportunities and experiences.

When they followed up with them in later years, after they had grown up and were back in their own activities, to their amazement they discovered that those who had continued in the unsavoury culture were really doing better than those who had been put into the other culture. After they finished their Scout years and everything, they moved back into their own culture, and they were now foreigners and unable to adapt to it. The others had taken the adapting skills which they had learned and could move with it.

Some of the things we do for people aren't necessarily helpful to them. I'm trying to remember tonight the young girl from Victoria who worked at PEERS and did a study for the ministry a few years ago on street kids. The main lesson I took out of that story, which was key to what she said, was that she was taken into care because she had become separated from her family. From then on, everything that was done to help her took her farther and farther and farther away from her family. It was only when she got out of that system, she could come back and begin to find a family again. The minister tonight has stressed very often that it's an inconvenience to families.

I raise this and come back to the question I asked about single parents a moment ago. I'll ask the other one at the same time, about foster care. There are great foster parents, but there are also hundreds and thousands of stories of foster kids who never found themselves. They never knew who they were or where they belonged, and they carried this difficulty throughout their lives for many reasons. One I think is important, and I would raise it: they had no history. They had no parents. They had no brothers and sisters. Oh, but did they? They had parents some place.

They didn't know whether they were Irish or Scottish or what they were. They didn't know their background. They had no heritage to tell to their children or grandchildren or to understand the health that they'd inherited, which would be important for their children.

There's some personal history in lives that I think is very important. I raise these cultural ones with relation to single parents, who are a major portion of our society that we deal with, and with the foster children. I'll leave those two for the moment and ask the minister if he might respond.

Hon. G. Hogg: Certainly, the member has touched on a number of very important and challenging issues. The first issue is with respect to single parents. I think I've said a number of times that about 65 percent of the children coming into care come into care from single parents who are on income assistance, and the challenges that exist within that. There are lots of challenges that exist for a single parent, and certainly we're able to provide a number of services to assist and support those single parents who sometimes feel terribly overwhelmed by their circumstances and by their situations.

By providing them with a number of services, we can help to keep that family together, rather than by the more traditional approach, which has been to apprehend in those circumstances rather than giving credence to and support for the ability of the parent to keep their family together.

The whole notion of foster care…. In Australia they use kin care, and about 50 percent of the foster care is through kin care. It's through the expansion of and growth upon the extended family and the utilization of the extended family. The member made reference to the whole notion of a sense of history and a sense of belonging that comes with a sense of history that exists with families.

Certainly, systems approach to family therapy says that one of the things you do is research your family. You look at your family. You find out what exists

within your family, how you belong in that, how you are connected to the past and therefore become a part of the future as you build and work and model on that.

Foster care, being the integral part of our whole service delivery system, is…. How do we provide a sense of identity, a sense of connectedness, a sense of history and a sense of belonging to children within the context of the foster care and the foster home? The member made reference to the way we treat people. The Rosenthal effect tells us that people tend to respond the way we treat them. That's the type of effect you have. The studies around the Rosenthal effect had to do with them taking students who were in an educational setting, and they told the teacher the next year that these were the brightest students that existed within the school. In fact, they were in the bottom quartile of the grade before. They told the teacher the next year that these are the brightest students we have. They got the best marks in the class because they performed, or because they were seen to be very good at what they did. The teachers responded to them in that way.

That's one of the issues we start to get into when we start looking at the issues that exist particularly with children who are more vulnerable and who have different types of difficulties and challenges. We start to stereotype them. We start to treat them as though that's the way they are to perform, and we start to then entrench them more and more into that lifestyle — rather than being able to free them in methods that make it possible for them to move forward with that connectedness.

I often wonder what would happen if we said, with each placement of a foster child, "This is the brightest and best-adjusted child that exists in the province today. They need some interim placement and support. Could you take care of them for a while?" whether or not that would actually see the impact of the Rosenthal effect as it worked in education on the performance of children within that type of setting.

The member has talked about a number of challenges that exist with single parents. I think the key to any type of support system is that we do respond in a differential way, that we do respond in a way that allows us to look at the needs that exist for the specific child given their history, given their point in their history and in time, and that we do develop systems that provide support for them, most importantly provide support in a respectful way that allows them to feel good about themselves so that they can start to feel that they have the authority and the ability to start making decisions and to move forward in a pro-social, active way to achieve their goals, dreams and aspirations, like most people are trying to do. It is incumbent upon the state to try and build systems that allow them to realize that and to achieve those.

V. Anderson: When I look at the vision, mission and principles, and ministry and role — a mandate in the workplan of the ministry — the thing that comes across to me is children, family, community. I'm not sure if we've given enough thought, although the minister has referred to it often, to community, to what a community is and how it functions — the community development part of what we're talking about. We're talking about changing the nature of our community by acknowledging that family life is fundamental to being a community and that family life is fundamental to children.

There's a process of interaction that we need to work about so that the process we're restructuring here is felt to belong to the community, not to be imposed upon the community. At the moment, I think there is a feeling that it is being imposed upon the community rather than being owned by and responding to the community. That can make a significant difference in how we develop that process. I'm wondering if the minister might respond.

Related to that, one of the struggles I'm finding is that the non-profit community agencies that have grown up with thousands of volunteers in them — and there's hundreds and thousands of these agencies — to meet community needs, under a previous government, were being discounted, and they were struggling to survive. I'm now hearing them say: "We've had our funding cut. We have to close down." Agency after agency is closing down, and all of the other agencies are running around being concerned that their turn is next. There's an uneasiness and a fright in the non-profit agencies in the province at the moment.

They don't hear themselves as being included, as being part of the change and part of the transition. They're like the front-line workers: they would be delighted to be a part of it, because what's happening is what they've been looking for. But they've been carrying the load, and suddenly they're being shunted aside in their feeling of it, although that's not the intention. As we go along to develop a system, people get shunted out. Is there a way that we can respond to the non-profit community agencies and say to them: "You're part of it"? Is there a way that we could get information out to them, to the family agencies and, I say, to the religious community?

In the religious community you have the largest collection of family-concerned activities of anything that goes on in the province otherwise. For all of the religious communities, of whatever background, the family is fundamental to them — the fundamental family, caring and loving each other. If some information could go out to the religious community to say, "We'd like to have you on board with what we're doing. Here is what it is. Could you respond to us," here's a whole constituency of people that can be included in the programs rather than feeling excluded.

Hon. G. Hogg: The sense of community may mean a sense of place. It may mean a sense of culture. It may be a community of interest. Community applies across many jurisdictions in many different ways, and the whole notion of community is about the notion and

development of social capital. It's about the relationships that exist and the ability of those relationships to effect change. The non-profit sector within this province has been an integral part of the whole evolution, development and provision of services and will continue to be. They will continue to be the backbone of service provisions as we move forward.

At the same time, service providers, non-profit service providers, volunteers and many are telling me that there is a great deal of overlap that exists out there, that there is a considerable amount of overlap and there are efficiencies and effectiveness which can be generated as we move out there.

Meeting with some of those service providers in the Fraser region, we were talking about the overlap. They'd had a number of meetings. They were coming back to me and saying: "You know, we're not able to remedy that. We're not able to come up to with a solution for that. You're going to have to impose a solution in terms of how we reduce the amount of overlap."

We're in that very difficult edge where you want all of those agencies to continue to exist because of the social capital they bring, because of the interest they bring, because of the involvement of people that they bring to the provision of services. At the same time, you want to be able to reduce the overlap so you can ensure that as much money in the funding process as possible is going to service provision and not to the administrative and support staff as they exist out there. You want to make that transition towards that.

The member made reference to the religious community. I know that in Surrey I was speaking with one of the persons who sits on our transition group. She said to me that they held a meeting in Surrey, and they invited representatives from the interministerial association. The interministerial association were agog. They were amazed at the number of services that were out there. They said, "Gee, we have services," and recognized the number of overlaps, the number of places they should be coordinating, the types of services that are provided there.

That is starting to happen. That is happening in the regions as they hold their meetings, as they invite the religious community, as they invite everyone into the provision of services. People are starting to realize. Some of them are starting to pick winners and losers in terms of who is going to survive. They're looking at ways they can create strategic alliances to ensure that the agencies work.

I think what we need to get to, one of the things we should be looking at, is the possibility of actually getting to the point that within a community there is a family centre or someplace that if you're in need, you contact that person. You contact that place, and from that place…. It may be a receptionist that is able to connect you to all of the other services that are out there. Or we could have one receptionist for each large community that answers questions on whether you need or are interested in child care, or services to an autistic child, or protection, or you want to report something.

All of those services are things that are available in terms of service provision models that exist in other sectors. In the business community we haven't taken advantage of that chance to coordinate and provide a reduction of overlap within the social services community. I think this is the opportunity to do that, and some regions are really actively involved in looking at that and providing that type of model. I think we'll see a revitalization of the non-profit sector, which will continue to be an integral service provider, if not the most integral part of the service provision that we have in this province.

V. Anderson: Following up on that, one of the questions I'd like to ask the minister is this: how much conversation has gone on with the municipal governments across the province? The municipal governments are, in my experience, key. They're kind of the centre. When you talk about a central place, Portland, Oregon, has these kinds of councils. The city provides a secretary, office and telephone. Everything else is volunteer. It is that kind of community place, where everybody comes together, and with very little financial outlay it just gives the coordination and the interaction the minister just mentioned.

There are some models out there. The minister also talked earlier about the health council, the children and family council, human resources and education in a community coming together and talking to each other. I think that's fundamental, and I think it's important that the town councils, the municipal mayors and the councillors across the province be in on this as part of the planning. It's part of the model that we did have in the province from the United Nations and across Canada of councils, community areas, that were brought together to look at planning, which until five years ago was very much a part of B.C. until it was cancelled by the previous government.

I'm just wondering. Are the municipal people aware of what's happening, or is information about this transition of what's taking…? I'll relate that to the question. Also what the minister has talked about is a socioeconomic model and social capital. Basically, we have not talked about socioeconomic models very much in our general discussion. We have not talked about it much in our province. We have not talked about social capital very much. It's a term that's not been used very much, but I think it's one we need to bring forward and talk about and clarify at the moment: whether, in the socioeconomic model, this is driven primarily by the economic interests or by the social interests.

The question that I would raise to the minister is this: how do we get a balance between the social values and the economic values? It has often gone one way or the other. How can we maintain the balance of bringing those two together?

Hon. G. Hogg: Each of the regions and their interim boards have been meeting with the municipal councils around the province as they've been meeting with MLAs, to talk to them about the strategies, the direction and the focuses that they're taking.

The member asked a question a moment ago about how we're reaching out. The information we have is that at the ministry's general website, as of February this year, there were over 250,000 page views per month. That shows the type of contact, the type of interest that is shown in terms of the changes that are taking place, and the contact that they're having.

The other issue the member brings up is the whole issue of the social agenda versus the economic agenda and how we provide balance and support for that. I think we will all recognize and appreciate that the economic agenda is a means to get towards an end. The end is that we are able to provide the social capital, the opportunity for people to achieve their goals and their dreams.

That's the outcome we're after. The outcome is not a better economy. The better economy is the process by which we get to the point of being able to achieve the goals that people have. Certainly, I think it's incumbent upon each one of us as members of this assembly to ensure that we put forward those initiatives and try to keep that balance coming forward as we look at and build our service plans, as we look at and build our budgets, to ensure we do provide the leadership that reflects an interest in, and a provision for, an appropriate social safety net ? the provisions necessary to ensure that people do have the chance to meet their goals and their aspirations and that we provide options to do that.

We're certainly doing that through our regional authorities, and it must continue to be done at the Legislature as well, as we have these debates and as we put forward initiatives and policies that reflect that type of sensitivity and that type of response to the needs of the more vulnerable within our communities.

V. Anderson: I would like to switch for a moment. In about my first or second year in election, in '91 or '92, there were a couple of parents who came in to see me because they had concerns about their mentally handicapped adults who lived at home with them. They'd had to leave work in order to care for them and had difficult transitions in their lives.

At that particular time I said to them: "I know of no resource that is able to help you. I don't know of any group I can refer you to. I think if you're interested, you probably will have to start your own society and undertake to campaign on that behalf." That's exactly what they did. They went ahead and started a parent support group for families of mentally handicapped adults. They have come in periodically. They were in three weeks ago, again, to say: "We're having problems. We feel we're starting all over again."

They had some specific questions that I mentioned briefly to the minister before, but I wanted to highlight them today. One of them was in the individual funding model. One of the concerns is that they would be worse off than they are now, because under that, their understanding is that they would have to pay income tax on the money that was presented to them, which they are not doing at the moment. That's a concern they wanted to clarify, and if that's true, to find a way around it. It would make it financially more difficult than they are having at the moment. That's one question I would raise from that particular group.

The other question they raised is that in the previous administrations, because of principles that they operated by, the workshops these persons were able to go to for part of the day and be creative and enjoy and get a minimum payment, but feel that they had a place in society and in life and a job like everybody else…. That worked out relatively well.

When they were there being creative and appreciating what they were doing, it gave a respite to the parents. While they were away, they didn't have to look at them all day. These had been withdrawn from them, and they're not available anymore in the fashion they were before. There are some program groups they go to. They go down to the rink, they go and do sightseeing, and they go to this and that thing, but it's not the same. It's a time-filling task rather than creative involvement in which they have some participation. They're just saying it doesn't do the same thing that was done before. They raised that question there.

They're asking if there is an opportunity for the particular needs of this particular group who have, for many years, had these adults at home and are concerned about their future and are not sure, even in the present, how the new structures will respond to them. I bring that for the minister's comment.

Hon. G. Hogg: Firstly, with respect to the income tax, my understanding is that it's viewed as a social service and, therefore, it's not taxable. That is our expectation. Certainly, as we move forward with more individualized funding, we'll be dealing with CCRA on that, but that is our understanding at this point. I know that community living B.C. has made some submissions with respect to that as well.

With respect to the shelter workshops, a number of those were shut down primarily because of employment standards and the requirement to pay the minimum wage with respect to those, which made them no longer viable from an economic perspective. I think we're wanting to transition to meaningful work, as well, that is more mainstream and more participatory. There will continue to be day programs which people can participate in and create some options. The workshop notion, hopefully, will be able to move to a meaningful, supportive type of work. There are a number of service providers who do provide and do have contracts for the developmentally disabled where they do meet the conditions of the contract and are paid appropriately in response to that.

V. Anderson: A clarification. We talked about the Community LINK program. At one point today I thought I understood the minister to say two different things, so I want to clarify. At one point he was saying

that the money would be allocated out on a fair basis and it would go to the five children and families regional committees. Then, in consultation with the school boards, they'd have this allocated out to the programs in the community. The other time I heard him say that the money would go to the school boards and it would be allocated out to the community. I know we've had previous discussion.

It seems to me personally that if it's a joint discussion between those two groups, it's much more creative for the kind of changes we're hoping will come as a result of it, rather than if it's just handed to the school board to be another part of their process. I was hoping that in the involvement of Children and Families discussing with the trustees, they would also include the PAC in the discussion, as well, so that there would be family participation. There would not necessarily be that if it went just to the trustees. I raise that as a concern.

I raise the other one in discussing the fairness approach. The minister might respond to this, which an aboriginal gentleman brought up to me one time in a discussion: the difference between equality and equity. My simple illustration, having listened to him, was if I treat my three girls with equality, then I put the same food on each of their three plates. One is a one-year-old, one is a four-year-old, and one is a seven-year-old. If I put the same food on each plate, I treat them equally, but I haven't treated them with equity. In our principles one of the things I think we need to be concerned about is that a principle can be equal but not treatment with equity. I'd ask for the minister's comment, and I would like to thank the minister for being able to raise these.

Recognizing that the time is short and the minister has his final windup to say, I will take my staff in hand and say thank you for your responses.

Hon. G. Hogg: With respect to the school board funding and hearing two things, I didn't hear the two things that the member mentioned as being mutually exclusive. I feel very strongly both ways, as Billy Martin once said, actually that the funding model is a model that we're suggesting goes to the regional authority. The regional authority will be advised as to the social equity modelling and what that means for each school district within the region, and then they will negotiate an accountability contract with each one of those school districts for the provision of the services that are to be provided there. That's the principle of equity — that the social equity model is based on ensuring that there is a differential treatment of each region and each school district based on the needs that become evident with them out of this equity model. That is how we're trying to look at and respond to the needs that are addressed there. I trust that responds to the member's issue in question.

If I may, then, make some closing comments with respect to the CFD budget, the projected expenditure for Children and Family Development will drop from $814.7 million in the current year to $769.5 million in '03-04 and is projected to go to $630.9 million in '04-05. As with the community living area, the CFD budget for the current year includes almost $50 million in one-time investment in future service efficiencies and greater community capacity. As I mentioned, the numbers of children in care continue to decline. So does the cost per child as we're able to make better use of foster care rather than placing children in more expensive care then they might require.

In the executive and support services budget, the budget line includes Victoria headquarters and staff. It reflects the ongoing administrative savings of certain headquarter functions, and certain of those will move to new authorities. Savings also include transfers of staff and function to the Ministry of Management Services and the B.C. public service authority.

In the past, I've mentioned the possibility of a common services authority to provide information technology and other core administrative services to the authorities. At this point, there is consensus that common services in some areas make financial and administrative sense. There is still debate as to how best to achieve that, which is why that potential authority does not appear in this budget.

It is clear to all of us that we face challenges in bringing about these essential but sweeping changes to the ministry's structure and its methods. Still, our experience so far has given me great confidence. I am confident in the strength and abilities of ministry staff, of the regional and community chairs and their hardworking planning teams and of all the communities throughout the province for their support that they've shown for this transition. They are leading the way in Canada to reform the services to children and families.

Ten days ago the fourth annual Child Welfare Symposium was held in Banff. This symposium was organized by the Centre of Excellence for Child Welfare. Its theme was community collaboration and differential response. In paper after paper, citing sources from all around the world, child welfare experts urged authorities to change their approach to one that builds on community strength. We're already doing that here in British Columbia.

Let me cite one of those papers by two well-known and respected experts from Quebec. In that province, child abuse and neglect cases increased by 53 percent in the 1990s. Sounds familiar. The government threw lots of money at the problem, but child protection workers remained frustrated and overworked. Sounds familiar. Protection services and prevention services and other government services and community resources were nestled in separate bureaucratic silos — rarely ever coordinated. Sounds familiar.

The authors called this system minimal third-line service protection, and they say it is pervasive in Quebec, as it is in most North American systems. They say it is so strongly imprinted in organizational culture that it prevents the emergence of local leadership based on shared accountability for all children in the community. They say: "There is almost no local leadership

around the issue of child security because no one is responsible for the safety of all children as opposed to the security of only children who are reported." I couldn't say that better myself. The reforms these authors recommend are exactly the kind of change we've been putting in place in this province for the past 18 months. Remember, they call the old approach minimal protection. They describe the new approach as maximal protection. I agree.

Pervasive change to deep-rooted organizational culture can be difficult, but we are doing it in British Columbia, and so far we are doing it well. I am especially encouraged by the commitment of our front-line staff, who are embracing innovation and taking advantage of the opportunities it brings. They see the potential to combine their strengths with those of other professionals and other community and family partners. They are bringing more resources into play more quickly, to head off family problems before they become crises.

We are beginning to get very positive responses to the changes we've put into place in the last year. With family group conferencing, for example, social workers can use their skills as educators and facilitators not just as enforcers. They can now work together with other professionals like youth probation staff and mental health workers, and with family members, to match their strengths with their needs. When this happens, families feel more positively towards our ministry staff because they are working with them to find solutions to the family problems that led to the removal of a child.

On our MCFD chain site you can find examples of many front-runner projects that are being set up throughout the five child and family development regions. The common theme of most of them involves breaking our front-line staff out of ministry offices and moving them into the same quarters as other family-serving professionals in government, with community-based service providers, or both.

There are a number of examples across the province. In the Vancouver coastal region, the differential response team approach involves, in part, co-location of social workers with two neighbourhood houses in North and South Vancouver. Here, they can respond to lower-priority child protection reports by identifying and offering community support, resources and strategies for building family capacity. This alternate way of responding to reports has reduced the number of investigations and, most importantly, has reduced the number repeat reports.

In the Fraser region the peninsula co-location project has placed MCFD services — including investigation, family and youth services — in the same offices as Peace Arch Community Services. That community-based resource provides residential and counselling services for children and youth, addictions, individual and family counselling, outreach employment programs, volunteer and information services, a food bank, infant development, administration and other programs.

In Surrey the facilitated meeting project is a child protection mediation system that brings together MCFD and Attorney General staff. By working together, they provide better service to families and better use of the court system at a lower cost.

In greater Victoria's western communities on Vancouver Island, region 28 organizations are working together to develop three new local child and family service facilities. The project partners include MCFD, the Vancouver Island health authority, the RCMP and school district 62.

The South Okanagan Family Development Services in Oliver bundles together a range of services that were provided through more than one agency or contractor. The services include crisis response and intervention, intensive home-based intervention, child and parent support, school district and community intervention, supported living services for youth, and sexual abuse intervention. The project includes a strong partnership with the school district which provides both financial and operational support.

In Grand Forks the ministry is working with the school district, first to co-locate a group of contract and service providers into some excess space in the school and later to move ministry staff into the same location.

All of these innovations are in the spirit of community governance. They are showing us the potential of this transformation to bring new strengths, new resources and new effectiveness to the services that the ministry alone has provided in the past.

As we are here debating the ministry's budget for the coming year, the community planning teams, their chairs, co-chairs and the regional interim CEOs are in the final stages of preparing the initial regional business plans. Those will soon be appearing in my office, marking another milestone in this journey. We do have challenges, but we have a remarkable group of men and women and young people who are working very hard to make sure the challenges go away. They are taking us toward the very system of child and family services that the experts now recognize are badly needed, and they are helping to make sure that we do it quickly and well. They deserve our recognition and our thanks.

This budget, then, moves us closer to the choices we want to have for our citizens — choices which, combined with economic growth, will mean better lives for the people of British Columbia, the regions and the communities in which they live. It embodies the profound cultural shifts in the ways that the ministry serves British Columbia's most vulnerable people; the movement from a closed, reactive and defensive culture to open, accountable and transparent relationships with clients, stakeholders, media and the public; the movement from centralized decision-making and service delivery towards community capacity that protects children and supports child and family development; the movement to services that have clear goals, clear time lines and clear, measurable outcomes; the

shift from a system that has tried to protect children by removing them from their families to one that believes in the safety and well-being of children and is better secured by promoting family and community capacity.

For adults with developmental disabilities and their families, it is a movement towards a comprehensive community-based service delivery system that promotes choice, innovation and shared responsibilities, and the recognition that aboriginal communities, too, need support to build their capacity to deliver a full range of services with emphasis on early childhood and family development.

Finally, this budget shares responsibility and opportunity with families, with consumers, with community partners and with other ministries and other levels of government.

I'd like to thank the staff of the Ministry of Children and Family Development, who have done an enormously wonderful job in putting together these estimates and have, over the course of the past year, done a tremendous job in allowing these transitions to take place. I'd particularly like to identify the staff who've helped us here: Val Hamilton, Marcy Johnsrude, Robin Syme, Leslie Guthrie, Janice Aull, the legendary Les Foster and Chris Haynes.

They reminded me that last year at the completion of estimates, they received a standing ovation from all of the members present. I'm wondering whether the members present would be willing to indulge the staff with a standing ovation one more time. [Applause.] Let the record show that it was a unanimous ovation — a large, boisterous sense of gratitude to the ministry staff.

Hon. G. Hogg: I move that we rise and report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

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

	YEAS — 53

Hogg	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Bruce
van Dongen	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	Plant

	YEAS — 59

Hogg	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	van Dongen	Barisoff
Roddick	Wilson	Masi
Lee	Murray	Plant
de Jong	Nebbeling	Stephens
Abbott	Neufeld	Coleman

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

	YEAS — 1

	MacPhail

	NAYS — 55

Hogg	L. Reid	Halsey-Brandt
Whittred	Cheema	Hansen
Bruce	van Dongen	Wilson
Masi	Lee	Murray
Plant	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Neufeld
Coleman	Chong	Penner
Jarvis	Anderson	Orr
Nuraney	Brenzinger	Belsey
Bell	Long	Chutter
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Bhullar	Wong
Bloy	Suffredine	MacKay
Cobb	Visser	Lekstrom
Brice	Sultan	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Hunter