Hansard -- Tuesday, April 1, 2003 a.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 10 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Tributes		5835
	Bill McKenzie Hon. L. Reid

Petitions		5835
	H. Bloy J. Wilson V. Roddick B. Kerr B. Lekstrom

Committee of Supply		5835
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued) P. Nettleton Hon. J. Reid B. Suffredine B. Penner P. Bell

Second Reading of Bills		5843
	Securities Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 24) Hon. R. Thorpe Procurement Services Act (Bill 23) Hon. S. Santori Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 25) Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House		5844
	Foresters Act (Bill 5)

Report and Third Reading of Bills		5845
	Foresters Act (Bill 5)

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		5845
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) Hon. G. Abbott R. Lee Hon. L. Stephens R. Sultan L. Mayencourt W. McMahon I. Chong V. Anderson Hon. G. Abbott

Hon. L. Reid: I would like today to pay tribute to Bill McKenzie, a Ministry of Children and Family Development staff member retiring after 31 years in government.

Since 1972 Bill has spent his working life dedicated to the vulnerable people of this province: children and youth who are neglected and abused, developmentally disabled citizens, street youths and people affected by substance abuse. He has seen many changes in this province and in government. He has met them with concern, care, compassion and a determination to make a difference. Bill has served as a social worker, community liaison worker, district supervisor, area manager, team leader and, for the last three years, the ministry's aboriginal services manager for the northwest.

Through his work, he has been consistently outstanding. It is in this last role as aboriginal manager that Bill's work has been particularly innovative and groundbreaking. He has led the ministry in working with the northern aboriginal communities and has developed protocols that are helping to better support aboriginal children in their own communities. His co-workers and aboriginal leaders have called Bill a man of integrity, reliable, professional and well respected.

On March 5 the Nisga'a nation honoured Bill with a farewell dinner which was well attended by about 100 foster parents, social workers, agency staff and ministry staff. The night was a celebration of feasting, speeches, dancing and singing — a fitting tribute for a man who has given so much to the people of this province.

We wish Bill all the best in his retirement, of which today is the very first day. We shall miss you. Have a very wonderful retirement.

H. Bloy: I rise to present a petition signed by over 90 people requesting that the government maintain funding to St. Mary's Hospital, which plays an important role in their community.

J. Wilson: I have here a petition signed by 1,066 of my constituents expressing their concern about the lack of recognition and funding for hospice houses in B.C.

V. Roddick: It is on behalf of 34 resident and 39 non-resident workers at Delta Hospital asking to save Delta Hospital, protect medicare and Pharmacare, and resist privatization.

B. Kerr: I rise to present a petition signed by more than two-thirds of the property owners in the Sheringham Estates of the Shirley area of Renfrew district on Vancouver Island and representing more than 75 percent of the assessed values of the properties in this subdivision. They wish to incorporate a water improvement district within the boundaries of their subdivision.

B. Lekstrom: I rise today to present a petition signed by 550 residents of the South Peace region. This petition is to inform the administrators of the government and maintenance control that the undersigned are concerned about the quality, safety and lack of maintenance of the roads in the South Peace region.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call in Committee A the estimates debate of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. In this House, for the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation.

P. Nettleton: I understand that we are going to be talking this morning about B.C. Rail. Is that…?

Thanks to the minister, again, to have this opportunity to ask some questions about B.C. Rail. For those of us that live…. Well, I think B.C. Rail is important to the entire province. But certainly for those of us who live in Prince George or in the northern central interior, B.C. Rail is an important part of transportation infrastructure and something that we identify with. In Prince George, in particular, there are a lot of employees that have family-supporting jobs who live in Prince

George and work for B.C. Rail and are very proud of the part they play in terms of B.C. Rail.

I have a couple of questions in and around the 2010 Olympic bid. The first question is: B.C. Rail is part of the 2010 bid under the Sea to Sky group, in terms of spectator transportation. Are resources being pulled in, and are services being cut back to meet the government's goal of getting the Olympics at the expense of its other service areas? That's a concern of at least some northern residents.

Hon. J. Reid: I'd like to introduce two people with me today: from B.C. Rail, Bob Phillips, and from the ministry, Dan Doyle.

This province has great opportunities for economic development in many different aspects — from tourist aspects to its forestry to its mining. All those areas of endeavour are important to a growing economy.

When I look at B.C. Rail, when we have assessed its strengths and weaknesses over this past year, as I have talked to shippers across this province, who not only use B.C. Rail but would like to be more integrated with a railway system, and as we look at the traffic on the roads — and wanting to again make full use of the rail system as much as possible — it's become very apparent that the status quo in B.C. Rail is not serving the needs of this province. It has a lot more potential, a lot more opportunity, and in turn, that gives industries a greater benefit, and in turn, that leads to stronger communities across the province, particularly in the north. Our position on B.C. Rail is to look at how we strengthen B.C. Rail and how we meet the needs of shippers and thereby meet the needs of communities.

P. Nettleton: We have passenger service ended to the north, while it's increased to Whistler for the Olympics. If revenue projections for B.C. Rail are going down, such as for the next year, where will the money needed for the Olympic responsibility come from?

Hon. J. Reid: I'm not entirely sure of the member's intent in the question, so we'll see what we can do here.

In talking about the bid for the Olympics, in talking about transportation for the Olympics, we certainly examined many different aspects of transportation as to what could be done with the rail system, what could be done by water and what would be done by bus over the road. I'm not sure if that's the area the member is looking at as far as what work we've done in evaluating the provision of transportation into the bid for the Olympics and how we've come to those assertions. That's something that was done, certainly, with the ministry.

The ability to transport large numbers of people on the rail is nonexistent. It's a slow track because of the curvature and because of the grades. It's an industrial track. It's not high-speed rail and can't be made into high-speed rail. Certainly, it is not the vehicle, in essence, to move large numbers of people for the duration of the Olympics. That certainly has been looked at. Overall, again, the importance of B.C. Rail to the province is far greater than any particular participation during the potential Olympics.

P. Nettleton: I think we'll leave, then, the 2010 bid questions and move on to the heartlands and this government's opening up of the heartlands budget strategy, which clearly states that a modern, effective transportation system is key to revitalizing the economy of the province. It talks about airports. It talks about ports, border crossings, highway corridors and roads and bridges for the Okanagan, but it has nothing to say and no dollars committed — at least that I've seen — to rail. Why the oversight — if, indeed, this is an oversight? Is rail not considered by government to be part of a modern, effective transportation system?

Hon. J. Reid: The discussion around the heartlands strategy certainly does include rail and includes it in a very dynamic way. In the discussion I've had with the mayors of the north — I believe it was last November — when we laid out the concerns around B.C. Rail, we had the shippers at that meeting and the mayors at that meeting. The unanimous consensus coming out of there was that the status quo is not acceptable.

The question is: how do we move forward and develop a greater presence of rail in this province? How do we move forward to have a more dynamic, modern structure? Just as the member mentioned, a modern, effective, integrated transportation network is essential to provide those economic benefits we believe in. Moving toward a more modern structure in B.C. Rail and an improved structure, as I mentioned, is indeed a very important part of this government's plan.

P. Nettleton: As rail service is reduced and eliminated, has the government studied the impacts of such changes on resource-based communities? How about in terms of difficulties — to name a few — in getting products to markets, increased highway maintenance costs and related safety issues, reduced net revenue to the province, loss of tourism potential, loss of jobs and reduced ability to attract and retain people and investments?

B.C. Rail was created to open up northern communities, but it now appears it has been used to cut them off. That's certainly the common view, I would say, of the northern and central interior with respect to some of the cuts and reductions in services we've seen and the impacts to northern resource-dependent communities. Would the minister please comment on those comments and/or questions?

Hon. J. Reid: The rail operation and the commercial viability of this rail operation are important for sustainability. Within the rail transportation system, we have to look at a number of factors. We have to look at long-term investment into infrastructure. Because we want it to be there for the long term, we have to make sure the dollars are being invested in that infrastruc-

ture. We also have to look at the competitiveness of the rates offered by the railway, because that is what supports business.

In looking at the costs, in looking at the long-term projections for B.C. Rail, we've tried to find the efficiencies where we can find them. We made a decision last year with regard to the passenger rail service, because there were not only annual losses in the passenger rail service, but we had this deadline of having to reinvest into infrastructure equipment for passenger services that would have exceeded $35 million.

We believe there is even a greater opportunity for the private sector to pick up that tourism rail business and certainly are looking forward to the development of that in the years to come. That is an efficiency. The core business of B.C. Rail is the industrial rail side of it, and we believe the private sector can pick up the passenger side. We looked at the efficiencies of the intermodal and felt that there were better solutions to be found for that. But the whole goal is…. I'm not sure if the member has any specific question about reducing service because, other than the passenger side and the intermodal, we have been doing our very best not only to maintain service but to actually provide improved services.

P. Nettleton: Well, the minister's quite right in that the two areas that have been impacted with respect to cuts or reductions in services, as they pertain to B.C. Rail, in fact have been the intermodal service — where we have seen trucks pouring onto the highway, pounding the highway particularly between Prince George through the Fraser Canyon to Vancouver. For those of us who have driven that highway, we have seen what the impact has been on that highway in terms of the infrastructure as well as safety concerns with respect to increased traffic on that highway.

I think there's no question that the intermodal service has certainly been picked up by the private sector, and that's a change in direction. We understand that. I think what's more difficult for some of the communities along the rail line in the northern central interior is the abrupt cancellation of the passenger service. We understand that, in fact, passenger service is very difficult for the private sector in that — I think, in virtually every jurisdiction in North America — passenger rail service is heavily subsidized. That presents huge challenges for government and for the private sector — this thinking about getting involved in passenger rail service. The minister made reference to the fact that — and it may be that I didn't hear her properly, but it almost sounded as though — the minister and her ministry are in discussions of some sort with the private sector with respect to passenger rail service or the resumption of some form of passenger rail service. I'm just wondering: can the minister provide folks with some sense as to where her ministry is at with respect to the involvement of the private sector in passenger rail service?

Hon. J. Reid: Tourism rail service certainly has seen some success in this province, operated by the private sector. We have received numerous inquiries with regard to all types of tourism-related service for passengers. At this time, we don't have any active discussions going on, but because of the interest that I've heard is out there, I do believe quite emphatically that if we pursue this in the coming years, we will see those services once again along that particular line.

P. Nettleton: Yes. Indeed, I hope that, in fact, we will see some form of resumption of services and the involvement of the private sector in terms of providing those services.

Another question with respect to B.C. Rail and its service plan. It states point blank that there will be no new sources of freight traffic over the next three years. I'm just wondering: what does this say about the government's claim that economic improvement and better times are coming for the north? B.C. Rail doesn't seem to think so. It expects absolutely no new customers. Would the minister please respond to that?

Hon. J. Reid: In the service plan, we have to be conservative in what we lay out. To give an example of activity in different industries that we follow very closely, there's the coal industry. We would love to see greater activity in that industry, and at times the news sounds very promising, but we cannot build promising news into our forecasts. When we look at the mining industry, this government believes that there are opportunities there for well-done, well-developed, environmentally responsible mining opportunities. But we can't build those into our service plan, into our forecasts.

We believe that even the reforms for forestry that we are introducing are going to have a major positive impact on the industry, but it is going to take time for that to work through the system. Again, while we believe in these things — we're preparing for them; we're very optimistic about them — we are being very practical and realistic and are building our forecast on the realities of the day.

P. Nettleton: If the minister's objective was to be conservative, I'd say that they've certainly met their objectives, in that forecasting no new growth with respect to freight certainly is being conservative. That's for sure.

In any event, I'd like to revisit a couple of points, if I may, with respect to passenger service. My apologies if this doesn't flow naturally or easily. There were a couple of points that I had failed to raise earlier with respect to passenger rail service. One question would be: why was the Cariboo Prospector closed in such haste? Wouldn't it have been more responsible for government, in a life-saving measure for tourist facilities along that route that depend on B.C. Rail passengers for their livelihood, to secure the much-touted, phantom, private sector saviour before shutting things down?

Hon. J. Reid: I would like to make the point, Mr. Chair, that in looking at estimates, we're looking forward and not at the past year. I'm going to take the member's question in the sense that he wants to air this

for the record, but I would encourage him to look at the estimates as we look forward again. Since we don't have the passenger service, it's really a little bit outside of the estimates debate.

In looking at the passenger service, it was well known last April. So to say it was sudden because it ended at the end of October…. I wouldn't agree with that statement. It was out in the community. I received many delegations on the subject. I was into communities talking to people about the subject.

That particular line, the Cariboo Prospector, was in need of replacement. It was a decision that had to be made, and for many different reasons it had been put off and put off and put off until the point that we were having cars that were not safe to run. They could not be sustained for insurance matters, for safety of passengers. It was, as I mentioned earlier, in excess of a $35 million investment. While it would have been nice to be able to have a smooth transition replace them, the practicality of the matter just didn't allow for that. So it wasn't sudden. There was warning, and it certainly has been something that I have been working on and will continue to work on in the future.

P. Nettleton: Yes. I am fortunate in that I hail from Prince George, and I have a question for the minister with respect to a unanimous resolution of the city of Prince George to hold an inquiry into B.C. Rail. As part of this inquiry, will the government institute a moratorium on further changes — such as regarding the sale/lease of B.C. Rail and its assets — until such an inquiry is concluded?

Hon. J. Reid: The information on B.C. Rail has been quite available and been made available in a number of different ways. One of those ways was with the mayors of the communities, including Prince George, and the conference that was held in Prince George. The records of the railway and the way they have been conducting business were available.

It was a very interesting mix of a meeting, because we had people who were shippers at that meeting who looked at the information that was being presented and were able to relate it to their own experience — indeed, were able to verify what was being said. We also had other rail businesses there that operate in British Columbia, who also were able to verify through their own experiences of rail conditions in B.C. that indeed the material being presented was realistic, was within the realm of what they were experiencing as well.

The information has been available on the website. I have no reason to…. Let me put it this way. Anyone who's had any concerns over that information or any questions about any specifics of the information would have been free since last November to be able to express their concerns and been able to be given the rationale behind any of that information. If there's been any of that questioning, we've been able to respond to it, and so there is no need that I can see to have an inquiry.

As far as moving ahead with B.C. Rail and looking for a partner in B.C. Rail. Indeed, B.C. Rail isn't for sale, but we are looking for a partner in B.C. Rail. In moving in the direction in which, in fact, the mayors supported us to move, the Premier has given quite clear assurance that there will be a mayors council that will be involved in the development of an RFP, so there will be consultation with the communities.

We are listening to communities. We have engaged them. We are moving forward in a very measured manner, which they indeed have a role in, as we move forward to find a partner for B.C. Rail that will be able to invest, will be able to modernize, will be able to find greater efficiencies and, again, will provide the benefit to industries that provide the benefit to communities.

P. Nettleton: I take it that's a no on both accounts, both to the call for an inquiry as well as to the call for a moratorium on further changes to B.C. Rail.

Moving along then, there is one passenger service left between D'Arcy and Lillooet. This is a partnership — I see the minister nodding her head, and I'm sure she's very familiar with this — between B.C. Rail and the Seton Lake Indian band. My question then is: did the government consult local first nations in regard to a similar partnership for the Cariboo Prospector? Have first nations been asked for their views on B.C. Rail changes, and has the government looked at the effects of changes on first nations in terms of economic development opportunities for first nations?

Hon. J. Reid: In looking at the passenger rail service and looking at the service it provided to communities, we did a lot of analysis about who was using the trains and to what extent they were using the trains. In all areas except for that one link from D'Arcy to Lillooet, people have alternative forms of transportation. The D'Arcy-to-Lillooet is a rail-dependent community, so that is a separate situation that required a separate response.

Because there are other options for other communities and because of the $35 million investment that was needed, it would not have been a fair consultation to have if government wasn't willing to put money forward. Again, in looking at the ridership, in looking at the economic benefits, when we are able to get private sector involvement, we believe there will be far greater economic benefits to communities than what was being provided by a fairly poorly used passenger service that had reached the end of its life.

P. Nettleton: While that response is somewhat helpful, it doesn't go to the heart of my earlier question. It was, in fact: has this minister or this ministry consulted first nations with respect to changes to date and future changes to B.C. Rail as they impact economic opportunities for first nations?

Hon. J. Reid: There are 44 bands along the B.C. Rail line, and B.C. Rail has worked very hard and, I believe,

very successfully in having ongoing active relationships with those bands — ongoing dialogue, ongoing resolution of problems. We fully expect that to carry on in the future.

P. Nettleton: That certainly doesn't provide me with any comfort, and I'm certain it won't satisfy the concerns of first nations with respect to changes to B.C. Rail.

Moving along. In its so-called outsourcing privatization frenzy, B.C. Rail, through the B.C. government, has sold off, as mentioned earlier by the minister, its intermodal truck and marine components that previously allowed one-stop shopping for shippers. For instance, if a person in Fort St. James wanted to get a product to Shanghai, all they had to do was call B.C. Rail. With that one phone call, their product would get to China through truck, rail and water. It was an incredible door-to-door service for remote communities like Fort St. James.

Now that same business person in Fort St. James — at great time and likely greater expense — has to arrange separately for truck transport and rail transport and has to fiddle with marine bills of lading. How does this help economic development in the north? Was this one-stop shop, door-to-door service a unique, valued component of B.C. Rail that is now gone?

Hon. J. Reid: The member cites a specific example, and in looking at the services provided by B.C. Rail, I don't believe that seamless movement the member mentions has actually been the reality for most people. Indeed, the different businesses were run within B.C. Rail as separate businesses, and there might be some confusion in the sense that if a person wants that seamless work, they can work with a broker who indeed provides that. The private sector does provide that for shippers and is able to take that work away from them. That service does exist.

In this particular railway — in looking at where it was losing money, where it wasn't effective and where there were opportunities for the private sector — the intermodal, indeed, was losing money. It required a $14 million capital investment in order to continue on, and it was a business that, as the member has already stated, could and would be picked up by the private sector.

The member talks about privatization, but we have to think about making wise business decisions on behalf of the taxpayers. If we have a situation where service will continue being delivered through the private sector and where government, when it operates that service, not only loses money but actually has to put an increased investment in, it is just a wise decision for taxpayers that we let the business be run by the private sector and run, I believe, successfully.

P. Nettleton: One further question with respect to B.C. Rail — and I appreciate the minister's thoughtful response to my questions: does B.C. Rail still have warehouses that shippers could store products in until they found a seller, or have those warehouses been sold off? Apparently this service greatly assisted businesses in managing their supplies and also in keeping their products close to the markets in which they would be sold.

Hon. J. Reid: The railway operates reload centres. The reload centre in Prince George was closed, and it was losing money. The reload centre in North Vancouver still operates. I believe that's what the member is referring to.

B. Suffredine: Yesterday I heard concerns from constituents that were arising out of the announcement of a private contract let to operate the Francois Lake ferry. The concern wasn't about the Francois Lake ferry. It was about whether the ministry intends to move quickly to privatize all of the inland ferries without concern about the employees.

I want to go through a few things with the minister about what the private contract is at Francois Lake and whether it's likely that we will be moving quickly to privatize other ferries in the near future.

Hon. J. Reid: In the estimates we have canvassed the infrastructure for the ministry already. I have here today staff for B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries, and I'm quite willing to meet with the member and answer all his questions with regard to Francois Lake or any other infrastructure.

If we could conclude the questions around B.C. Rail and then B.C. Ferries, I would be most appreciative.

B. Suffredine: I'm sorry. Is the minister asking that the questions be directed at B.C. Rail because she's got staff here for that at this time and is seeking that to be wound up first?

I haven't got any questions on B.C. Rail. I'm happy to accommodate that request. I can only say that perhaps five to ten minutes is what I have, but most of mine are focused on things like the ferries and matters related local things in the Kootenays. Perhaps while I'm on my feet, I'll wait and see what she says about the other parts.

The ferry issues and inland ferries. Could the minister just clarify what's going on in terms of privatization, with who is eligible to bid, whether it's something like downloading on to municipalities — those are concerns that are being raised — and whether we intend to retain ownership of those vessels?

I'm happy to deal with some of the other issues in my riding. For example, the Needles bridge has been announced to be in the planning process. Could the minister clarify what the planning process involves so that people within that area understand the process that's to come, and perhaps also comment on whether

Hon. J. Reid: I would propose to the member that he has very important questions that are important to his constituency on a number of different matters and issues. I'm quite willing to work with him and get him all the answers he needs. Because we had covered off the infrastructure earlier in estimates debate and today are concentrating on B.C. Rail and then B.C. Ferries, I'm hoping the member will take advantage of that. I'm certainly quite willing to work with him and make sure he has all the answers for his constituents.

B. Penner: My question is for the Minister of Transportation as well. I'm just wondering if she's able to provide the members of this House and people in my community with an update on the Highway 1 project that we're hoping to see go ahead between Annis Road….

B. Penner: Sorry, there are some interjections here. People in my community are looking for an update about what might be happening with Highway 1 between Annis Road and Bridal Falls in the eastern Fraser Valley. I know the minister had been working hard on this issue. We're hoping to gain some support from the federal government in this initiative. I'm just wondering if there's a further update that the minister can provide us with.

Hon. J. Reid: Once again, it's a very important question to the member and to his constituents, and I'm quite willing to follow up with the member and get him all the information he needs. Because we have covered off in estimates debate the debate around infrastructure on the ministry side, it was my understanding that we were going to be covering B.C. Rail and B.C. Ferries questions. If that's agreeable to the member, I'm certainly willing to meet with him and work through any of the other issues and any infrastructure questions he might have.

P. Bell: I would love to talk about B.C. Rail. I have kind of a series of questions, I guess, around B.C. Rail. I may perhaps be re-covering some existing ground, and if I do, I apologize for that. I wasn't present for the earlier part of the debate.

My first question pertains to the estimates book on page 6. In the review of self-supported Crown corporations, the original estimate for '02-03 for B.C. Rail was a $14 million profit. The revised forecast at the time of printing is an $83 million loss. I'm wondering if the minister can give us an update as to why that discrepancy has occurred.

Hon. J. Reid: I just would ask for clarification. Which document is the member referring to, so I can provide the accurate answer?

P. Bell: Not to use a prop, but I'm using the estimates book fiscal year ending March 31, '04 on page 6, about three-quarters or 7/8 of the way down the page. The page number is page 6, and it's titled "Estimated Revenue by Source."

Hon. J. Reid: There was a decision made last year to sell the marine business. As a result of that decision, the carrying value of the marine business had to be reduced at year-end. This is really the further write-down of the Vancouver Wharves property, which is the primary reason for those numbers.

P. Bell: Moving along, then, I would like to talk briefly, if we can, about the upcoming changes to B.C. Rail and some of what I think are very exciting opportunities for the company and some really positive steps. Certainly, in the northern communities we rely deeply on B.C. Rail for the movement of goods to market. Being predominantly an exporting part of the province — and I guess as a province, we are an exporting province — the ability for us to move goods to market is absolutely critical.

In the last year or so, what has become increasingly apparent is the need to be flexible and to try and respond to the market in terms of the ability to move goods. I guess I would just like to start out by getting, generally, the minister's thoughts on the shift to an operator who can run the service and what benefits she anticipates from moving to a model where we have an independent operator or an operator operating on our tracks and our land.

Hon. J. Reid: Indeed, there are great benefits, we believe, in finding a partner with B.C. Rail. The benefits, as I did mention earlier in the conversation with another member, are initially to the shippers and by way of the shippers back to the communities, because healthy industries will make healthy communities.

As we look at those benefits, they would really fall into three areas. One would be the operating efficiencies that could be derived. Second would be the customer service that has been highly talked about by the shippers and what they're looking for, and third would be reinvestment back into the business so that we have the confidence of long-term sustainability for freight rail in B.C.

P. Bell: Moving specifically to the freight component, because that's obviously the key component from the perspective of northern communities in getting goods to market, one of the types of things that has occurred — particularly in the last year — is the inability to access rail cars in a timely fashion, particularly in light of the expanded softwood market and the amount of wood that is being moved. How would the minister

anticipate that this type of problem would be resolved under a different operator?

Hon. J. Reid: The member was present in Prince George when we discussed the pressure on railways because of what was happening with the softwood lumber. Indeed, all railways were experiencing exactly the same problem of shortage of cars. It wasn't just B.C. Rail. B.C. Rail has responded to this by ordering 550 new lumber cars and certainly has been working to provide that service to shippers.

The other aspect of the question that I believe the member has raised is: what could we look forward to if we have a partner involved in trying to solve these problems? Indeed, when we look at private sector involvement — their ability to create other partnerships; their ability to create other efficiencies; their ability to solve problems quicker sometimes, to be able to bring in innovative solutions — I would say that just the aspect of flexibility that goes along with the private sector is something that would really come to our advantage in situations with B.C. Rail. In that, as the member knows, what's happening with the softwood market is subject to change very quickly, and so that very flexibility is something we're going to need to have in the future to better respond to the needs of our shippers.

I just wanted to briefly say that I have had some wonderful reports on the improvements of service by B.C. Rail, particularly in the last five or six months. I just wanted to pass that on to the minister and to the president of B.C. Rail because there has been, as I understand it…. I've had a number of unsolicited phone calls from different shippers saying that things are actually going very well, and they're pleased with the progress that B.C. Rail has made.

Clearly, the focus on the service aspect of the business and the core nucleus of the business, I think, has been very productive in being able to divest themselves of some of the other little things that have required a tremendous amount of their time, whether it be the passenger rail or intermodal or so on. I think it has clearly moved us ahead. I just wanted to pass that on.

One of the things that certainly concerns all the communities — and I know we are covering a bit of ground here again, but I think it's worthwhile reviewing it — is the community consultation process. The one thing that I do hear consistently from my communities of Mackenzie and Prince George, but clearly up and down the line, is the need for communities to be heard as we move forward in any sort of transition that may take place. Again, I apologize. I know we're probably covering ground over again here, but I would just like the minister to outline what she sees as being the consultation process as we move through any sort of a transition here.

Hon. J. Reid: I believe what we engaged in, in Prince George was a very productive process. It's important that people have information. To that end, we do have a commitment to provide more information to the mayors as we go through this process. As well, the Premier has said that we're going to have a mayors council who will have the opportunity to be involved in the development of an RFP.

As well, we're going to have a shippers council that will, again, have the opportunity in the development of an RFP. We believe it's very important that people understand that we all share the same objective, and that's healthy industries and healthy communities.

P. Bell: What would the terms of reference be for the mayors committee, or what would be the outline of the type of work that they would endeavour to do?

Hon. J. Reid: It's really quite straightforward, although the terms of reference haven't been completed at this point. The base view is that we want to have a mayors council so that mayors who are representative along the line have the opportunity for their input as the RFP is being developed, so that their concerns are heard and they do have a full understanding of what the contents of that RFP could be.

P. Bell: I'm wondering if the mayors council will have input on the review of the RFPs when they are received and the determination — I mean, not actual involvement in the selection of the successful proponent, but at least an opportunity to review the various proposals that are received….

Hon. J. Reid: The process in working through finding a partner for B.C. Rail is…. We need to make sure that the mayors and the communities that the mayors represent have their ability for input.

We believe the appropriate place is at the front end of the process in order to get the process right as we flow through. Once we put out a qualified request for proposals around this, we will have business advisers work through that to be able to evaluate, and that does become a government process. Part of that includes releasing a fair amount of confidential information so that people can receive that confidential information and construct their proposals. It's a very businesslike process that we go through.

The input of the mayors will come in the front end to make sure that in the process we're on — if the member excuses the analogy — we keep on the right track as we move through this. If we are on that right track, then we can expect the business discussion that comes around these proposals should be just that — a business discussion.

As we move forward in getting partnerships, looking for partnerships and working with the private sector, I do believe it's integral to distinguish where the political discussion takes place and where the business discussion takes place. With B.C. Rail we need to get that input from communities upfront to confirm the

P. Bell: Well, thank you very much. That makes a tremendous amount of sense, and since we're using analogies, I would suggest it's absolutely critical that this process does not become derailed. B.C. Rail is truly the engine of our economy, and I'm glad the minister is the conductor on-board.

Moving on from the community consultation process, perhaps we'll stay specifically on the rails, so to speak, at this point. If I could just ask a question — and I understand I'm perhaps covering ground here again — on the tourism rail component. As I understood it, when we made the decision to eliminate the Prospector service and the Whistler Northwind, there were some proponents at that point in time that had some interest in terms of moving forward. Is there a process that we will be using to try and stimulate a tourism rail service on the existing B.C. Rail line? If so, what would the approximate time frames for that be, and how might that look?

Hon. J. Reid: I will reiterate some of the comments I made previously. We do believe there are private sector entities that would be able to deliver tourism services in an excellent way that would benefit us all. Part of the RFP process, in moving forward and looking at a partner in B.C. Rail, would stipulate that any partner would be expected to carry on that search or that endeavour to find those interested parties and make suitable arrangements with them.

P. Bell: Any sense of when we might have a proponent? Have there been any discussions ongoing with any tourism rail operators that have demonstrated some interest in operating?

Hon. J. Reid: The tourism service for British Columbia. As I said, we do believe that there could be viable private sector operators out there. We have had numerous interested queries, but there isn't any active discussion going on right now.

Part of the larger picture is that these tourism operators have to think years in advance because they need to advertise for at least a year before they are actually going to see a product in place. Part of the delay is just the nature of the industry that, in making a very large investment, there are certain windows of time that work for them, and then, again, it's a year or two years out.

This will be part of the RFP process, because we do believe that there are opportunities there. The very nature of the business leads to these longer times to establish new services.

P. Bell: I actually thought I was down to two questions, but the minister's response has given rise to a third question, so I'm sorry. The RFP process for the rail service, then, will include a tourism component? Is that what I understood?

Hon. J. Reid: We are suggesting that the RFP would obligate the successful proponent to accommodate third-party passenger on commercial terms. We believe that will be included in the RFP.

P. Bell: Great, thank you. Just down to my final two questions then. Will the new transportation advisory committees being established throughout the province have input on rail, or are they simply focused on highway infrastructure?

Hon. J. Reid: The regional transportation advisory committees being struck here this month will have the opportunity to talk about any transportation activity they choose. They won't be actively involved in this particular process, but they will report directly to the minister. Whatever in any region are the transportation priorities — whether they be airports, whether they be ports, whether they be rail, whether they be road — they will be able to have that discussion and dialogue with the minister, and be able to support the transportations of their region. But they won't be directly involved in this particular process with B.C. Rail.

P. Bell: Just moving on to a final topic, then, as it pertains to B.C. Rail. The B.C. Rail owns considerable industrial property around the province in various communities. I have many eager prospective clients who are interested in locating on property which they can actually own, as opposed to simply lease, in the various industrial sites, certainly the MacKenzie in my riding. Although the Prince George industrial site is not in my riding, many of my constituents are impacted by that particular site.

I'm wondering if the minister can give us an idea of if those properties will become available to the existing tenants or prospective new tenants and what the time lines might be on that.

Hon. J. Reid: The industrial land will not be part of the RFP process and will not be part of the partnership. In looking at the overall process and the question of what we do with this land, we're now investigating the different options. We haven't made any decisions on how to treat those lands, but they will not be part of the RFP process.

P. Bell: Great. I didn't think for a minute it would be part of the RFP process. Actually, I presumed there would be a separate opportunity.

Just to put in a good free enterprise plug here, certainly I would encourage the minister to make whatever industrial lands there are out there available to prospective purchasers to help drive the economic growth of the heartlands forward to a new progressive model that will allow us to create our own economic independence throughout the province.

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

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

Hon. R. Thorpe: The Securities Amendment Act, 2003, proposes to amend the Securities Act. The amendments would liberalize requirements relating to security dealers and their salespersons by permitting relationships other than employer-employee relationships.

The amendments would clearly authorize the commission to use money from its education fund to educate securities market participants and members of the public about financial matters and the operation of the securities markets. The amendments would also clarify that the commission is a respondent in appeals against its decisions.

The amendments would expand the insider reporting requirements to increase the relevance and integrity of insider reports. The expanded requirements should improve investor confidence in insider reporting and the market generally. The amendments would also support the framework for nationally harmonized, continuous disclosure requirements.

The amendments would clarify that the commission may regulate the participants in quotation and trade reporting systems in the same way it regulates members of the exchange.

This bill supports the government's objective of a more efficient and effective regulation that will contribute to the economic competitiveness and, ultimately, the economic growth of the province.

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

Bill 24, Securities Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

I'm pleased to stand before the House to begin second reading of the Procurement Services Act. This act establishes new procurement legislation to replace an outdated Purchasing Commission Act and is in continuing response to the new-era commitment to promote fair and open procurement in government.

Bill 23 modernizes procurement legislation in a number of ways. First, the bill eliminates the requirement for a commission structure to administer government procurement. The Purchasing Commission has not functioned as a governing board for many years.

Second, the bill updates the terminology and the scope of procurement activity to reflect the current extent of public sector procurement. The Purchasing Commission Act was established several decades ago when government procurement was primarily goods. In today's environment, procurement activity is primarily for services and construction, often through complex arrangements, in addition to acquisition and disposal of goods.

Third, the bill ensures that the minister has the authority to undertake acquisition, distribution and disposal activity on behalf of government and other participating public sector agencies. The authority in the Purchasing Commission Act has not supported participation by all public sector agencies, resulting in inadequate authority to support fair and open procurement.

Fourth, the bill provides the minister with authority to recommend procurement practices, consistent with section 4 of the Financial Administration Act, applicable to government and other public sector agencies that support fair and open procurement activity — practices that promote competition and demand aggregation, value for money, transparency in accountability in public sector procurement practices.

Fifth, the bill provides the minister with the authority that supports the purposes of the government shared services initiative. The bill enables a government shared service agency to provide best-practices procurement for ministries and participating public sector agencies.

Sixth, the bill results in eliminating a number of outdated regulatory requirements that existed in the Purchasing Commission Act. This simplifies administration of the legislation and reduces the regulatory burden consistent with government's deregulation initiative.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 23 be referred to a Committee of the Whole for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 23, Procurement Services Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003, will save taxpayers dollars by eliminating duplication and saving financial and administrative costs incurred by the regional hospital districts, by the Ministry of Health Services and the office of the comptroller general. The changes also align with the government's new-era commitment to give local entities more independence.

They will also support the government's implementation of generally accepted accounting principles slated for the 2004-05 fiscal year. As part of the process of implementing these generally accepted accounting principles, the office of the auditor general has recommended that the legislative changes are necessary to exclude regional hospital districts from the government's reporting entity. The proposed amendments will give these boards greater autonomy and eliminate unnecessary provincial controls over these bodies.

Specifically, these amendments will do a number of things: one, clarify that the province through the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council does not have the power to appoint or remove directors from regional hospital district boards. Current legislation is unclear on whether the province has the right to appoint or remove members who serve on these regional hospital district boards at the current time.

Two, it will remove the requirement for ministerial approval when regional hospital districts assume obligations of a municipality, an improvement district or a hospital corporation with respect to funding or financing of hospital projects.

Three, it will remove the minister's control over regional hospital districts' ability to raise revenues and temporary borrowing.

Four, it will remove the requirement that regional hospital districts submit their provisional budgets to the province and the requirement that these budgets be done in a specified form and manner.

Five, it will remove the requirement that the minister advise regional hospital districts of capital projects eligible for a prepaid capital advance.

Six, it will remove the requirement that the minister has to approve regional hospital district bylaws and amendments.

Finally, it removes the requirement that the minister approve regional hospital district spending or borrowing for capital expenditures.

Regional hospital districts share hospital facility construction costs with government, and they fund equipment and capital expenses as defined by the Ministry of Health Services. These boards, which are made up of democratically elected representatives from municipal and regional government, should be allowed to do the job they were elected to do with less red tape from the provincial government. Our amendments to the Hospital District Act will ensure that this happens and give regional hospital district boards the autonomy to manage their financial affairs in an accountable manner.

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

Bill 25, Hospital District Amendment Act, 2003, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Bruce: I believe that today would be one of those days where, being as it's close to the end of the first of April's morning theatrics that have gone on, it would probably be a good time to pause and reflect on all the good things that are in the province of British Columbia that aren't foolish. With that, I would move that we do now adjourn.

Mr. Speaker: If I may, we'll just hold off on the motion for a moment until we hear from Committee A, which is going to report out.

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

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

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

Bill 5, Foresters Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to renew the estimates debate with respect to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. We have a full range of staff here today to respond to questions which members may have in respect of the estimates for our ministry. I'm joined by my minister of state, as well here this morning, to address issues around Women's Services, the 2010 bid and the community charter.

As well on the staff side we have Bob de Faye, a deputy minister; Prad Khare is an ADM; Pauline Rafferty from the Royal B.C. Museum; Kaye Melliship, ADM; Shane Ramsey from B.C. Housing; Dale Wall, ADM; Patrick McDonough from Safety Engineering Services; Dan Maxwell from HPO — homeowner protection office; David Richardson, assistant deputy minister; Shauna Brower is director of finance for the ministry; David Howdley, who is manager of financial planning; Gail Greenwood, ministry operations — she keeps us going; and Brian Dolson, ADM.

We've got all the staff here, and we welcome any questions members may have. I understand we're beginning with Women's Services.

R. Lee: My question is regarding health care services. In my riding one of the service providers had his budget cut by over 60 percent. I just want to see in the coming year what kind of allocation there is for child care.

Hon. L. Stephens: Are you talking about all of child care or are you talking just about Burnaby?

R. Lee: My question is in general for child care funding in the coming year compared to last year.

Hon. L. Stephens: In terms of programs, child care programs, this year we're spending $173.564 million. Last year, '02-03, we spent $184.821 million.

R. Lee: Recently, the federal government also announced some funding for child care. Will those moneys be new money going into the system in B.C.?

Hon. L. Stephens: The new funding dollars coming from the federal government that were just announced and we signed two weeks ago — that money will be coming to British Columbia. The first year is a relatively small amount. As the years go out, the dollars increase.

R. Lee: So the new funding for the new financial year from April 1, starting today, will include some of the money from the federal government. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Stephens: That is correct. The dollar amount that I just gave you does not include the federal dollars that will be coming to the province this year. It does not include that amount.

R. Lee: How much exactly do you estimate will be coming into the system in B.C. with the new federal dollars?

Hon. L. Stephens: The federal dollars that will be coming to B.C. this year are $3.25 million.

R. Lee: My question is, coming back to Burnaby: what kind of budget is there for Burnaby for the coming year?

Hon. L. Stephens: The member asked the amount of money that's coming to Burnaby. We allocate funds based on application. We don't have, at this time, all of the applications from Burnaby to give the member that particular number. If he cares to be more specific, we may be able to help him there.

R. Lee: One service provider in my constituency, which has been running four child care facilities in Burnaby, had his funding reduced from over $400,000 — it's about $430,000, to be exact — to under $160,000.

This is a big reduction. I would like get some explanation on that kind of reduction.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion, I'm presuming, is the organization you're speaking of. They operate 12th Avenue Out of School Care, Brentwood Park Plus Out of School Care Centre, Variety Hotelier House Children's Centre and Fair Haven Children's Centre. This particular organization has received, in the past, a significant amount of money: $575,585. This year, because the Munroe funding will not proceed…. The Munroe payments came to an end as of yesterday, as a matter of fact. That particular organization will receive now, under the new capital funding, $154,788 approximately.

This particular organization was funded very, very, very generously by the previous administration. As we looked at the child care programs across the province generally, there were a lot of inequities. This one was probably the one that was most glaring.

What we have done…. When we looked at providing a stable, predictable funding base for providers and making sure the funding was equitable across the province, we made changes to the operating funding, and we've increased the operating funding in terms of the compensation contribution program. What they were receiving in the past for the compensation contribution program was $89,535. They're going to receive a fairly substantial increase in terms of that program, which helped to pay for staffing as well. However, their big reduction does come from the termination of the Munroe agreement payments.

R. Lee: My understanding is that for the termination of the Munroe agreement, the reduction is between 20 and 30 percent in terms of wages. Yet the reduction for funding for this particular organization is over 60 percent. I have some problems in understanding the rationale behind that.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Burnaby Association for Community Inclusion also has a funding assistance program. They were part of the out-of-school-care universal program of the previous administration as well. That program also came to an end as of yesterday. They received about $50,885 through that program. Those child care centres that have a combination of the out-of-school-care programs and the Munroe funding may see a fairly substantial loss in terms of those two programs coming to an end. However, what has been taking place in the other child care centres is that the negotiations between the employers and the employees have been ongoing and have been quite successful in a number of centres in order for them to continue to provide child care spaces and services.

In terms of the funding assistance program, the before- and after-school programs, again, the additional funding to the compensation contribution program does compensate for the loss of the funding for the out-of-school programs. So the fundamental issue that this particular centre has to resolve is the labour negotiations to replace the Munroe funding agreements.

R. Lee: I understand that some of the staff are leaving because of the difficulties in getting "reasonable wages." And those are very specialized child care workers who have a lot of knowledge in early childhood development and child care skills. How can the centre operate with a limited number of well-qualified child care workers?

Hon. L. Stephens: Many of the employees who work in the child care centres have their early childhood education certificate, and it is a college level of training. We are certainly supportive and want to encourage all workers who are in child care centres to develop their level of expertise as highly as they can. Child care centres are run, predominantly, by non-profit agencies or private operators. As such, they are the sole employer of personnel and make the decisions around the level of employee remuneration and benefits and so on. We have no relationship with the employees. The employers are those who are responsible for reaching those kinds of agreements.

That's not to say that we do not have the ability to make the regulations and the standards of care in terms of licensing, and that is what we do. However, the relationship between the remuneration and the benefits for employees is out of our hands; it is up to the employers in those centres to make those kinds of arrangements.

R. Lee: My last question, I think, is regarding the well-qualified child care workers. A comment. I heard you say some of them are moving to higher pay in the $20 range of hourly wages. They are moving to other jobs, so there is a problem in recruiting and retaining the workers right now. So I think my question is: how can we provide more training to workers in early childhood development so that more workers will be available in the system?

Hon. L. Stephens: There is a need for highly skilled child care workers in the child care centres. We're going to be working with the quality enhancement initiative that we're going to be bringing forward, which will help to do that and will help to provide some enhanced level of educational opportunities and the licence-not-required sector, as well. However, it is still the responsibility of the employer to employ their staff and pay them the appropriate wages that they deem necessary. We, as I said, are not involved — nor will we be — in any contract negotiations between employers and employees.

R. Sultan: This is a question for the Minister of State for Women's Equality. Minister, as a result of the new-era commitments of this government, the Attorney General in 2001 established a task force on pay equity. Professor Nitya Iyer of the University of British Columbia law school chaired the task force. She's a

graduate of the University of Toronto and Harvard and specializes in constitutional and human rights law, family law and feminist analysis of law.

In February of last year the report of the task force, entitled Working Through the Wage Gap, was released. It makes for interesting reading, all 154 pages. There's clearly no lack of material or evidence, and I found it comprehensive, balanced and thought-provoking.

My question is: what is the ministry of women's equality doing to bring about equal economic opportunity for women and to increase the contributions women can make to their pensions?

Hon. L. Stephens: I thought Nitya Iyer's report was a very comprehensive one — certainly very thoughtful — and one that laid out a good view of where we need to go in terms of pay equity and making sure that women in fact have the ability to access that equal opportunity that I think we all want to see. The problem is persistent and pervasive, and we need to develop a good strategy to deal with it.

We are currently doing that. The Attorney General and the Minister of Skills Development and Labour and myself are developing a response to the report. As you know, we've put it through the government caucus committee, and we're now making some presentations to cabinet. Aside from that, we are getting a strategy together.

The other thing that we're trying to do, too, is impress upon young girls, particularly, the value of higher education — not just completing their grade 12 but going on to university or college. It's very clear, and there was the census — the 2001, I think, or 2002 census — Statistics Canada reported a couple of weeks ago which made it very clear, from their information, that it makes a huge difference that young women, particularly aged 25 to 29, came the closest to catching up with their brothers, making 81 cents for every dollar that men made. For older women it's a little bit different, because usually they're the ones that are raising their children or that care for other family members and leave the workforce for periods of time, so it makes it a little bit more difficult.

Education is clearly the area that has made that gap shrink somewhat, and we're finding now that it's not just education per se; it's also the field of study that women pursue. Traditionally it's been health or education or the social services. Where the higher-paid jobs are, of course, is in engineering and the sciences, so we're trying to encourage women to participate in those more than what they have.

As a matter of fact, this morning I noticed in the news that there are some studies which show that women are doing exactly that. Women have looked at where their best opportunities lie in terms of higher wages and challenges and ways to participate in the economy, and it's clearly in those sort of non-traditional fields that women have not been encouraged, frankly, to participate. We are trying to encourage them into those non-traditional trades, and that includes areas like construction, welding, those kinds of things that are high paying.

We're also trying to build awareness among women of the importance of financial planning, and that goes to your question about pensions. They are critically important for women, and I think more women now are recognizing the value of knowing what the family finances are, what kind of insurance there is and making sure they know they're going to be responsible for their financial well-being as they become seniors.

We're also working with the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise in terms of women entrepreneurs. Here in British Columbia about 43 percent are women entrepreneurs and, as we all know, small businesses drive the economy of British Columbia. It's clear that women are very strong players in the economic areas in terms of business and industry.

Those are some of the areas we are actively pursuing. We will continue to develop these as we go along.

R. Sultan: Thank you for that very, very encouraging response. To illustrate the point you made, I couldn't help but think of the visitation we had three evenings ago by a group of young engineering students from the University of British Columbia — mining engineering students — describing their globetrotting endeavours for summer jobs in Mongolia; South Africa; Timmins, Ontario. Who should be, in many ways, the leader of this group, informally, at least, but a young woman — a very attractive young lady — who explained how she went down one mile underground in Timmins, Ontario, and worked with a mucking machine right alongside the men. It is a new world. As a former miner, I'm astounded. I applaud it. I think the work your ministry is doing is very important.

L. Mayencourt: To the minister: you mentioned that in '02-03 your budget was $184 million, and in '03-04 it was $173 million or thereabouts. What about for '04-05? You mentioned that there were some higher budget numbers in those years. Are there, or did I mishear that?

Hon. L. Stephens: The dollars that I mentioned that would be increasing in '04-05 will be the federal child care dollars that will be part of the new national child care strategy.

Hon. L. Stephens: It's part of that. This first year, for '03-04, we'll be getting $3.25 million. For '04-05 we'll be getting about $10 million from the federal government for regulated child care.

L. Mayencourt: On the weekend I had the pleasure of joining you for a discussion on individuals involved in the sex trade — the commercially exploited women. We had a very wonderful morning with that group of individuals. There was a good deal of talk there about the need for developing a sort of holistic approach to dealing with the issues that women in that trade face and, I suspect, men as well.

You mentioned an interministerial committee that is working on that issue. Could you expand on that? Could you tell us a little bit about that committee — who is involved and, also, how that interministerial committee is working with community groups such as PEERS, PACE, Boystown, etc.

Hon. L. Stephens: The Saturday morning was an excellent morning, I thought. We had a number of former sex trade workers there who were able to give us a really good view of what life was like, what some of the circumstances were that took them to that place and how many of them managed to overcome some of those difficulties

At the meeting there were the representatives from the federal government from various ministries. The two committees that you ask about…. One is the interministry committee of government members. It's an ADM's committee. It's on prostitution and sexual exploitation, and it's chaired by Solicitor General and MCFD. They are looking at some of the initiatives that we might implement around safer care, drug and alcohol, justice services and all of those kinds of things.

The second is the Vancouver agreement, which I know you're very familiar with. The Vancouver agreement developed a women's task team about a year or a year and a half ago. They've been working very hard in the downtown east side in terms of women, particularly aboriginal women, who are the vast majority of individuals there. What I've asked is that we in the women's services develop a specific aboriginal women's strategy to integrate with the Vancouver agreement women's strategy, to see how we can leverage some dollars and some personnel to make some of these things happen.

What I want to do, what I want to accomplish, is to improve the health and safety of women who are living in the downtown east side. To do that, through this ministry and in cooperation with MCAWS generally, we've provided $800,000 for healing centre initiatives, including $200,000 for addictions counselling through Sheway.

We've enhanced the funding and the safety program in the women's centre. We've added extra money to employ another individual who will be working on the floor of the women's centre in the downtown east side. We're looking at increasing supports for the housing program they have — the bridging housing. We were also happy to contribute to the forum we had on Saturday morning.

We've also got some other initiatives that we're looking at and considering. Some of them are underway; some of them are in developmental stages. What we heard on Saturday morning was the requirement or the need for a 24-hour safe place. I was astounded that we didn't have any 24-hour service on the downtown east side. I just assumed that because of the nature of the downtown east side we would have something, but there isn't, so we are working to try to make that happen.

We're also looking at second-stage housing away from the downtown east side. In other conversations that we've had there, people have said they didn't really want to have a concentration of services for the downtown east side. They would prefer that services were available for people in their own communities so they didn't have to come to the downtown east side to get service and that there be services in their communities. So we are looking at second-stage housing. We're also looking at a mobile safety unit. This initiative would be 24-7 as well. It works well in Montreal where they've tried it.

Those are some of the things we are considering. Some of them have been decided. Others are still in the developmental process, but we are working very cooperatively with the Vancouver agreement partners, which are the federal government, the city and the province.

L. Mayencourt: I think that one of the things that really came through for me was the ability of women and men that are engaged in the sex trade to access those services. I really encourage the discussions to continue around that mobile unit that will actually get into the neighbourhoods and into the alleys and the warehouse districts where a lot of these people have been sort of squeezed so that they can access the health and support services in that community.

You mentioned the Vancouver agreement and how that might impact that. There was discussion from Minister Owen regarding their contribution to the Vancouver agreement as a hard cost. I think he committed at that point to a $10 million match to the provincial government's challenge, which was, I guess, issued a little earlier this year. Would your ministry have access to some of those dollars for safe houses, the mobile health unit, outreach workers and things like that?

Hon. L. Stephens: The new funding that is coming from the federal government will go into the Vancouver agreement group, and that includes the city and the province and the federal government. Minister Abbott here, who has the lead on the Vancouver agreement, would be able to answer your question more directly in terms of how that money will be allocated. What we

will be doing in Women's Services is looking for ways to assist the objectives of the Vancouver agreement partners' strategy where we can, in terms of programs and services for women specifically and how that can fit into the overall services that will be developed in the downtown east side.

The initiatives I just mentioned are those that we've been able to do so far, but we're always looking at ways we can contribute to the overall strategy of the Vancouver agreement to assist people in the downtown east side.

L. Mayencourt: Minister, this may be one that you have to send over to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services as well. I recall just recently some discussion around Sheway, the YMCA's Crabtree Corner and housing society with respect to a new project that's happening on East Hastings in Vancouver. Do you have some anticipation of when that project would open? And, secondly, you mentioned that you are looking at the issue of first-stage housing, and you mentioned second-stage housing. Where are you at in terms of discussions on that second-stage housing idea?

Hon. L. Stephens: There are a number of initiatives that are included in the Vancouver agreement, and housing is one. Perhaps you can address that question to Minister Abbott when we do the housing. We are in the process of working through what some of those details will be. Shayne Ramsay is here from B.C. Housing, and he'll be able to answer the questions directly.

L. Mayencourt: I'll do that. The next question that I have is in regards to before- and after-school care. One of the things that really impacts a mother's ability to go out into the workforce and….

In my neighbourhood, I've got a lot of single moms, and that's also true of the downtown east side. There are a lot of non-nuclear families, I guess you could call them. The issue of providing before- and after-school care is very important to those individuals, because they, in the interests of protecting their children, don't want to leave them as latchkey kids. So I wonder if you could tell me what the status is on funding from the ministry with respect to before- and after-school care, perhaps from last year's perspective and then in this current fiscal year.

Hon. L. Stephens: The before- and after-school care program was called FAP, funding assistance program. It was the previous administration's attempt to begin a universal child care program, and that was the first piece. When we assumed office, we made the determination that this was not sustainable, that the funding hadn't been budgeted for and that with the strategic shifts we were looking at, we were wanting to make sure that the child care system was predictable, stable and equitable. It certainly wasn't any of those three, nor was it sustainable.

So the determination was made to terminate the FAP program, the before- and after-school program. The first year we reduced the funding by half in order to help child care providers transition out of the program. It was one that was very, very rich, and it would have meant some pretty severe hardship for child care providers if it were just terminated all at once. So we reduced the funding to about half. As of yesterday, the transition funding comes to an end as well.

So what we have in place is an operating funding program. The new operating funding program will replace the FAP, and it will replace the compensation contribution program and, in fact, most child care providers will see an increase in the funding they received. Now the people who have the universal program, the before- and after-school program, will find that they will have to increase their fees a little in order to come up with the funding they're going to be able to need to deliver those programs. But we've increased the new operating funding quite significantly, so there shouldn't be any difficulty at all.

Where, I think, many or most or maybe just some of your constituents that would be looking at accessible, affordable child care would be, are those who would be affected by the parent subsidy. That was a program where there were some reductions made as well. The Premier was very clear that when we looked at those strategic shifts that were made two years ago, if we found that there were some that were particularly difficult, we would take another look.

This is one of those instances where we did that and added $100 a month back to the income threshold to make sure children, particularly children of single parents, would be able to access quality child care. That decision has meant that 3,000 children are now eligible for subsidy, and a further 6,000 children are eligible for an increased subsidy, so between the increased threshold and the new operating grant, child care centres should be very well-positioned to continue to provide those valuable services for their parents.

L. Mayencourt: My constituents were extremely gratified to see the increase in the income threshold, because it did mean that more people were going to have access to that. I salute you for that. That was a well-thought one.

The other question I have is this. I'm hearing from child care providers in my community that there needs to be some adjustment to the regulations that govern how many spaces, how many children, you have in ratio to the number of support workers that are there. We had some discussions earlier last year with some of those community groups: the child care centres, people like Gordon Neighbourhood House and others. What is the status of that? Have those community groups taken the opportunity to make changes to their structure? Is it going through the system? Where are we at on that one?

Hon. L. Stephens: Last summer I had the opportunity to tour around the province and ask the question

in terms of licensing. It was interesting to hear the various points of view from across the province. Generally speaking, the concerns of child care providers were consistent across the province. That told me that we had to look at the licensing and what some of the changes were that we would be able to make there.

The Minister of Health Services is responsible for enforcing these standards through the health authorities, and the Minister of State for Intermediate and Long Term Care actually has control and responsibility for the regulations of the Community Care Act. As you recall, we made some significant changes to the Community Care Act. What will happen now is that they are working on the regulations. We've been able to give input in terms of the child care regulations that we believe will help to address some of the concerns that have been expressed to you.

We are looking at the ratios of children to child care providers. We're looking at changing the categories of licensing. What we've decided we're going to be doing is funding child care spaces on the age of the child as opposed to the category licence the child care provider holds. This makes it consistent with what we intend to do in terms of the capital funding and the quality enhancement. It's a much simpler, less complicated system than what was in place before. Just that one simple change meant that we reduced regulations by 452 or something like that. It's a much more streamlined and much more simplified way of addressing the various categories of children.

That, we'll be working on. The Ministry of Health is anticipating that those changes will happen in approximately a year's time.

W. McMahon: My question to the minister is regarding the elimination of provincial funding for women's centres in 2004. I've had concerns expressed from constituents in my riding, in particular in Golden, that the programs will no longer be available and the effect it will have on rural communities that find themselves isolated from the larger centres where the existence of many different types of organizations that offer support are available. I'm wondering if you would comment on that for me.

Hon. L. Stephens: The women's centres program. We've been working with the women's centres quite extensively. We've provided $3,000 to each of them to explore ways in which they can partner with other organizations in the community. The responsibilities and the function of the women's centres have been primarily information and referral services, an advocacy role. In many parts of the province they are busy, and they do a good job. In other parts of the province it's a little more spotty.

What we decided when we made our strategic shifts was to look at what were the priority essential services for women in the province. We determined that those would be in the crisis intervention areas and our prevention initiatives, so the determination not to fund women's centres past 2004 was made.

There is a year that we have to work with the women's centres to find ways that those services they currently provide will be able to be accessed by women in communities. We are encouraging them to look at other community organizations. For instance, in my community, there is Langley Family Services They do a lot of partnering with other services. They do the child care resource and referral service; they do the drug and alcohol services.

There are lots of ways that communities can coordinate and integrate better than what they're doing now. They can save on facilities costs. They can save on operating costs. They can find ways to economize. That's one of the ways that we're trying to work with them to encourage them to do more looking for partners within their community to make sure those services are continued.

The women's centres also are…. What was I…? I was going to say something else about the women's centres. We've got the year to work with them. We're going to make sure that we do have the kinds of services that the communities need.

I know what it was. The VictimLink service that the Solicitor General just announced yesterday I think will go a long way in terms of people having access, particularly in the small, rural and remote parts of the province where it is difficult. I know the member represents some of those communities where the distances are great, the geography is daunting at times and certainly in the winter weather. We recognize very clearly that there are parts of the province that do need to have those kinds of services.

That 24-7 victim services line will be helpful. We're also putting in place looking at the gaps that may exist in terms of transition houses, second-stage housing and safe homes. We're doing a review and trying to identify where there may be some gaps in services around the province. When we find those, we're going to be developing a strategy that deals with those. We're looking at the funding mechanism that we currently have for the transition houses to see whether in fact they're still appropriate.

There are a variety of ways we're looking at making sure that communities — particularly small, rural and remote communities — continue to receive the kind of services the women in those communities need.

W. McMahon: Thank you, minister, for those comments. I think that will reassure some people, particularly in Golden, where I hear most of the questions about the services and the fear that there will be nothing. That will be very reassuring for them.

One of my other questions was on the child care subsidy for low-income parents, so I thank the member for Vancouver-Burrard for asking that question and for your answer.

The Golden Women's Centre has also made the following comment to me. I'm just going to read it and ask you for your response. They say:

Hon. L. Stephens: I think it's well established that violence against women is real and that it is another of those pervasive issues that doesn't seem to go away. Having said that, the latest statistics we have show it has declined slightly. Violence against women is declining slightly not just in British Columbia but across Canada. However, we are still looking at the initiatives we need to have in place to deal with the violence that is still out there.

We're working with the Attorney General's ministry in particular. At the moment, the Violence Against Women in Relationships policy is a pro-charge, pro-arrest policy. The stay rates are 50 percent. The Attorney General is concerned about that, as am I. He is doing a lot of work around how we can hold offenders accountable. We are going to be involved. Women's Services is going to be involved in helping the Attorney General develop prosecutorial policy that deals with holding offenders accountable. The Solicitor General…. You may want to raise these issues with both of these two ministers. The Solicitor General, who's responsible for men's treatment programs, is doing some innovative things there as well.

From my point of view, there are some issues that we will be bringing to the forefront. One is that, yes, violence against women is real. It is something that we need to continue to educate the general public about, raise the awareness of what it is, make sure we have prevention and early intervention programs in place and appropriate justice system response to violence against women. Those are the areas that we're going to be working on.

The safer community strategy that we are developing and, hopefully, will be announcing over the next coming weeks will include all of those initiatives. We're working very closely with the Solicitor General and the Attorney General to make sure that those issues of violence are addressed and that we improve the services that we have for women, both in the justice system and out in the communities.

I. Chong: I would like to continue on some of the issues raised by my colleague the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I'll start with one of the last comments the minister of state made regarding the men's treatment programs that are handled through the Ministry of Solicitor General. Therein lies a matter that was brought to my attention not so long ago.

Here in Victoria we have…. I think it's called the Victoria family maintenance project. It has a long history and a very good success rate of dealing with men's programs, particularly men who exhibit violent behaviour towards women. I do understand the need to periodically look at the contracts that government has with these agencies to ensure they're producing the outcomes that are desirable, which is to reduce the incidence of violence against women.

What occurred not so long ago was that there was, in fact, an RFP that was sent out. Everybody, again, was requested to submit their bids on that. This particular project in my area, the greater Victoria area, failed to meet the criteria and was not awarded a contract. While they have many other programs — I know, as a society they will continue — what was raised was that the people they had in their employ, the people they had contracted out to provide these men's programs, were being contacted by the successful recipient of the contract to provide essentially the same service. It raises the question in my mind therefore, when it was brought to me and I'm sure to my other colleagues here in greater Victoria, as to what kind of interministerial cooperation there was with this minister and the Solicitor General.

All too often in the past, we have had cross-ministry objectives not being met because of the ministries not having good communication with each other. I know that has, to a large degree, been removed from many ministries, and I know one of the objectives we continue to have with this government is to restructure so that there is more cross-ministerial cooperation. In this particular case, it seems that this may have been forgotten, or if not forgotten, perhaps it was a new direction. Something I need to be assured of is that it's not going to happen again. If the minister is aware of what happened in this instance and can shed some light on that, it would be most helpful.

Hon. L. Stephens: Assaultive men's treatment programs have been in place in British Columbia for quite a long time, and they're delivered by community groups. I'm sure this is who the member is referring to.

As I said previously, the Solicitor General is responsible for these, and you may want to ask him more specific questions during his estimates. In terms of how they relate to what we do in Women's Services, it's an issue that we are very concerned about. I believe quite strongly that we need to have appropriate assaultive men's programs, and I think the Solicitor General is moving to try to do that.

We've got two tracks in terms of assaultive men's programs. We have the corrections branch who will be delivering the pre-treatment program called "respectful relationships," and then there's the second-stage program that is relationship violence treatment. That is a 17-week, two-hour session that will be delivered in the communities.

That's the service that you're talking about, the one that's in communities. The Solicitor General has re-designed the programs to provide as much service as

we can across the province. I want to say that the Victoria group here is a very good program. They do good work, and they have done for many years. I want to congratulate them and encourage them to continue.

The treatment programs in the communities are being redesigned, and they're going to be delivered by one particular provincewide entity that will make sure that each of these communities has the appropriate services in place. In talking to the Solicitor General a couple of weeks ago, he anticipated that would be in place shortly.

I. Chong: I appreciate the response, and I'll just say as well that the Victoria family maintenance project did bring this to my attention. There were other groups such as John Howard, etc., I think, who were also undergoing some of these changes. I will look forward to the outcomes in that particular case.

I would like to ask this minister regarding the child care matter I know has been raised by the members here. Essentially, I would like to focus on the child care subsidy part of the program.

First of all, I do want to say that I think it was an important move by this government to bring everything under the umbrella of one minister. It was very difficult for those of us who had constituents bringing concerns to look at various ministries to find out which program affected them. This will certainly be a welcome change — that we have one minister overseeing this.

A year ago there was a change in the subsidy. There was a threshold change, and therefore a number of parents found that they had to, in some cases, give up their child care spaces or look for alternatives. I know, as well, there were some concerns in the child care field that once they've lost those children in those spaces, they may not get them back, because families have made alternate arrangements, whether it be through extended families, neighbours or whatever. I understand that there has been a reinstatement of the threshold amount. I think $168 of the $268 that had been adjusted…. Or was it $100?

I. Chong: A hundred dollars. I was wondering whether the minister has been able to track the number of families therefore, prior to the change, who were using the family subsidy program and where we are now and if, in fact, there has been a substantial change in the number of families needing subsidies.

Hon. L. Stephens: The child care subsidy is one that is extremely important to a number of families, particularly single-parent families — most of whom are headed by women, we know — and those families who are struggling to work or go to school. The changes to the parent subsidy — that extra $100 — have been welcomed. Frankly, we look forward to the day when we can restore it to the full amount and perhaps increase it beyond that. The child care subsidy hasn't changed since 1985, so we need to look at how we can support parents. Perhaps the federal funding that we've got coming may help to do that. That's something that we'll look at.

The subsidy budget is $104.2 million. There are currently 33,000 children that receive subsidy. Now, it's very difficult to track those children as to where they would have gone. Many of them would have gone to family. Many of them would have gone to the licence-not-required sector. We know there are approximately — we don't have an appropriate data system to collect this kind of information — 200,000 spaces in the licence-not-required sector. That is very likely where these children have gone. Usually, those are the ones who are most convenient, because they're the woman next door or across the street or down the block who takes two children. You can have two children and care for them without having to be licensed.

What we're doing is modernizing the computer system and the tracking system and the data collection system for the child care parent subsidy. Since it's come to us, we're going to be making some changes to make sure that we're going to be able to track that kind of information in the future. At the moment we just don't have the ability to do that.

I. Chong: I do appreciate the modernization and the need to have a sustainable child care structure in place. Previously, I had a constituent who came in to see me who showed me the cheque that he had received. He didn't need it and was under this program in the past, where everybody got a subsidy. Those who needed it the most were not getting the help, and those who didn't necessarily need it got a refund and wondered what was going on. The change is certainly a welcome one for those most in need.

The last area I think I'm going to canvass with this minister is, I know, a program that is no longer with her, but I want to ask from the perspective of what sort of follow-up her staff and, in particular, herself may be looking at. That is the Bridges employability program. I know that as of yesterday this is no longer a responsibility of this minister of state and that the Human Resources minister will be responsible for that. He knows I will be speaking with him on that during his estimates. I know an RFP has been developed and is being developed for those groups, like Bridges, who may want to apply for that.

Because it had been with this minister and had been her responsibility, can she advise what cross-ministry discussions are taking place to ensure that they're not looking at it in an isolated case and that they are working with the staff to ensure that there is a continuity, that things don't fall through the cracks when they do apply for these new RFP proposals that are out there?

Hon. L. Stephens: This is a good example of what we do in Women's Services. A large part of it, virtually all of what we do, is working cross-ministry with other ministries of government to address issues that serve

The women's bridging pre-employment program is what it was to assist women who were leaving abusive relationships to develop the self-confidence or the educational experience or the contacts they needed to get back out into the workforce. We determined that was not a core service for Women's Services and that it wasn't a priority essential service, so we made the decision to eliminate the funding for bridging.

Part of the reason we did that was because the Ministry of Human Resources was developing its new employment programs. We felt very strongly that because the women who were on the bridging employment program were the same clients of the Ministry of Human Resources, in that they were on social assistance, they fit better with the Ministry of Human Resources. So from the very beginning, there were conversations ongoing between the minister and myself as to how we might accomplish that program being sustained within the employment programs of the Ministry of Human Resources.

We are still doing that. They are still looking at how we can make that transition. Normally, the funding would have ended as of yesterday, March 31, but we are receiving funds from Human Resources to extend the funding for all of those contracts until the end of June so that we can get the plan and the strategy in place and we can make sure that those programs are still available for women leaving violent relationships.

I. Chong: I want to thank the minister for her words of encouragement on that, because it really is about the follow-up. I did understand that there was funding that was available until the end of June. The fact that this minister, in particular, is still involved or will be involved in it to some degree, I think, is important for these programs. I think the Bridges group does feel that there was support from this minister, and that's important. I just want to take this time to thank the minister for her responses.

V. Anderson: First of all to the Minister for Women's Equality, I'm delighted also with her undertaking the combined concern for the child care programs. It's certainly a move in the right direction, and it'll take some time to get it all settled out. There has to be some upset, of necessity, when you're making major changes.

In response to some of the questions that have been previously asked, I wanted to follow up on a couple of them. With the change to focus on funding according to the age of the child — if I heard right — rather than on the credentials of the workers in the system, I wanted to clarify if that's what I've heard or not. If so, the question would arise: is there a danger of losing standards in the teaching profession? I just wanted to clarify that so there would be no misunderstanding.

Hon. L. Stephens: The changes we've made in terms of the categories and the licensing are not to do with the child care staff. What we've done is changed the categories to be based on the age of the children as opposed to the type of licence they hold. Now we're going to be funding on a zero-to-three age group, a three-to-kindergarten age group, a grade-1-and-up age group and a preschool age group.

Previously the funding was based on whether you had…. We haven't worked with it for so long that all the old stuff we've put behind us. There was an infant and toddler group — whatever. We can find it.

That's the change. It hasn't anything to do with the qualifications of the workers in the child care centres. It just has to do with the old licensing categories. We felt that by working with the age of the children, we could make sure the programs were funded better and provided better service, and they were easier for the child care providers and parents to deal with.

V. Anderson: Just to follow that up, then, what are the guidelines or principles regarding the qualifications of staffing in the various types of child care centres?

Hon. L. Stephens: We don't have the specific information in terms of the early childhood educators' qualifications. We are just now taking over the responsibilities for the registry. We'll be making changes to that, too, in terms of making it more user-friendly for the early childhood educators in terms of credentialing. At the moment, we don't have the specifics on what their requirements are, but they are college education standards. We anticipate there being no change in the qualification and credentialing for early childhood educators.

V. Anderson: There's been a lot of apprehension and uncertainty out there, as the minister is very much aware, because of all the changes — not knowing what is happening. At this point, are we getting to the place where there is relative stability upon which there can be growth rather than subtractions so that people can begin to see we're at a baseline and are now starting to move up?

Part of that same question…. As has been referred to earlier, there were families — parents — who had to withdraw from the child care programs because of financial changes that took place either in the program or in their subsidies. Some of those funds have been replaced under different names. Have we come up to at least the level of children in care that we had previously, or are we still working on that level coming up to the stability there? Where is the future growth predicted, or improvements that might take place, as child care centres and families are trying to plan for the future?

Hon. L. Stephens: The objectives of the changes we've made were, overall, to make sure that our child care system is sustainable, that it was equitable, that we treated everyone fairly, that it was predictable and stable for child care providers and for parents, and that

they could rely on the system. Those were the principles we used as we worked through the changes we made to the operating program, to the capital program, to our quality enhancement and to the licensing changes.

We now very much have all those pieces in place with the exception of the quality enhancement piece, although we have been working with the child care resource and referral sector for some time to determine how we can make that work better to bring the quality into child care and to work with the licence-not-required sector to bring them into a registration process of some kind. It's not necessarily that we will be licensing them but that we would like to register them to make sure we know who they are and that there is some level of knowledge about them and some level of knowledge about the kind of care they provide.

With all of the different pieces of the child care system, including the parent subsidy, there were two that caused the difficulties you raise. One was the Munroe funding, which ceased. That was for 39 organizations that operated 106 child care centres. I have to say that the vast majority, if not all, of those child care centres has reached agreement with their staff. Two in particular come to mind. One is the Cridge, and then there's a second one in Nanaimo, which have been very good in reaching that resolution.

The second big area of problem was the parent subsidy. We have addressed that, or tried to address that, partially through the $100 increase in the income threshold.

We're trying to address some of these difficult spots as we make sure we've got an overall fundamental plan that we can move forward and build on in the future. We put in place the building blocks, the foundation, if you like, for a child care system provincially that is sustainable, predictable, accessible and quality — all of those kinds of things.

Where we find the growth, or where we're hoping to find the growth, is through family centres. We're now funding family child care for the very first time. They are getting government support for their child care spaces that they've never had before. That should help particularly, again, the smaller, more rural and remote parts of the province, where it is the family child care provider that tends to be the neighbourhood child care provider. That, we're hoping, will go a long way to expand spaces. That will encourage more family providers and group centres, as well, to expand their spaces or develop more spaces.

The other area in terms of funding is the federal dollars that we will have coming to us. This is for regulated child care. It will be developed along the same principles as the early childhood education initiative has been in that it will be reportable. We will have to be accountable for where we spend the money. It must be in regulated child care. Over the next year, we are going to be developing what that accountability process will look like. As I said earlier, the first-year funding will be $3.25 million. That's for this year. Next year it's $10 million. As we go, we will be building these dollars into our funding plan and our strategy as we go out to '05-06.

V. Anderson: I'm delighted about the family centre and the family child care. I think that's a big step in the right direction. Not only does it give care for the children, but it gets the families involved, and that care changes what they're able to do at home as well as what the children get in the care system, and it ties that together. So I think that is an excellent direction in which to move. I hope we will hear more about that.

One more question I would ask you, minister, at this time, and then I'll yield to my colleague here. About the new capital funding program — could you say a little bit about it? The other things in the plan…. You've already talked about the quality of family and not-for-licence care on the website. Just the capital funding program.

Hon. L. Stephens: I've talked about it — that we have a new capital funding program — and I believe we are going to officially announce it today. Yes, that it is happening. This is the other piece of the child care, long-term strategy. There was the parent subsidy, the operating funding, the quality enhancement and the capital funding.

Previously there were two. There was the facilities and equipment grant that provided for the structures for communities to be able to access grant money to help build facilities. The second was relocation, emergency, repair and replacement. That was for child care centres to replace swings or tables and chairs or fridges or whatever. If they had to move from a location, it assisted them with their moving costs to go someplace else. What we're going to be doing…. We've got up to $2.5 million, so that's an increase of a million dollars over last year, and this goes back to our new-era commitment to increase and expand child care spaces in the province. So this is one of the other pieces to help us do that.

We've made changes to the formula. Previously, the formula was that communities had to raise 75 percent and the province would put in 25 percent. That penalized, again, those small rural, remote parts of the province that had a very, very difficult time coming up with 75 percent of funding when they had relatively limited industry or business to draw that money from. So what we've done is that we've got a major capital project and we have minor capital projects. The minor projects will be similar to what we've been doing in the past; the major capital project will be, again, for those major capital funding works that are required.

We've made the changes to the formula, and the formula is as follows. For the rural communities — and that's under 10,000 population — the organizations will raise 50 percent, and government will contribute 50 percent. In the small urban — that's 10,000 to 45,000 population — organizations will be required to secure 65 percent, and government will contribute 35 percent. In the large urban centres — that's over 45,000 people

— organizations must raise 75 percent, and government will contribute 25 percent.

In 2002-03, through the previous method, we created 579 new spaces, and the average grant was $100,000 for the major grants. We anticipate in '03-04 that we'll fund up to about 30 grants, depending on the project size, but that is what we're hoping to do to expand those spaces, again.

I. Chong: At this time, some of us have questions of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services in the area of housing. I would like to ask, first of all, regarding B.C. Housing.

I have heard on a number of occasions the amount that this government is providing towards housing projects is greater than any previous government. Yet I am hearing from constituents of mine that wait-lists to get into affordable housing are still growing.

In fact, one particular single mom with three children has been waiting for well over a year. The difficulty, of course, is that because of the age of her children, they require her to be into, I think, a four-bedroom housing unit, and affordable housing…. I don't know whether they are actually built with very many four-bedroom housing units. So each time things change for her — whether her job situation changes, whether her child care subsidy is altered — it presents a financial challenge. What would help her, give her a hand up, would be to ensure that she could find affordable housing, subsidized housing.

As I say, she's waited well over a year and comes in to see me on a frequent basis and is asking a very simple question: "What's happening with B.C. Housing?" So through the Chair to the minister, could he give me some idea of what is happening in those areas?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to answer the member's question. She may well want to pursue some of these points further, because I suspect it'll be a little bit high-level at some points in my response, but I invite her to submit further questions to ferret out greater detail from me than I provide in this initial response.

First of all, to be clear, the current government is spending more on housing programs than has ever been spent before in British Columbia. In the coming fiscal year we are looking at expenditures of around $153 million on housing and housing programs. It is a huge investment on the part of our government to do that, and it reflects the priority which we give housing. It does reflect the importance we attach to housing as one of the determinants of people's health and the quality of life that they enjoy in this province.

There are affordability issues in relation to housing. The issue of affordability is an important one, and I'm glad the member raised it, because it's a big challenge for our government. In fact, it's a big challenge for all Canadian governments at this point in time. I have the privilege of attending federal-provincial-territorial meetings in respect to housing, and there is not a jurisdiction in Canada that is not struggling to try to meet the….

So the issue is everywhere. It manifests itself in different ways in jurisdictions in Canada. In Manitoba, for example, there's not an issue around affordable housing, but there certainly is an issue around the quality of the affordable housing. The same might be true in other jurisdictions.

In British Columbia we need — both in our housing programs and in the kind of reforms that we're proposing — to strengthen affordable housing in the marketplace. We need to try to bridge that affordability gap in British Columbia. So it is a big issue, notwithstanding the record amount that we are going to be expending on housing programs in the current fiscal year — the current being the one starting today.

We have on the B.C. Housing wait-list currently about 10,000 people who are waiting to become residents in B.C. Housing and non-profit housing complexes across the province. It's estimated that in the greater Victoria area there's probably a wait-list of about 1,200. It is an issue here, given the proportion of the population that we have in greater Victoria in relation to the rest of the province.

In terms of the bigger issue, and this goes well beyond the waiting list for B.C. Housing, it's estimated that around 167,000 people in British Columbia expend more than 30 percent of their income on housing needs. Some would spend considerably higher than 30 percent. Affordability for those typically low-income British Columbians is a very big issue and one that I think we need to work very intensively on with both the federal and local governments in terms of bridging the affordability gap.

We have developed a strategy for trying to move forward on these issues. It involves better, more strategically targeted funding on the non-market side as well as some changes on the market side of the equation. One of the issues I will certainly be advancing forcefully again at the next federal-provincial-territorial housing ministers conference later this month — I think it's April 14-16 — in Winnipeg will be the very critical need for the federal government to make some tax reforms, particularly around the capital gains rollover provisions for market rental housing, so that people will once again be investing in market rental housing in British Columbia.

With the tax changes that occurred, I guess probably going on 30 years ago now, in Canada we haven't seen the kind of investment in market rental housing that we need to have a competitive marketplace that produces rents which are broadly affordable, particularly for those on the low-income side. We'll certainly be pushing that.

Even if we were to take a huge piece of the provincial budget, much larger than $150 million, and put it against this challenge we have, government alone still couldn't do it. We need to get some changes in the marketplace that produce a response that sees people investing their dollars in the construction of market rental

housing. That simply isn't there right now, and until we get some changes from the federal government, it won't be occurring. That's going to be an important theme going forward, but just one of the themes that will be going forward in relation to an improved marketplace.

The other thing I should discuss briefly, and again the member may wish to canvass it more fully, is around the….

Hon. G. Abbott: All right. We'll come back to non-market rental housing after the break. I move the committee rise, report progress 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.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY