Hansard -- Tuesday, April 1, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 13, No. 11 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		5857

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		5857
	Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 30) Hon. B. Barisoff

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		5857
	Fort Steele heritage town W. McMahon School uniforms R. Nijjar Oral health J. Weisbeck

Oral Questions		5858
	Arrowhead mental health centre J. MacPhail Hon. G. Cheema World Water Forum in Japan M. Hunter Hon. J. Murray Government action on severe acute respiratory syndrome R. Stewart Hon. S. Hawkins Correctional facility closings B. Locke Hon. R. Coleman Youth speeding prevention T. Bhullar Hon. R. Coleman Workers Compensation Board appeals backlog B. Lekstrom Hon. G. Bruce

Tabling Documents		5861
	Office of the information and privacy commissioner of British Columbia, service plan, 2003-06

Second Reading of Bills		5862
	Police Amendment Act, 2003 (Bill 12) (continued) P. Sahota P. Wong A. Hamilton R. Stewart G. Trumper V. Roddick Hon. R. Coleman Safety Standards Act (Bill 19) Hon. G. Abbott J. MacPhail Safety Authority Act (Bill 20) Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of Supply		5871
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued) J. MacPhail Hon. L. Stephens Hon. T. Nebbeling

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		5885
	Estimates: Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise Hon. R. Thorpe Hon. K. Falcon R. Harris R. Hawes H. Bloy B. Locke S. Brice V. Roddick K. Johnston Estimates: Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection Hon. J. Murray R. Masi K. Stewart

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to welcome someone back to the Legislature after a bit of an absence. She worked for a couple of my predecessors, a gentleman by the name of Bill Ritchie, who served as a minister in a previous government, and my immediate predecessor, Peter Dueck. Christine Wiebe served as constituent assistant and ministerial assistant with distinction for 15 years, and I hope members will make her welcome today.

With her today…. I don't think it is an exaggeration to describe Eugene Reimer as Abbotsford's greatest athlete — he is a gold medallist — with, as the Finance minister points out, perhaps one exception, but modesty precludes me from…. Mr. Reimer is a gold medallist in the Olympics and most recently chaired the British Columbia Disability Games that were hosted magnificently by Abbotsford and by the team that he assembled. It's a pleasure to see him here as well. Please make him welcome.

H. Long: It really gives me great excitement to rise today in the House and announce the birth of my newest granddaughter. Yesterday afternoon at 2:30 p.m. my daughter-in-law Kim, her husband, my son Craig and their two children, McKenna and Kyle, were blessed with an addition to their family. In Powell River, weighing in at 7 pounds 13½ ounces, my newest granddaughter, Sawyer Grace Long, my thirteenth grandchild — and more to come. I'd like to share with this House and ask them to join me in welcoming my newest granddaughter into this world and into this province. Thank you very much.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'd like to congratulate my colleague from Powell River on the Sunshine Coast on the birth of his new grandchild. That's wonderful news for you, I'm certain, and for everybody in Powell River. I also would like to make a couple of introductions, but it's not about the birth of any children of mine at this moment.

I have a couple of people in the gallery today that do just an absolutely stellar job in the communications shop for the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. They don't have a lot to work with. Robin Rohrmoser and Christine Ash. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Hamilton: Joining us in the House are 28 grade 5 students from View Royal Elementary School accompanied by their parents and teachers, Ms. Ethelwyn Smith, an assistant teacher, and Ms. Margie Stewart. Would the House please join me in welcoming them.

Hon. B. Barisoff presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Provincial Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2003.

Hon. B. Barisoff: Bill 30 proposes a number of amendments to the taxation revenue statutes administered by the Ministry of Provincial Revenue. These amendments are made to ensure fairness and equity for taxpayers and to provide efficiencies in tax and revenue collection processes. In several cases, the changes are designed to clarify duties and responsibilities under each act and simply to bring tax treatment in line with federal policies.

This bill will amend the following statutes: Corporation Capital Tax Act, Income Tax Act, Land Tax Deferment Act, Mineral Tax Act, Motor Fuel Tax Act, School Act, Hotel Room Tax Act, Social Service Tax Act, Tobacco Tax Act, Petroleum and Natural Gas Tax Act and Logging Tax Act. I will elaborate on the nature of these amendments during second reading of this bill.

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

Bill 30 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

W. McMahon: I am one of the first to agree that cultural tourism is one of the great untapped areas of tourism for those who are happy to travel to destinations to learn about culture and history as opposed to viewing scenery or taking in sporting events. I have cultural tourism in my riding.

As the East Kootenay Historical Society will tell you, Fort Steele is a gem in the province's crown, internationally recognized and broadly supported by the communities it serves. It showcases our local heritage, and it has a long and proud history.

It is named in honour of Sam Steele, superintendent of the North West Mounted Police. He was head of D division, which arrived in 1887 at what was then named Kootenay Post. He help solve the Kootenay crisis, which was a very serious disagreement between the white settlers and the local Ktunaxa people over land ownership of Joseph's Prairie, a Ktunaxa gathering place and the site of present-day Cranbrook.

The dispute saw nervous settlers petition both the federal and provincial governments for protection, and thus the presence of the North West Mounted Police. He stayed for a little more than a year, and today this historical site bears his name.

At one time, 2,000 people lived at Fort Steele, and a number of businesses prospered. Much of the fort's history is linked to the development of the province's railway system. Needless to say, Cranbrook became the centre, and by 1910 Fort Steele was becoming a ghost town.

Today you can board the steam train and be transported back in time to an era when the bellow and rush of escaping steam, the clang of the rails and the call of the whistle take you to places you will remember forever. Treat yourself to the experience, a depiction of a real community on the original site at its prime, 1895 to 1905. Visit the shops, the eating establishments and the working displays. Pan for gold at the Wildhorse Creek historic site. Enter an era when time moved more leisurely, when life appeared simpler and when the decorative arts were present in everything from the cast iron range to the blacksmith toiling under the heat of his labour.

Today I extend an invitation to you to visit Fort Steele, to enjoy the planned street dramas that happen around town, bringing the culture of the town to life right before your very eyes. Remember, whether it's ecotourism, sport tourism or cultural tourism, the opportunities are endless in the Kootenays.

R. Nijjar: Today I rise to raise a discussion that I believe is of great importance. I have thoroughly studied the concept of school uniforms, and I have concluded there is so much value in implementing uniforms or a dress code in our public school system that it warrants, at the least, a full discussion in our communities.

In the United States school uniforms are becoming popular, and 17 different states permit individual schools or districts to adopt school uniform policies or dress codes. And why have they implemented uniforms or dress codes? It's because uniforms make schools safer, increase school attendance, increase grades, reduce tardiness, reduce violent acts, reduce verbal abuse, reduce vandalism, reduce sources of conflict, help identify trespassers, erase cultural and economic differences, and increase school pride. And the lower cost of uniforms saves parents money.

In Long Beach school district, in the first year of implementation, overall school crime decreased by 36 percent, sex offences by 74 percent, fights by 51 percent, weapons offences by 50 percent, school suspensions by 32 percent and vandalism by 18 percent. In Norfolk, Virginia, they found absence down 47 percent, throwing objects down 68 percent and fighting down 38 percent. Schools in Chicago, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, New York and Seattle have all made similar claims.

These achievements follow the stated goals of the Ministry of Education's three-year service plan and the safe schools task force, which is to improve student outcomes and create a safe learning environment.

I have spoken with many, many people throughout British Columbia who support this. I would prefer the full implementation of school uniforms in legislation from this House. But if this cannot happen, then I plan to work with the Minister of Education to create clear regulations or a framework for parents to be able to bring about uniforms in their neighbourhoods.

J. Weisbeck: Today is a very, very special day. Not only is it the beginning of Oral Health Month, but the tooth fairy arrived in the building this morning. I'm sure the Finance minister would love to have seen a couple of billion dollars underneath his pillow, but the tooth fairy did deliver dental kits to all the members. If anyone needs any help in brushing and flossing, I'm sure I could give you a hand in that department.

My thanks to the Association of Dental Surgeons of British Columbia for supplying the kits and having the tooth fairy deliver them. The association is responsible for promoting and supporting the interests of its 2,800 members. This year for Oral Health Month the association is launching the first-ever provincewide dental outreach program, called Community Dental Day, on Tuesday, April 29, 2003. More than 155 volunteer dentists around the province will be treating underprivileged adults in need of urgent dental care, free of charge. This program is available to low-income working adults who do not have a basic dental plan. It is estimated that the program will offer dental relief to more than 750 adult patients provincewide. Urgent treatment will include services such as fillings and extractions. To identify low-income adult patients requiring dental treatment, the association is working in conjunction with the Salvation Army and public health in nearly 40 communities throughout the province.

Our thanks and congratulations to the dentists of B.C. for the professional services they provide in maintaining the health of all British Columbians.

J. MacPhail: Just a note to the good member: I have an overactive gag reflex that I may need help with later on.

Mr. Speaker, it's April Fool's Day, and as Yogi Berra said, it's déjà vu all over again. I was asking these very same questions a year ago. The Minister of State for Mental Health is on record saying he won't tolerate cuts to the mental health services, and that's cold comfort to the mental health patients on the Sunshine Coast who have seen their services cut to the bone. When I raised this last year at this same time, the Minister of State for Mental Health denied that that was going to happen. Can the Minister of State for Mental Health explain to the patients in Sechelt why the Arrowhead drop-in centre for mental health patients will be forced to close its doors in a few weeks?

Hon. G. Cheema: Over the last 21 months we have made tremendous progress in mental health in this province. Issues of mental health have been raised across the government in the ministries and health authorities and in the business community. We are bringing patients home. We are replacing outdated facilities with modern, homelike facilities across the province. We are building….

Hon. G. Cheema: We are challenging the status quo, and we are ensuring that mental health achieves equal status in health care in this province.

J. MacPhail: If this Minister of State for Mental Health gives that same answer again, he should actually have to resign from his job. It is pathetic what his answers are and how little he understands how he's abandoning people with mental illnesses. The B.C. Schizophrenia Society…

J. MacPhail: …the minister to stop this cut and keep the Arrowhead centre open. They say centres like this one are critical to servicing mental health patients and should be considered part of the core services funded by mental health. I've been there. They're right about that.

Before this minister eliminated its budget, the Arrowhead centre in Sechelt provided meals and activities. It operated an extensive volunteer program and employed an advocate. Now those vital programs are gone, and the centre's doors are about to close.

Will the Minister of State for Mental Health live up to the promise he made directly to the patients in Sechelt and order the health authority to restore this centre's small grant and the vital services it provides?

Hon. G. Cheema: The only party who betrayed mental health was the NDP. We made a promise during the campaign to fully fund and implement the mental health plan. We have done that.

Hon. G. Cheema: We are ensuring that the best practices in mental health are made available to health authorities, service providers, clinicians, families and consumers. We have merged mental health and addiction to better serve our patients. We are implementing provincial depression strategy and depression-anxiety disorder strategy, the two most prevalent diseases which were ignored by the NDP.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, please. Let us hear the answer as well as the question.

Hon. G. Cheema: We are implementing Canada's first comprehensive provincial youth and child mental health plan. We are working closely with all the stakeholder organizations in this province. And finally, we are keeping politics out of the health care system.

J. MacPhail: You know, it is almost embarrassing to ask these questions when this minister is the Minister of State for Mental Health. Arrowhead drop-in centre, Sechelt…. Thank God someone is standing up to ask these questions.

This minister is closing…. He stands up and gives a little message box that he can't even do without reading it. Given that the minister's sole responsibility is to mental health patients…

J. MacPhail: …it's astonishing that he can't even give the people of Arrowhead a straight answer. They've tried talking to their local MLA; they haven't been able to get a meeting. They've tried lobbying the minister, but they've had dead silence. Now they are desperate. It's not like these patients can go somewhere

else. For mental health patients throughout the interior and the coast, these services are the only lifeline.

The Attorney General likes to talk about a court for people with mental illness. The Minister of State for Mental Health is cutting the services.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister explain to them why mental health patients who live in the interior and on the coast don't count in his government's bogus heartlands strategy?

Hon. G. Cheema: The only embarrassment for mental health is the NDP. This member, when she was the Minister of Health, made the promise to fully fund and implement the mental health plan. That plan was never approved by the Treasury Board.

We made the promise to implement the mental health plan, and we have done that. We are spending an additional $138 million to bring patients home. We are building homelike facilities across the province.

Hon. G. Cheema: We are providing compassionate care which is based on evidence-based practices. We are the only province in the whole country where there is one minister responsible for mental health. We are the only province in the whole country where we are building capacity. We are not only deinstitutionalizing, but we are bringing patients home. We are building capacities. We are providing compassionate care. The NDP was the betrayer of the mental health system in this province.

M. Hunter: Water quality is an issue of great concern to people around this province. I understand the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection recently returned from a trip to Japan where she represented Canada as president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment at the World Water Forum.

Could the minister tell the House what was discussed at the forum and what benefits British Columbians might expect from her trip?

Hon. J. Murray: At the third World Water Forum, ministers from countries around the world talked about drinking water quality, talked about ecosystem protection and pollution prevention, talked about agriculture and water, and flood management. It was very instructive how common some of the issues were around the world.

As the member mentioned, I was there as the president of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, representing the Canadian provinces and territories. But there were definitely benefits for British Columbia. I went with an executive of the ministry responsible for water quality, and so the executive and I were able to bring back the ideas, the contacts with people and the best practices and policies for protecting water quality here in British Columbia.

The last point I wanted to make was that I had the personal goal of bringing back information…

Hon. J. Murray: …that will assist us in having a living rivers strategy that really contributes to healthy communities and healthy watersheds right across the province.

R. Stewart: There's a great deal of concern across British Columbia about the SARS outbreak. Many people are concerned about how this illness can affect them, their families and their children. I ask the Minister of Health Planning if she can update us on what steps the government is taking to deal with the SARS outbreak in British Columbia.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Our top priority certainly is to ensure public health and safety, and the government continues to monitor the situation very closely. To that end, the deputy provincial health officer gave a technical briefing this morning with health authorities and medical health officers there.

At this time, we currently have two probable cases and 12 suspect cases. At this time, as well, the cause remains unknown. We do know that national and international lab testing and collaborative work is ongoing. We've taken a number of steps to prevent further spread of SARS and to protect patients, our health professionals and certainly the public.

Every suspect and probable case in B.C. is being isolated immediately to prevent further spread. The ministry has identified isolation rooms in hospitals across the province to ensure we have capacity to respond to any increase in cases. The provincial health officer sent a letter to 4,000 doctors across the province last week to make sure that they're aware of the signs and symptoms, and they know to act quickly.

Any patient in the province who seeks medical attention for a fever and has travelled to affected areas or has had contact with another SARS case is being medically screened. To make sure that our emergency rooms aren't being overwhelmed, Vancouver coastal

health authority is setting up a separate SARS clinic, and that should happen this week.

Certainly, our medical health officers across the province are communicating with schools, with school boards, with day cares and with other health facilities to make sure that kids are being screened. If they show symptoms, they are kept at home. At this time, it is not necessary to close schools. We don't need to close hospitals, and we certainly don't need to restrict visitors from hospitals. That's what the provincial health officer is advising.

We're stepping up quarantine officers at the Vancouver Airport to screen people. We are going to do everything that we can on the advice of our provincial health officer.

B. Locke: My question is to the Solicitor General. We know that jails are an essential part of our justice system. If we are to keep our communities safe, we must have the facilities to incarcerate criminals. I know from the Solicitor General's service plan that a number of provincial jails have been closed. I have heard that the provincial jails are becoming too crowded to accept more offenders. Many of my constituents are concerned about the effect this may have on sentencing criminals.

Can the Solicitor General tell us whether there is sufficient capacity in provincial correctional facilities to accommodate offenders receiving provincial jail sentences?

Hon. R. Coleman: When we took over as government, we did a review of the correctional system in British Columbia. What we found was that we had a number of facilities that were open custody, which were running as low as 33 percent capacity, and our other closed custody facilities were running below capacity.

What we did was get out of the open custody facilities simply because we weren't being sent offenders that would actually fit that continuum of correctional centre, and we moved our people into the closed custody facilities. As a result of that, we were able to rationalize our prisons, but at the same time we actually do still have capacity in our jails and are in a position to handle whatever may come along.

T. Bhullar: Given the death of so many young people, my question is to the Solicitor General. These deaths in speeding vehicles and a very tragic death last week in the member from Cloverdale's constituency…. Has the Solicitor General considered regulating the amount of horsepower for the vehicles that young people operate? Put simply, if you give them high-powered vehicles, they are going to test the speed.

Hon. R. Coleman: The one thing we've found, as we've looked at these accidents that have taken place in British Columbia, is it has not been the increase in horsepower that's been added onto the vehicles. It has been the problem that it's actually the behaviour of the driver in the vehicle that exists today.

As the member knows, last year we moved so that we could double the penalty points for people involved in racing. We put in place the fact that we could seize a vehicle on the side of the road that was involved in the activity and also made it possible for the superintendent of motor vehicles to suspend a driver's licence for up to two years for that offence. We are now looking at the entire graduated licence program, and some recommendations should be coming forward shortly with regard to the length of learners' permits, passengers in vehicles and some of the restrictions with regard to new drivers. We think that, combined with some education, will continue to push back at this issue, and we'll continue to work on whatever tools police and communities ask us to work on.

B. Lekstrom: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. The minister recently announced changes to the Workers Compensation Board appeals process. However, there are 20,000 appeals backlogged. Can the Minister of Skills Development and Labour assure us that the people will have their appeals dealt with in a timely manner?

Hon. G. Bruce: Indeed, there are actually some 22,000 backlogged appeals in the system today, and the reworking of the whole Workers Compensation Appeal Tribunal was done in an effort to be able to give timely and quality decisions so that people weren't in that process for some three to five years, as has been the case to this point. Our goal is to shorten that system down to 180 days so that people can get on with their lives and not be involved in a system that has, in some cases, been more debilitating than the actual injury they first received.

The fact of the matter is that with the 22,000…. I would just like to put that into context. There's over a million appealable decisions that take place for WCB per year. We've brought on extra staff for these 22,000 cases that are before the appeal tribunal now, and the goal is to have all of that dealt with over the course of the next two years.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I have the honour to present the service plan, 2003-06, for the office of the information and privacy commissioner for British Columbia.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members we'll be

discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, followed by the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. In this chamber, I call second reading of Bill 12.

P. Sahota: I'm proud to rise in the House to speak to Bill 12, the Police Amendment Act, 2003. I want to congratulate the minister for bringing in this legislation, because I believe it marks an extraordinary shift in law enforcement in British Columbia. This legislation will give our policing agencies the ability to better communicate with authorities in other jurisdictions and share information in real time.

Most of our police forces today use different databases that are not in real time, and the links between various police detachments are missing. The police records information management environment is the first program of its kind in Canada. It will integrate all of the provincial police forces onto one database. This system has been successfully piloted in three lower mainland communities — Richmond, Port Moody and Vancouver — and it is expected to be in place provincewide by 2004.

I know, for example, that in my community of Burnaby, the RCMP is currently not on this system. Most of the cars have a mobile workstation, but they're not connected to other jurisdictions. I recently spoke to the Burnaby RCMP superintendent, and he advised me that he's very much looking forward to a tool that will break the silos that exist today when it comes to communicating between detachments.

Bill 12 provides our crime-fighting agencies with the tools they need to crack down on crime in our communities and to break down the borders of crime. With the PRIME network, when a crime is committed in one jurisdiction, the information can be shared with all the neighbouring communities and across the province within minutes. This will be very important in a wide range of criminal activity, including auto theft, home invasions and child abductions.

Police will be able to load that information into the system and share it with the entire province in a matter of minutes. This sharing of information will also benefit law enforcement officers in recognizing patterns with crimes that might take place in different parts of the province. This will lead to a better chance of cracking cases where the information may not have been available in the past. I want to thank the Solicitor General for arming our policing agencies with this new law enforcement tool.

P. Wong: I'm pleased to rise in this House today to respond to Bill 12. This is a very important piece of legislation that will benefit all British Columbians. Our communities will be safer, and police will have the resources they need to work collaboratively and more effectively. In my riding, crime is a big issue. Residents and store owners are telling me that things are getting worse and that crime is negatively impacting their businesses and neighbourhoods.

As I have noted before, my constituents are a very proactive group, often organizing groups to tackle problems within their community. Two such groups, Dickens and Mountain View, consist of a number of concerned citizens that work together and patrol the streets at night. They assist the police by identifying problem areas and reporting them to local law enforcement.

I commend the actions of these groups and am greatly looking forward to the amended Police Act and PRIME, the police records information management environment, both of which will facilitate and enhance law enforcement activities. This bill will have a very important and immediate impact in my riding and throughout the province. PRIME is certainly a Canadian technology that all Canadians are proud of.

We recognized that we had an information problem in the past. Conventional police investigation methods are slow and inefficient, and we needed to find a solution to re-engineer police activities and use technology to streamline procedures and speed up processes. Previously, work flow in the police department was time-consuming, tedious and frustrating for all involved. Information was frequently incomplete and ripe for mistakes.

Now officers can query the central police computers about licence plates or suspects directly from the patrol car. The result is a reduced workload for computer operators at the station and better information in the field. It's just like the officers have a mobile office right with them inside the car.

There are many successful stories in many parts of Canada including London, Ontario, and Fredericton, New Brunswick. I'm glad to hear that with this newest weapon that police can use in the high-tech arsenal against crime, we'll be able to put more police officers on the street. Vancouver police officer White said: "It is an outstanding system, and we can do things now that we could never have done before."

The Premier has the vision to establish the technology council and an e-government to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of its operation. This program will serve as another successful story in a new era that we have put forward in the government. I therefore fully support Bill 12.

A. Hamilton: I also rise in support of Bill 12 and would like to thank the Solicitor General for making PRIME available to every community in B.C. — municipal and RCMP.

I'd like to talk for a minute about my personal experiences, having served approximately 31 years in the Esquimalt police department. I can talk about the change in technology and how quickly — and sometimes in our minds how slowly — it has progressed.

When I first joined the force, I can remember talking to my colleagues at the time, who had been there for several years before me. They spoke about how, when they wanted to get hold of a police officer, they would go outside and they would pull a switch. That would make all the lights in the municipality blink, and that meant the police officer had to report back to the police station because there was a call.

A. Hamilton: Not much, but we had radios in the cars, and we had a radio at the station, so we could at least speak to each other. How we did our data and how we did our checks with a suspect was called an L&M card, and what that meant was a location and movement card. If we saw somebody who was acting suspiciously — let's say in a warehouse area — we would check that person, write up all the particulars on a card and file it. Well, of course trying to find those cards when there's only one person in the office and we have no communication — we're out in the car — was a little bit difficult at the time. You can see we've progressed a long way with the advent of PRIME.

I can also relate several experiences as to why PRIME for police officers would be very important. I can remember a personal episode where I was on patrol with one of my colleagues, and we spotted this individual who was known to us. He was acting suspiciously, in my mind, so I said: "Let's check him out and see what he's up to." So we did that, and everything was fine. We didn't have any computers, as I said — just a radio — and we couldn't talk to our neighbouring police department. About half an hour later we received a call from a neighbouring police department. They gave us a description of an individual who had just committed an armed robbery in their area. We realized really quickly from the description that it was the person we had just checked. That could have had tragic circumstances for myself and my colleagues and the citizens if he had had a weapon. With no knowledge of what had transpired, it could have been very tragic. PRIME, with the ability to connect all the vehicles, will go a long way to erasing that situation.

As you can see, PRIME is not only a matter of technology. It's also a matter of safety to the police community. It also goes to checking suspects, where we would check the suspect just because he was acting suspiciously or because he was near a vehicle and we wanted to find out who it was. We would do a check on that person. Unfortunately, we had no form of ID, because, again, the information that we got on the computers that we had at the time — because now we've got computers…. We didn't really have a lot of information, because it was only local computers. We couldn't even access the files of any other departments.

As I've said, PRIME certainly will assist us in giving police officers information that could potentially save their lives or the lives of others. As the Solicitor General has said before, only the bad guys won't like this. But they don't have boundaries. Why should the police? I've spoken with the Victoria police chief and many of my former colleagues, who are also very excited, supportive and appreciative of this legislation.

R. Stewart: I want to thank my colleague from Esquimalt-Metchosin, who was very careful and deliberate in the way in which he explained how the advent of electric lights affected his work in the early days. [Laughter.]

I also want to thank the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. I want to thank him for this bill. I want to thank him for the way in which he has tackled the issue of public safety and the issue of our police forces with such interest and with such determination, because my constituents want them there. They want our police forces there to ensure our safety. They want our police forces there to enforce our laws, and they want them safe. We want them there, and we want them safe.

This bill will move us a lot forward, as the previous speaker mentioned very eloquently — and with an outstanding example of how this bill and PRIME will help improve the safety of officers as well as the enforcement of laws and the ability of our police forces to protect the citizens of our communities. We need to ensure that our police forces have the tools to proceed in the best way they can in enforcing law and in protecting our citizens.

I rise today to support this bill with every ounce of enthusiasm I can, because we must provide our police forces with the tools and the technology that's available to make certain they can achieve the results we hope they will achieve and they can do it as safely as possible for them and their families. I thank the minister, and I support this bill.

G. Trumper: I rise briefly to support this bill. Having been in the municipal world of local government for many years, knowing how costly policing is to communities and knowing the issues we've had to deal with over the years, anything that makes the job for policing easier is a great advantage.

I come from an area that only has one road in and one road out. It has always been deemed that we used to miss a lot of the crime many years ago, because it was difficult. If you had come from outside into the valley and wanted to get out with whatever you had taken, quite often there might be a roadblock. We always seemed to miss that curve that used to take place on the east side of Vancouver Island. As the years have gone by and transportation comes so much easier, and people are able to get around much more by all sorts of means, the crime level in our area certainly has risen — be it for small crime, B and Es…. We have the same issues as any community has, but in a micro sense.

At one time, as some of you know, I was the coroner for 18 years on the west coast. I can think specifically of a particular case that, at the time, was dealt

with, and it was a very sad case of what had taken place. If there had been better communication at that time between various police detachments right through the province, who knows? We might not have been faced with this very sad incident.

Today, with the new technology that's taking place, it is going to make it so much easier for our police forces — be they municipal, the RCMP or provincial policing — to keep track and be able to get the information that quickly when an incident occurs. It may well prevent sad incidents, another crime taking place in another community, because the police have got that information at their fingertips.

We have progressed a long way in communications. I know that over the last ten years and the last five years, the communications have improved so much. Whatever we can do to make this a safer place for the citizens of British Columbia, whatever we can do to make the job for the police officers a little easier — and a little safer, I might add — then we should take every advantage of making sure they have the best equipment available and the best communications systems available to enable them to do their job. For that reason, I certainly support this.

V. Roddick: As other members have already noted, the bill currently before this House promises to revolutionize policing throughout British Columbia and to ensure that all the police departments and detachments can easily cooperate to fight crime more effectively.

As was discussed with very interested Delta municipal councillors at this past year's UBCM convention, by expanding the police records and information management environment, every municipal police department and RCMP detachment in this province will be connected through an on-line shared communication system known as PRIME-BC. The innovative use of this technology will significantly modernize the way law enforcement officials operate in British Columbia. As it stands now, police departments and detachments across this province use a variety of computer systems and databases. The proposed amendments to the Police Act will make sure that crime gang members, thieves or street racers cannot elude the police in one city by simply crossing the county line, so to speak, where law enforcement may use a less up-to-date computer system or database.

My constituents in Delta South will be especially enthusiastic about PRIME-BC because our community is one of only 12 municipalities in this province with its own police force. I'll be the first to say that the Delta police department is one of the very best policing outfits in B.C., and this program will make them even better. PRIME-BC will help law enforcers make the streets safer for the many seniors and other vulnerable groups living and working throughout the province and in Delta South.

This bill reflects this government's commitment to uniting community leaders, MLAs, law enforcement experts and others in pursuit of better ways to prevent and combat crime. It will make our communities safer, modernize our police forces and ensure that policing in British Columbia continues to be the envy of police forces around the world.

PRIME-BC is what law enforcers in this province want. It's what they are asking for. It's what they deserve. This government is enhancing public safety by making sure that police forces in Delta and throughout B.C. have the tools they need to keep our communities safe.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the members of our cabinet and caucus that have spoken on this bill in the last little while as we've had this debate on different sessions, on different days.

This is really about a Premier with a vision for public safety in British Columbia, one that is committed to safer streets and safer communities in the province by taking that leadership and passing it down through the cabinet and the caucus and getting to where we do something that's actually pretty special for policing in the province.

As we go through this process with PRIME, it becomes readily apparent that there are other tools that communities need in order to fight crime. We are going to have our dialogue on crime to deal with that and to start to reinvigorate the process, where we will talk about things like sentencing, incarceration, fines, seizure of assets and whatever we need to do in order to fight back against some of the real issues that our police and law enforcement are facing in today's criminal system.

The other day I went to the training centre for PRIME as we get ready to launch it and train people on the lower Island of British Columbia. It was really something to sit there with the law enforcement officers that are actually starting to do the training, both for dispatch and for members of the police forces, as we start to bring this system into play on the lower Island and throughout the rest of British Columbia.

One of the incidents that was described to me as an example as we showed it was an incident where there was a family dispute at a residence in an area of Esquimalt on the lower Island. The dispatcher was able to bring up the history of the residents so that they could tell the police officer, as they went to the residence, what the history of the residents and the dangers were, whether there was any type of a protection order or other type of order against anybody that may be involved in the family dispute at that location. They were able to geomap it in such a way that they could actually punch in the address and bring up a map of the community and show where the location of the residence was in the community and give instructions, if necessary, to the law enforcement officer on the way, to tell them exactly how to get there or the best location to come in from.

In addition to that, as that information was going through, criminal-record checks relative to anybody that had ever had a history at the residence were also

able to be conveyed out to the officer both electronically and through the dispatch. As we got closer to the incident, if there was any type of situation which would require any type of ability to come to the residence, we could actually zone in a map and pick the exact residence out in the neighbourhood to give the officer the ins and outs of alleyways, shrubbery and the location of the residence or the scene that they were going to so that they would be better prepared when they arrived at the scene. All of this was being done in a matter of seconds in real time to the officer in the car in the demonstration and to the people at dispatch.

Without us taking leadership in this province to say that one system for that type of use for police will be the only system that we will have in this province for information management for policing, we would be failing, at the utmost, our job. It is not acceptable that some community might think that tomorrow it is going to opt out of PRIME and have its own system.

That is why this legislation is before the House today. It is so that we make it clear, in law, that one information management system is there for all police forces in the province of British Columbia, without exception, and that this system will reintegrate, across the lines of communication, all information management environments and make it possible for our law enforcement community to be more efficient and to do their jobs in a manner that is befitting of their commitment to the safety of our communities.

Without an integrated system, there would be a lack of timely and accurate information, often making effective policing difficult. In addition, there is currently no ability to conduct crime analysis to identify trends or types of problems within and among communities. This kind of analysis allows us to actually deal with crime where it is statistically as we overlook an area of the province to try and deal with particular concerns we have, whether it be in regular break and enters, drugs or things like auto theft.

We need the statistical information so that we have that information centrally, so that we can do the job properly. We have to have that multi-jurisdictional information shared by police and other justice partners so that our law enforcement community can do the job we ask them to do every day. PRIME is going to solve many of the current problems inherent in current policing information environments. It is also going to improve the basis for effective communication.

As we roll PRIME out, it will also hook directly into the national sex offender registry, and it's already hooked into CPIC as we go forward, so that we'll actually be able to use it on a national basis for statistical analysis in crime-fighting and trends. It is so important that we have this information for police to be able to let them do the job that we're asking them to do.

The amendments to the act will provide the police two core elements in support of PRIME. These are: (1) the function of evaluating compliance respecting the information management system is given to the director of police services and (2) the requirement of law enforcement services to use and pay for the information management system.

Today there are a variety of information and record management systems in policing that all cost about $300 to $500 per year, per officer. This system will be effectively the same amount of money as we go forward on an annual basis — about $300 to $500 per officer. The difference is, of course, that we are providing the legislative framework, and we're leading the initiative by putting the money forward for the capital and developmental costs across the province to get the information and the system up and running to the roadside.

The shared-resource model will split the costs. It allows us to actually rationalize this so it works for all communities in British Columbia. We've worked closely with our other justice partners — including the criminal justice branch, the court services branch, the Attorney General's corrections branch and also the joint information technology service divisions of the two ministries — to coordinate development to PRIME and JUSTIN, which is a system that will load down all the information from the court system into PRIME so that we can schedule officers, arrange trials and know what types of orders are coming to the court system in real time, so that we can deal with the examples I explained earlier in my second reading debate with regard to how we could transition this information.

All police agencies in British Columbia, the RCMP and independent municipal departments are represented on the PRIME steering committee and working groups. The B.C. Association of Chiefs of Police and the British Columbia Association of Police Boards have been involved in discussions on the benefits of PRIME and are all looking forward to its implementation.

With PRIME we are ready for the future. We are ready to link our information system with those of other police forces in Canada and even internationally. But most importantly, we will be the only jurisdiction I can find that is on one singular information management environment for all our police in the province — no borders, no silos, no breakdown in information. Real statistical information for fighting crime. The ability to actually plan personnel to fight the issues that we're seeing in communities today.

As the Solicitor General, I'm responsible for ensuring adequate and effective policing. I'm pleased with the implementation of PRIME, which will enhance the capabilities of police forces in British Columbia to deliver on this mandate.

These amendments to the Police Act and the implementation of PRIME will greatly assist in meeting the new-era commitment of ensuring that all laws are equally applied and in force for all British Columbians, and our strategic objective of safer streets and schools in every community.

As I've watched this project evolve, I am more and more convinced. The more I talk to law enforcement

officers on the street and at senior and middle management levels, I get the same thing back. This is way overdue. This is groundbreaking. It's high time some jurisdiction actually took the leadership to have one singular information management environment for policing in a jurisdiction. What we will show to the world is how integration of information across borders by policing and constant communication on a regular basis without silos will change how policing can be managed and structured, and can fight crime in our communities.

I am pretty proud of Bill 12, as are the members of this House. With pride, I move second reading of the bill.

Hon. R. Coleman: 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 12, Police 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. Abbott: It is my pleasure to move that Bill 19 be read a second time now.

I am pleased to present Bill 19, the Safety Standards Act, for second reading. A major review over the past ten years made it clear that current public safety legislation is cumbersome and perpetuates a system that is not sustainable.

Now, ten years is a long time in anyone's life, and I was quite amazed, actually, when I heard from staff that this piece of legislation had been ten years in the making. In fact, I guess the process was launched when former Premier Mike Harcourt was still the Premier of British Columbia. So it goes back a ways. I think that the product of a lot of attention has produced a very good act here.

We've learned that, over time, the safety systems become unresponsive and inflexible for contemporary commercial, industrial and institutional operations. That existing legislation resulted in inconsistent approaches to regulatory practices and in concerns for the future of public safety. In addition, factors like population growth, changes in technology and cost increases made it difficult to deliver timely and appropriate service using traditional methods.

With this legislation we can sustain and improve British Columbia's level of public safety by, first of all, combining safety legislation into this one act to make the terminology clear and the requirements consistent. As well, this legislation will provide uniform, provincewide standards across jurisdictions, increasing flexibility for field safety representatives and qualified workers and allowing for increased participation of both affected stakeholders and local government.

This legislation ensures a sustainable safety system with responsible governance, clear accountability and an enhanced level of public safety. It provides for a stable and predictable safety service for those who are regulated. The system will have flexible regulations and be adaptable to technical changes, be responsive to client needs and, very importantly, be cost effective.

In practical terms, this legislation makes possible a standardized approach across four technical disciplines: boiler, electrical, elevating devices and gas safety. It provides effective enforcement tools that level the playing field for responsible operators while at the same time reducing regulatory intrusion and discouraging non-compliance.

It provides for delegation of the administration of the act's service delivery provisions to a safety authority and voluntarily to local governments, some of which are already playing this administrative role. Less red tape and a significant reduction in regulation, as well, are the benefits of this legislation, moving us from prescriptive regulation to objective-based codes and standards.

This legislation supports our new-era commitments to streamline regulations and enhance public safety. I want to salute the members of the safety engineering staff of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services for, I think, an excellent and very extensive consultation process that they have undertaken. I thank the many dedicated people in business, industry, labour, associations and government who contributed their time and effort to the consultation process.

I am confident that this act and accompanying regulations will provide a high level of safety for the citizens of this province for years to come. It will make British Columbia a leader in innovative, sustainable safety service delivery.

Mr. Speaker, I urge all members of this House to support second reading of Bill 19.

J. MacPhail: Bill 19, Safety Standards Act, repeals the Electrical Safety Act, the Elevating Devices Safety Act, the Gas Safety Act, the Power Engineers and Boiler and Pressure Vessel Safety Act and also sections of the Railway Act. It replaces all of those five with this Safety Standards Act.

Yes, the minister is correct. Changes have been advocated in this area for over ten years. Perhaps if he checks, some of the first advocates for change actually went back to 1983, when many industry leaders were looking to privatize aspects of all of these important safety standards. I remember a very long-serving deputy minister, who had served through at least three different governments, saying to me when I first became a cabinet minister: "Beware of the left-hand drawer of the senior bureaucrat in your ministry." I said: "What do you mean?" He said: "The deputy min-

ister always has a left-hand drawer full of legislation that he or she wants to get through, which is of importance only to that person."

I've noted, watching this government bring through changes that have been examined by a government of which I had been part and rejected, that this government embraces those with wholehearted support. I've watched that. This government likes to say: "Well, you, the NDP, thought you were going to do this." I smile and say: "Oh yeah. Somebody asked us to look at doing this, and a cabinet submission was brought forward. We examined it. We talked about it in caucus, and we rejected it."

The difference between that government and this government is that anything that gets them out of the business of being responsible for anything, this government embraces. Although it has been in the works for more than ten years — almost 20 years — there are industry stakeholders with whom I have been in touch, who have actually called here. They feel that the bill is incomplete. They have been told, though, that the ministry will sort out the problems later.

It's on that basis that I wish to address this legislation. Of course, the minister himself acknowledges there is work still to be done in regulations. However, the regulations are nowhere to be found, and now matters will be determined by policy rather than being contained in the legislation itself. I have been asked to express concerns about those matters, and I have those concerns myself.

The five pieces of legislation that are being repealed are outdated, but it's important not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Those pieces of legislation have been outdated by technological advances and Building Code changes and by an evolving process of which level of government is responsible for what aspect of safety. Nevertheless, that doesn't mean that all the matters contained in those five pieces of legislation can simply be thrown out.

This piece of legislation is fundamentally important in securing the safety of all British Columbians, and it's essential that the ministry continue its consultation process with the concerned stakeholders. They have consulted, but it needs to continue. It will be up to the minister to defend this against these accusations at committee stage, because there will be many questions. What I think the ministry has failed to do, though, is listen to the feedback from that public consultation.

Many workers, many contractors still have serious reservations about some of the changes contained in the legislation, and they're worried that the government is simply pushing it through in this session with the mentality of: "Oh, don't worry. We'll fix the problems later." Well, I don't think that when matters of such import are being addressed by this legislation — the safety of everyone in this province — we can afford to have such a laissez-faire attitude about safety. If there are serious concerns that are still being raised in regard to this piece of legislation, they must be taken into account before the legislation comes into effect.

As I've said, the legislation replaces or changes five previous pieces of legislation. It does propose to create a stand-alone agency that will bear the responsibility of ensuring and regulating safety standards in British Columbia. It is my view and the view of many others that after this legislation was tabled, this government is downloading the costs and responsibilities to independent agencies that are, by definition, less accountable to the public and less transparent in their powers and decision-making.

The new piece of legislation we're discussing today, the Safety Standards Act, creates the stand-alone, non-profit agency that is now not accountable to the public. The changes made through the Safety Standards Act will require more recordkeeping, more due diligence and assumption of liability by individual workers while the government steps back into a monitoring role. Those are changes that concern me.

The government is trying to insulate itself from the responsibility that stems from safety regulations under the guise of providing more flexibility. We heard that word from the minister in his opening remarks — more flexibility for industry. In reality, the government is simply downloading responsibility for the safety of British Columbians to municipalities, to an arm's-length, non-profit organization and to individual contractors themselves. As a consequence, the level of safety in British Columbia has the potential to decline.

As I mentioned, municipalities will be particularly hard hit by this legislation. A large responsibility is being downloaded onto municipalities, and they may not be willing to shoulder the load. Liabilities will be huge for cities, and so they may decide simply to wash their hands of the whole exercise by making individual contractors responsible for the self-regulation. Without a properly regulated safety inspection, people will not be aware that anything has gone wrong, I fear, until it is too late.

The proposed legislation will also raise monetary penalties and fines, and some would say: "Good." The fines and penalties are being raised to $100,000 for individuals and $200,000 for companies. Raising fines for safety is a good idea. It's a fine idea, when it's balanced out by explicitly defined safety standards. However, in this particular situation, safety standards are being relaxed by this legislation. Contractors will be able to use "equivalent workers" instead of workers who have been properly trained and certified.

Of course, it is absolutely necessary that this government permit that, because they've destroyed the apprenticeship system. They've thrown out the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission. They've replaced it with nothing. They've completely undermined the apprenticeship system, charging tuition now for apprentices so that fewer and fewer are being trained. The government has to find some legislated way out of the mess that they've made in that area. So the fact that equivalent workers will now be permitted instead of properly trained and certified workers…. By the time an accident occurs because of improper safety standards, heavy monetary fines cannot be considered adequate to undo the damage or injury caused.

Another concern is that the version of Bill 19 that we are voting on is a slim piece of legislation void of any real, substantive details. Most of the meat of the legislation will be set out in the regulations. However, the regulations will not be debated in this House. We have no idea how the government is going to decide upon those regulations. There will be very little, if any, public scrutiny unless the minister commits to that process in an open, accountable and public way before he passes regulations. I fear, though, that the regulations will now be devised and managed solely by the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. The regulations, I fear, will not be subject to public scrutiny, certainly will not be subject to debate in the Legislature and will be able to be changed by the officials — the bureaucrats in the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

The fact is that no one yet has been advised of these regulations, so the consultation process that the minister is so proud of has not in any way included the regulation drafting to date. I think that means that the minister is asking members of this House to vote on a piece of legislation that is not fully transparent. Of course, that would be nothing new by this government. There are changes and regulations that will be added later. The minister has introduced the legislation in its current state with the idea that the problems will be worked out later, and I say again that when it comes to safety standards, later is tragically often just too late.

There are also questions surrounding "equivalent standards agreements," a concept devised by the minister to allow unskilled workers to perform certain safety operations. A contractor will now request to use equivalent or alternative methods of work. I hope that we're not, but we could read that means less qualified workers, cost-cutting measures, etc. There are no definitions in the legislation of what equivalency might imply, and therefore inconsistency will inevitably occur as different safety managers apply different meanings of equivalency, unless that issue is addressed.

Equivalency is not the only term that is not defined in the legislation. There is also no mention of what it means to be a qualified worker or a qualified person. These are three key terms that go to the very heart of understanding not only the legislation itself but also its wider implications. It is difficult to vote on a piece of legislation when everything of importance is contained in the regulations instead of in the actual legislation.

I again address the point around ITAC, because it is a very important area of concern — the concern deepened by the fact that the Minister of Advanced Education has yet to table her legislation concerning the changes made to the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, ITAC. In fact, just yesterday all of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission offices in British Columbia were closed — doors shut, locked — replaced by a single transition office in Burnaby and a phone. That's what now is the sole approach that this government has for apprenticeship training.

Many tradespeople are concerned about the correlation between the Safety Standards Act and the new, yet to be introduced industry training legislation. How will they work together? How will they relate to one another? Who will be responsible for ensuring that safety standards are met during the current transition period? It's difficult to fully appreciate the impact and implications of Bill 19 without also discussing its relationship with the upcoming industry training legislation. Yet here we are. This government is putting through its safety standards legislation without it being able to be put in the context of what trades training will look like in this province.

I will have much more to say on this bill during committee stage. However, I would like to close with these remarks. Safety standards are essentially important to all British Columbians. We have all seen the tragedy that can result from ignoring that fact. Many people in industry have spoken for the need to err on the side of caution when it comes to safety standards. Many people, both employers and the workers, have spoken to me about the need to err on the side of caution. They have asked for more time to implement the legislation, for more time to study its implications and for more time to build a piece of legislation that is prudent and cautious but that works for everybody. However, I see that this government is proceeding regardless of those concerns. I suppose we can only wait and see what the results will be. I will be having many questions at committee, and it will be at that stage when I will be able to display by a vote support or lack thereof of certain provisions of this legislation.

Hon. G. Abbott: I do thank the member for her comments. I've always been a student of history, and it was fascinating to get this particular lesson in revisionist history. I do welcome that. I think some of the comments made probably would make Joseph Stalin blush in terms of the revisionist history associated with the member's comments, but that's fine. I appreciate that she may have a different view of these things. I guess only a New Democrat could see a decade-long process as something that is ramming through a piece of legislation. Perhaps she has been unduly influenced by the dragon bones exhibit over at the Royal B.C. Museum and sees things in rather broader time periods than we do. I think, certainly, the modernization of the safety legislation that's contained in Bills 19 and 20 is long overdue, and I'm very proud that we are moving forward with those changes.

I was a tad dismayed by the opposition leader's comments about senior bureaucrats nefariously pulling things out of their left-hand drawer to bring forward to the new government. "Bureaucrat" is not a term I use a whole lot, and I think it's really unfortunate that the member makes the suggestion that somehow something nefarious is being undertaken here.

It was just as obvious to me in relation to the safety act as it was to the Museum Act that this was a change that was long overdue. I suppose the former govern-

ment was preoccupied with its fast ferries and other initiatives and couldn't undertake some of the less sexy aspects of operating a government in British Columbia. I guess we shouldn't be entirely surprised by that. I do think it is long overdue that we move forward on this very important modernization and streamlining of the safety system in British Columbia.

I was also fascinated…. Again, I'm glad she put it on the record, though, that she appeared to be suggesting that the legislation had been considered by the former NDP cabinet and rejected. Again, this appears to be quite a gem of revisionist history in terms of the development of this legislation. I, of course, was never privy to any of the discussions that went on behind the — I shouldn't say iron curtain — cabinet door of the NDP era.

It's fascinating. If they considered safety legislation and rejected it, what then did they do in the alternative? I never saw anything resembling a modernization piece for the safety system from the former government. They had a whole decade to do it, yet somehow it appears they didn't find the time, along with the Museum Act, to undertake those things. Again, I have to take the member at her word that they considered this and rejected it, but I didn't entirely become convinced by her comments that, in fact, they had done that.

The opposition leader also noted that she had been asked to express concerns with respect to this act. It would be fascinating to know who asked her to express concerns about this act. I know that on numerous occasions, consultative processes were undertaken with the full range of stakeholders around the safety system. I know this for a fact because I chaired one meeting that involved representatives of the B.C. Federation of Labour. They were there. They certainly weren't asking for this legislation to be rejected. I'd be fascinated to know who's asked her to express concerns.

This is outdated legislation, and again I ask — it's always appropriate to criticize, I guess, particularly when you're in the opposition: where's the alternative? After a decade of NDP government, where was the alternative to the safety legislation that we are proposing here today?

The member was correct in one thing — that consultation needs to continue with respect to the development of the regulations that will ultimately accompany the legislation contained in Bill 19. We don't see the process of legislation — I think this, perhaps, makes us a little different than the former government — as one in which a great truth is delivered via legislation onto the floor of the House and is wholeheartedly embraced and becomes the perfect truth and the whole answer for eternity. In fact, in every corner of my ministry and in every corner of government, we need to continue to work with stakeholders to always find ways to make them more efficient and effective. I certainly undertake to do that on a daily basis.

It's certainly not a case here where we have failed to listen to public feedback — just the opposite. We have had the mother of all consultative processes around the development of this safety legislation and the development of the new safety authority, including, among others — and I'm sure the opposition leader would salute them — the B.C. Federation of Labour. They were full participants in this. I thank them for that, and I thank the many other participants in this process for the very thoughtful, important observations they brought to bear.

In some cases they had concerns about moving ahead. That's good; that's good. This is all part of the process of hearing people and understanding their concerns. By doing so, you immeasurably strengthen the legislation which is then brought before the Legislature.

The opposition leader also used that magical term "downloading" in relation to this. She didn't explain how it was downloading. I'm fascinated to hear her opinion in the committee stage of the bill about how this could possibly be construed as downloading, given particularly that the safety engineering system that we have today is somewhere around 90 percent self-supporting. Whether we have the government directly delivering safety services, as we are today, or we have a safety authority delivering the safety standards, as we will have about a year from now, it doesn't matter. The system is essentially self-supporting. I don't even know how you could construct an academic argument about this being downloaded. It's just purely nonsensical, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised by that. Many of the theses argued by the opposition leader are, in fact, entirely nonsensical, so why should this be any different?

She also suggested the new system wouldn't be accountable to the public. That is all wrong. Through a variety of mechanisms — and we'll get into that more in Bill 20 — we certainly are going to be accountable to the public of British Columbia. It's important that people understand that the provincial government is not deserting the field of safety standards management. In a whole range of areas we continue to have a primary role.

The principal change here that is contained in Bill 19, and we'll note it again in Bill 20, is that government moves out of direct delivery of those safety standards. It's an important distinction. Government doesn't need to be in the business of delivery. What it does is leave government in a more powerful, more focused position to be managing the things that government can add value through, for example, legislation; regulation; the setting of standards, which is absolutely critical in the system; quality assurance, which is obviously very important to the public and to people who work in the system; and policy and program development. Those are the areas where government brings value to their work. They don't have to be in the business of directly delivering.

I think that's obviously a point. I hope it's not too subtle a point that it's escaped the opposition leader, but that's a fundamental point about what we're doing here.

Again, in a fairly typical fashion for her, the opposition leader suggested this was another example of municipal downloading. Well, I'll give her this. The hon.

Leader of the Opposition is certainly an expert in municipal downloading. She was, after all, part of the NDP government back in 1996. I hope people haven't forgotten this. Back in 1996, when the NDP government got into some financial difficulty, what did they do about it? Did they make the difficult changes that our government has made in respect to trying to get control of the finances? No. They passed on their problem to the municipalities of British Columbia in the form of an outright breach of the Local Government Grants Act. Arbitrarily, unilaterally, without any notification, without any discussion, the NDP government of 1996 downloaded by withdrawal of $113 million in local government grants. Against their own law they downloaded an additional $113 million in costs on municipalities in British Columbia, so she is clearly an expert in this area, and I'll give her that. She also speaks out of both sides of her mouth with respect to this.

There is absolutely no municipal download in respect of either the safety act or the new safety authority that is embraced in Bill 20. Again, as I noted earlier, this function is essentially self-sustaining. For the 11 municipalities in British Columbia that deliver safety programs through electrical inspections, gas inspections and so on, those functions are entirely self-sustaining and will continue to be self-sustaining under the new model.

We aren't moving away from something that we had in the past. This is a new way for the province to deliver on its standards. We are not changing the financial relationship one piece with this in relation to the municipalities. The suggestion that this is in some way municipal downloading is entirely false, and we shouldn't be entirely surprised by that kind of assertion coming from the opposition.

Importantly as well, and I'm sorry to be going on at some length here, but I think it's important that I do…. The opposition leader, I suspect wilfully, confuses the issue of equivalent standards, which I think is a very important aspect of this legislation and of the regulations that will follow. She confuses that with the issue of qualified workers. I think she does it as a backdoor way to undertake her criticism of the important changes in the ITAC model that are going to be coming from the Minister of Advanced Education. I guess that's politics. But it's important for the people of British Columbia to understand, I think, that she confuses those two very important issues.

I do want to say this. As part of the safety legislation and as part of the new safety authority, we will continue to see qualified workers undertaking the safety jobs in British Columbia, and those qualified workers are going to be part of a system where public safety and workers' safety continue to be the centrepieces of our safety system in British Columbia. We will, in the months ahead, be developing regulations, again in consultation with a broad range of stakeholders. The notion that somehow the regulations won't be under the scrutiny of the public…. I mean, frankly, I'm astonished by that argument. How the new regulations could, for example, be one iota less subject to the scrutiny of the public than are the existing regulations…. It's all going to be out in the open. It's all going to be there for consideration. We'll certainly be hearing a range of views as we move forward with those regulations. In some cases, we may have differences of opinion about what is appropriate regulation, and that's good too. Differences of opinion always help us to advance our thinking and to build from a better plane of understanding.

The process is certainly going to be open. It's certainly going to be inclusive. Certainly, we look forward to working with stakeholders to build on what is, in British Columbia today, a very good safety record. Bill 19 and Bill 20, which we'll be discussing in just a moment, are going to build on that very successful safety record we have in British Columbia. We're going to be building on the experience of other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world to make our safety system the most modern, the most streamlined, the most effective safety system that exists in Canada and, I suspect, anywhere on the globe. British Columbians can move forward knowing that their safety system is the very best and that their government is working very hard to make it even better.

Hon. G. Abbott: 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 19, Safety Standards 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.

I'm pleased to present Bill 20, the Safety Authority Act, for second reading. A major review revealed that our public safety system had become increasingly stressed due to rapid technological change, population growth, escalating costs and outdated legislation. In the years since that review, many people from industry, business, government, labour and associations have devoted time and effort in shaping a modern system to ensure a responsive, sustainable safety system for today and tomorrow.

This legislation is one of the results of that review and consultation. The Safety Authority Act provides for the administration of safety delivery components of the Safety Standards Act by an independent, not-for-profit safety authority.

The authority will be fully cost-recovered through fees for service, for inspection and for licensing and certification. Currently, the safety program is about 90

percent cost-recovered. The authority will set the fees in consultation with industry and based on criteria established by the province and outlined in the administrative agreement. Having control over the revenues collected, the authority can ensure that all funds are reinvested in the safety system.

There are other advantages as well. This act allows the delivery of safety services by an organization that operates under the same rules and principles as most stakeholders, making the safety services more relevant, stable and predictable. The authority will observe sound business principles while fostering safety and will operate with the direction and advice of a qualified board of directors. Strong checks and balances built into the system will ensure public safety standards are met.

Be assured that government continues to be responsible and accountable to British Columbians for public safety programs. While the British Columbia Safety Authority will be responsible for the day-to-day administration of safety services, the government continues to be responsible to set legislation, regulation and major external policies; adopt codes and standards by regulation; manage relationships related to interprovincial codes and standards; oversee local government participation in the safety system; establish the fee-setting process and criteria; oversee the appeal process; delegate administrative powers to the authority; and, finally, monitor results.

Along with the Safety Standards Act, this legislation will modernize the safety system while maintaining and enhancing one of the best provincial safety records in Canada. It will ensure reliable, efficient and effective delivery of the public safety system for British Columbia for many years to come. I look forward to a second reading of this bill.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate on second reading.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think, in my earlier comments in relation to Bill 19, I covered off most of the areas here. This safety authority is a very important piece in the modernization of safety delivery in the province. It is going to make for an even stronger safety system for this province. We have built on the experience of jurisdictions elsewhere in Canada and around the world in developing this model. I'm very confident in the very extensive and very professional work that has been done by staff in my ministry and, indeed, across government as they moved forward to implement the goal of a stronger, sustainable, efficient, effective safety system and safety authority for the province of British Columbia. I look forward to all members supporting this on second reading.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move that Bill 20 be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 20, Safety Authority Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. R. Coleman: I call estimates debate. For the information of the members, we will be discussing the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to explore the area of the ministry of state for women's equality first. Just for the information of the committee, I will have a few questions on housing and then the Olympics.

Could the minister tell the committee what the income threshold for receiving child care subsidies was in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003?

Hon. L. Stephens: The income levels that determine the monthly subsidy vary quite a bit, primarily because of the size of the family and the income level of the family, but I can give the member some examples, if she wishes. If you took a single parent working with a four-year-old in group care, previously they would qualify for the top subsidy at $1,297 net monthly income. That subsidy would have been $368 a month. The new one is $368 a month, with the raising of the level to approximately $1,400 net a month. Under the new system that begins in May, we'll see the monthly amount of $368 for a single parent working with a four-year-old in group care. If you have a single parent in school with a two-year-old and a four-year-old in family care, with a net monthly income of $1,490, currently the level of subsidy is $758, and the new subsidy will be $758. The full subsidy for this parent is $758 a month.

J. MacPhail: I know the minister is giving me the facts, but she's avoiding the question. The income

Hon. L. Stephens: The difficulty arises around the size of the family and the income level of the family. There is a formula, and that's what makes it difficult to give a definitive number for the member. But I'll just say again that a single parent working with a four-year-old in group care, with a monthly income of $1,297 a month, qualifies for the full subsidy of $368 a month. This person would also be eligible for full subsidy with a net monthly income of up to $1,397 a month. So it's difficult to give the member the number that she's looking for, because it does vary because of the size of the family and the income level of the family.

J. MacPhail: Let me try this. By how much did the minister raise the threshold for people to qualify and, therefore, people lost part of their child care subsidy? If the minister is going to stand up and try to obfuscate with figures to show that nobody can figure out how she cut, then I'll just move on to another question.

Hon. L. Stephens: I'm sure the member is looking for the decisions that were made around child care subsidy a year ago. This is when the income threshold was raised by $285 a month, which meant that there were some families who no longer qualified for subsidy. Since then, we have made the change, and we have raised the threshold by $100. We now have approximately 3,000 children that will be eligible for subsidy, and we'll have a further 6,000 children who will have their subsidy increased, for a total of approximately 9,000 children.

J. MacPhail: In fact — and I understand how this can happen — the minister said she raised the threshold, and in fact she lowered the threshold. Here's what happened. The families who previously qualified for child care subsidies — and therefore could stay in the workforce — had their threshold income changed so that if you earned $285…. In other words, the threshold was reduced by $285 per month. Previously, if you earned $1,500 a month, you would qualify for some subsidy. This government reduced it so that you would only be able to earn $1,215 per month in order to qualify for any subsidy.

I think the minister is looking for a pat on the back, because as of May 2003, if a family now has an income of $1,315 per month, they will continue to qualify for the subsidy. What the government did was they knocked thousands of children off the child care subsidy list, and they're now trying to claim credit because they added a few thousand more children back.

The B.C. Coalition of Women's Centres states that before April 2002, a single mom could earn $9.20 an hour or less and still earn a subsidy. Now she must earn $8.73 an hour or less to qualify. Where is it that the minister feels…? Even after she's restored some children to receiving a subsidy, where is it that the minister gets the gumption to stand up and say they support children and child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: The changes that have been made to the child care system are based on the sustainability of the child care system and the predictability and the choices for parents.

The changes that were made to the child care subsidy…. When we looked at the results of those changes and the Ministry of Human Resources was able to realize some organizational efficiencies within their ministry, we looked at putting money back to child care, particularly for parents, recognizing that many low-income parents and single-parent families struggle with finding the funding they require to make sure their children have access to quality child care. That's what we've done.

We were very clear, as was the Premier, that when we looked at the strategic shifts that we made in the budgeting process, we would evaluate those decisions, and where we found that we needed to make some changes, we would do that. This is one of those instances where we found that we needed to put some funding back in, and quite simply that's what we've done. We've raised that level to $100. Frankly, member, I'm looking forward to the day when the economy of the province picks up, we have a lot more people working and paying taxes, and we can contribute further to parent subsidy in this province.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister will be waiting a long time because the good Liberal government has placed our economic growth in this country number ten in 2003, number ten in 2004, and we may move up to the seventh- or eighth-lowest in 2005. Those forecasts from the banks are based on a resolution to the softwood lumber dispute, and that's nowhere in sight.

So what does this government do? Instead of actually using the relative resources of government to cushion the effects on families because of the downturn in the economy, this government gives it all away to the richest and the corporations, and then cuts the child care subsidy.

The child care subsidy for a single mom with a four-year-old, the minister just said, was $368 a month. Well, the good news is that that same family got the same subsidy when Bill Vander Zalm and the Social Credit government were in power, and they lost power in November of 1991. But what's happened to day care costs since 1991? Well, for that same family that gets a subsidy of $368, the average cost for a day care space now is $495 to $537 and rising every day because of the cutbacks this government has made.

Let me just read a letter from a woman — well, I assume it's a woman; my apologies if it's not — in Gibsons, B.C., a single mom trying to get by on this government's reduced child care subsidy. I shall read it into the record, and I got permission to do so.

What is it that the minister doesn't get about the fact that her attack on working families is hurting not only the families and the children but the economy?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I will say to the member opposite that we looked at the child care subsidy. We looked at the number of children, particularly in some of the inner-city school areas of the province. We talked with child care providers, and we've made the decision to put that $100 back into child care subsidy.

As I said earlier, I look forward to the day when we can, in fact, increase that. There hadn't been a change to child care subsidies since 1995, so there were plenty of opportunities to increase that subsidy over the years. As the finances of the province improve, I look forward to being able to do that.

J. MacPhail: There were many changes to supporting child care, and we'll get into those, because the minister's cut them all. I hear the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services trying to say: "Well, you know, we're no worse than the previous administration." That's what they've been reduced to, and of course, even that nobody is believing, because they are worse than the previous administration by a long shot.

Isn't it interesting? A government that came in here with a 77-seat majority, and their claim now is: "Well, we're no worse than anybody else." I'm sure every person who voted for this government is standing with pride, saying: "My gosh, they're doing a good job on our behalf." I heard the rant of the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services — an absolute rant. It's surprising how easy it is to get them off their agenda. Just make a little speech, pointing out something they haven't heard in caucus from the sheep, and they have to go off on a 20-minute rant. It's very easy to throw them off their agenda.

Now we hear from the Minister for Women's Equality. I know how it is to be insulated and isolated in the nice protective cocoon of the Liberal caucus, where everybody is hoping to be in cabinet. Everybody's got the cone of silence on them now, because there's going to be a big cabinet shuffle. Everybody is jockeying for position, not wanting to hurt the feelings of the Premier, because they know there's a whole bunch of people who are going to be changed over on the government benches. They're all hoping they'll be moved over there. So nobody is standing up and asking any questions. That became extremely obvious last night. The amount of e-mail I'm getting about the lack of performance by the Liberal MLAs last night is the most I've ever had.

Now this minister stands up and says: "Well, we're hoping the economy is going to turn around." Hmm, let's see. Would that be what they said just a short 21 months ago? Is that what the New Era document said: "Well, we've got to cut child care because we're hoping the economy will turn around"? Wasn't it going to be: "We're going to cut taxes, give the rich a huge tax cut and they're going to pay for themselves. It's going to be nirvana"? I can hardly wait to circulate the minister's comments that she's hoping the economy will turn around.

Let's just have an assessment about how many children were covered by a day care subsidy in 2001 and how many were eligible for a day care subsidy in 2002. Of course, we know that people are fleeing this province. We know that particularly families are fleeing this province because of all the cutbacks, but let's just try — even given that — to put it in context.

Hon. L. Stephens: The estimated numbers were between 39,000 and 42,000 — pre-changes — because of the fluctuation in children coming on and off child care. We are now estimating that 36,000 children will be covered with parent subsidy.

Hon. L. Stephens: For the current year, approximately 33,000. With the changes that will come into effect in May, it will be 36,000.

J. MacPhail: So 6,000 children were booted out of child care, and the government wants credit a year later for putting 3,000 of those 6,000 back. Maybe, actually, 9,000 children were booted out of child care by this government — no other reason — and the government is putting 3,000 to 6,000 of those children back on child care subsidies. But who knows whether the parents have survived in the meantime, whether the parents have actually been able to stay in the workforce? Certainly, this letter that I just read into the record…. That single parent was at threat of even being able to stay in the workforce.

What's been the feedback to the minister booting off 9,000 children and then restoring child care subsidies to 3,000 to 6,000? Has the minister received flower bouquets for that?

Hon. L. Stephens: Parents are generally appreciative of the fact that we're now able to put $100 back in,

as we expect they would be. That's not to say that there are still not challenges out there for parents and for child care providers, because there certainly are. We are making some structural changes to the way we organize and deliver child care programs, making them more sustainable and certainly more equitable across the province. So with the changes we've made to the operating grant, those should go a long way in assisting parents to access quality child care.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to read into the record some of the praise she's receiving. I actually haven't seen it. Maybe the minister would like to stand up and read into the record the praise.

Hon. L. Stephens: I would be happy to send those to the member opposite. Unfortunately, we have none here today, but I can make sure that she receives them.

J. MacPhail: I'd be happy to have that, and I look forward to it. I hope that my mailbox can actually contain all of that. Very often people copy me — in fact, most of the time people copy me — on correspondence, and I guess they've missed my mailbox. The ones who are crying out in anguish have reached my mailbox, but not the ones the minister says she's receiving, so I would be happy to receive that. Of course, the minister has received a great deal of criticism even for the most recent announcement, but of course, the minister disregards that criticism coming as just being political.

The budget for the child care operating funding program this year is $48 million. How much was it in 2001?

R. Lee: I'm very honoured to have some visitors from Beijing. They are Sang Peng, deputy director of the office for international cooperation and exchanges, Beijing Municipal Education Commission, the People's Republic of China; Mr. Wang Guangfa, chairman, Beijing Justice Group and Beijing Royal School; Ms. Lin La, director of the international department, Beijing Justice Group; Ms. Zhang Chunjing, principal of Beijing Royal School; Mr. Ren Jianglong, director of startup office, Beijing Royal School; Ms. Kathy Jiang, senior consultant, Beijing Justice Group; and also Mr. Pato Chan, president of EIC, the Education Institute of Canada. Would the House join me to welcome this delegation.

Hon. L. Stephens: We have the numbers for '02-03, but unfortunately, we don't have them for '01-02. I can give you last year's number. That was $53.173 million, and it included the operational funding for eligible licensed group and family child care providers that received the compensation contribution program funding, the infant and toddler incentive grant and the transition funding program for out-of-school providers.

J. MacPhail: So from '02-03 to '03-04, there has been a reduction of about $6 million. I actually have the figure. It's a $14.6 million reduction from '01-02. Think about that. It's a reduction of almost 30 percent. Hmm, a 30 percent reduction in the child care operating funding program since this government took over.

What's the budget for the child care operating funding program for '03-04 and '04-05? Oh, '03-04 has already been given, so for '04-05.

J. MacPhail: Why not? This government prides itself on a three-year fiscal plan. It's the cornerstone. Why not? It's basic.

Hon. L. Stephens: We will be receiving some funding from the federal government, and we have a variety of programs we're finalizing, including the capital grant, so we will be moving funds around very likely — maybe, maybe not. This is why we cannot give the member a definitive number for that year.

J. MacPhail: Well, what is it now? What did you have to book to get your budget passed?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, through you, what did the minister have to book for her to get her fiscal plan approved for '04-05?

J. MacPhail: For '04-05. So what programs are being…? Well, let me read the list out. This will be easier. Here are the programs that are being eliminated, according to the information from child care advocates. The new program structure will eliminate certain child care programs such as contribution and compensation staff incentive. That's the increased child care worker wages to attract and keep staff. Is that true?

Hon. L. Stephens: The only funding cuts to wages have been the elimination of the Monroe funding agreement. That was a union agreement for 39 centres, and that has expired as of March 31 of this year. What we have done is combine the three child care operating

programs into one. That one program was a compensation contribution program, and it included funding for wages, among a few other things. What we've done is raise the amount that will be available for child care centres, and it will be a combination of these three programs — the compensation contribution program, which included wages, the infant and toddler incentive grant and some of the money from the transition out-of-school program.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to actually tell the public, to name the centres that are getting more money and how much.

Hon. L. Stephens: There are approximately 4,600 child care centres and family providers in the province. There are approximately 1,600 centres and preschools who will receive an increase, of the 2,400 centres and preschools in the province. All family providers — and there are 2,400 family providers — will receive an increase in funding.

J. MacPhail: I will get to figuring this out. There are all sorts of people out there figuring it out. We can have fun with math and spend hours here doing this, or the minister can just come clean.

There are 4,600 child care centres, and 2,400 family providers will get an increase. How much? So far the minister has said that 1,600 centres and preschools will get an increase. Just add it up. Take the 4,600 and just say who's not getting an increase, who's getting cut. How do you know the 2,400 family providers are going to get an increase?

Hon. L. Stephens: There are about 880 group child care providers that will receive less operating funding than they are currently receiving. That is due to the reduction in Munroe, which affects about 100; the out-of-school transition funding program, which affects about 600; this supplementary little special funding from the compensation contribution program, and there are about 30 of those. Then there are the child-minding centres, which we are no longer funding; there are about 150 of those.

Just to perhaps give the member some sense of what that means, what we can do is give you the age grouping that we're going to be funding now. In group zero to three, the current operating funding — this is an average of per child per month — is $163. With the new operating funding, the average per child per month will be $220.

For the three-to-kindergarten age group, the current operating funding averages $48 a month. That will increase to $117 a month. For grade 1 and up, the current operating is $25. It will increase to $49. In preschool, the current operating funding is $13 and will increase to $29. In family care, the zero-to-three age group currently gets $50 a month. That will increase to $68. Three-to-kindergarten has never been funded. They will now receive $60. The grade 1 and up, who have never been funded in family care, will now receive approximately $31 a month. Now, these are the average per child per month.

J. MacPhail: Of the 880 child care centres that are getting a cut, how many children are they responsible for?

Hon. L. Stephens: That's information that we can provide to the member. We would have to go through those centres one by one and calculate the number of children that are there and what category they are in. We can get that information for the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, how many children will get a benefit then by having child care provided by family providers?

Hon. L. Stephens: The estimated number that we have for children who would benefit is about 17,000 in the family child care.

J. MacPhail: Let me get this straight. The ministry can, at the drop of the hat, tell me how many children benefit, but they can't me tell me how many children in centres are having their funding cut? Has the ministry abandoned all of those centres, in terms of keeping track of the stats of where they're cutting funding? How is it that that stat was available and the one I asked for on the cuts to the child care centres wasn't available?

Hon. L. Stephens: The number is easier to figure out with the family providers because there's just the one group. In group care there are a number of different categories, and we can do that for the member now. It will just take a few minutes; that's all. If she cares to wait, we can certainly do that. If not, we can make sure they get that number in the next day or two.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'd appreciate it if one of the staff could work on it now.

In terms of group care, regulated care, what is — if any — dedicated funding for infant and toddler needs?

Hon. L. Stephens: Out of the total budget, the funding that is going to infant and toddler care is $15.9 million, with $12.6 million to group and $3.3 million to family providers. That means that in the group centres, the increase is $57 per child per month. In the family care, it's an increase of $18 per child per month.

J. MacPhail: What accountability measures are going to be in place to ensure that child care providers are spending the money as they should?

Hon. L. Stephens: We are putting in place an accountability measure for the child care providers, and they will be required to file the profile of their centre

annually. They will be subject to spot audits, and they will be required to file monthly reporting on their enrolments. This will enable us to get better data and to track the numbers of children and where they are much better than we're able to do now.

Hon. L. Stephens: No, it is not. It will be part of the contract that providers may or may not ask for funding. This is going to be part of the contract. If they choose to ask for funding, they're perfectly free to do so.

J. MacPhail: I'm told that the monthly funding…. There must be monthly reporting, and it will be based on the monthly reporting that the funding flows. There are concerns in rural and remote communities about this because of the seasonal employment that takes place, particularly in northern communities, so that child care enrolment fluctuates. It fluctuates through the year. Northern health care providers are extremely concerned about this. Monthly enrolment fluctuates so much, and if funding is contingent upon that, then there will be centres that will not be able to continue.

Hon. L. Stephens: When we looked at how we were going to fund the child care spaces, we looked at the current system, which is by licence type, and we looked at funding by enrolment. We decided to go with enrolment, because we wanted to encourage as many children as possible to be enrolled in child care centres. I think the member knows there are many children who are looking for child care spaces, and we wanted to make sure we maximized the number of spaces that were there. This is why we've chosen to go with enrolment over the type of licensing that a centre may have. We will be monitoring these changes very carefully.

We do know and understand that the needs of families in the smaller communities and the more rural and remote communities of the province can be different, so we will be making sure we monitor this as we go along. If there are some changes that are required, we'll certainly look at them at that time.

J. MacPhail: What's the time frame for monitoring this, prior to change occurring or confirming the program?

Hon. L. Stephens: We are going to be developing the evaluation process over the next number of months. We anticipate that within six months we'll have the ability to make those kinds of determinations.

J. MacPhail: Has the minister or her staff had representations on this issue?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, I'll say to the member that, going with the enrolment-based funding, we wanted to make sure that we maximized the number of spaces and that we weren't funding empty child care spaces. Now, having said that, there have been centres who have made representation to the child care branch voicing some concerns about what that may or may not mean for their particular situation. We do want to make sure that the system is stable and predictable.

As I said, we're going to be looking at the results of the new funding formula over the next number of months to determine whether or not it's working well and whether child care providers have that stability and predictability they require. Again, when we do our evaluations, if we need to make some changes, we'll look at those at that time.

J. MacPhail: This change in enrolment funding as opposed to centre funding — the minister can couch it in any term she likes. But just the same way that the Minister of Human Resources cut people with disabilities off welfare because he assumed there were people who were not being funded appropriately, there is very little, if any, evidence that the government was funding empty seats — very little evidence. Even if there was a tiny bit of evidence, to turn the system upside down is merely a guise for the funding cuts. That's all it is.

At a minimum, I hope this monitoring centre is done in a way that actually doesn't just try to provide the veil for the funding cut and actually takes care of the statistics around the important issues facing children.

The minister mentioned earlier the fed-prov child care agreement. Can she expand on the contents of that agreement, the time lines for distributing that funding from the federal government to the provincial government?

Hon. L. Stephens: I am very pleased that the provinces were able to come to an agreement with the federal government for child care and early learning. It is a service that more and more people are recognizing that we need to pay more attention to, put more resources in and to develop at a little higher level.

We are going to be following roughly the same kind of reporting process as is the case with the early childhood development initiative. We will be required to report on our spending and where it has been spent. The agreement calls for that money to be spent in regulated child care. We are due to receive this funding year, '03-04, $3.25 million through the CHST. We have not received that yet. As we go out in the out years, over the five-year period, we will receive almost $120 million for British Columbia. As the years go out, the funding increases, ending in '07-08 with $46 million.

J. MacPhail: I was told by the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development that all of the money has to go into regulated child care. Is that correct?

Hon. L. Stephens: That is correct. The funding that is coming to us for child care and early learning is to be spent in the child care programs. We are in the process now of making plans for how that can be done.

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes. Family child care is eligible. It's regulated licensed care that is the criterion for the federal funding.

Just to go back. Family providers — of the 2,400 family providers, are they all licensed?

J. MacPhail: What are the discussions that are going on? The first year is $3.25 million. How is that money going to be spent? What criteria have been established?

Hon. L. Stephens: For that amount of money, we're looking at where we can get the biggest bang for our buck in terms of supports for child care. Those decisions haven't been made yet. We don't have the money, and as I said, we are in the process of developing where we will put those extra resources this year and in the years that follow.

Hon. L. Stephens: We are consulting across government. We will be speaking with the Provincial Child Care Council and seeking their input as well.

J. MacPhail: What ministries are involved? When you say across government, what does that mean?

Hon. L. Stephens: Children and Family Development, who have responsibility for supported child care. They are making some significant changes to the way they deliver their programs, as the member knows. We're looking at how we can make sure that we have programs that are integrated and coordinated across government. So those discussions are going on at the moment.

J. MacPhail: What are the reporting requirements demanded by the federal government?

Hon. L. Stephens: The reporting mechanism is very similar to the early childhood development initiative, which means that it has to be public, that there has to be a baseline set, and then you have to be able to show the incremental spending on the out years. This year we will be setting that baseline. We will be determining the reporting mechanism that we use. I believe we have to have that complete by November of this year.

J. MacPhail: The federal government has set a date of November for '03-04? The regulated child care spending now is $48 million. Is that not the base?

Hon. L. Stephens: There's other funding that we put into regulated care, licensed care — the subsidy dollars, for instance — and the capital funding and supported child care. We're looking at all of those different programs and how we can come up with a funding arrangement that will benefit the most number of children.

J. MacPhail: So the base will include things like capital, supported child care, child care subsidy and program spending. What else?

J. MacPhail: The government sets that, and then all of the $3.25 million spending has to be above that.

J. MacPhail: It took us quite a while to get the reporting out from '01-02 from the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development on federal programs targeted in that area. I guess I shouldn't have rolled my eyes that the federal government has asked for this by November, because it took much longer than that to get it out of the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development. The minister has to put all of this out by November of this year. Will it be posted on the website?

Hon. L. Stephens: Yes, it will be posted on the website. It's required to be public, and it will be.

I think provinces and ministries learned a great deal from the reporting process of the early childhood development initiative, and so we'll be able to use some of the techniques they have used there. The federal government also recognized that the provinces have different programs, so this is why there is some time allocated for everyone to get their report in by November. That will allow all the provinces to do what they need to do to make sure it gets in there at that time.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister tell us what funding is flowing from the federal government for aboriginal child care?

Hon. L. Stephens: The amount included in the federal new dollars of $900 million will have an additional $35 million for aboriginal child care. There is still not,

to my knowledge — and perhaps you want to speak to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development…. I'm not aware that the money has been forwarded on to us either. There is some suggestion that some of the other aboriginal child care money that the federal government allocated last year has not arrived yet either, so perhaps you want to raise that issue with the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development.

Hon. L. Stephens: The $35 million I mentioned, of course, was nationally. That's not what we're getting here in British Columbia. I wanted to clarify that, in case I was misrepresenting anything. The $35 million is nationally. The federal government will be directly consulting with first nations. The money will flow directly to first nations, and there won't be any money flowing in '03-04. For whatever reason, the federal government has decided it's not going to flow that money until '04-05, but it will be directly with first nations.

J. MacPhail: Is it the minister's understanding that she will be responsible for that?

Hon. L. Stephens: No, member, that will not be part of my responsibilities at all.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I did ask those questions to the Minister of State for Early Childhood Development, and she did refer me to the Minister of State for Women's Equality.

The government intends to eliminate the child care resource and referral program. That was a database for mothers to identify child care spaces. Why did the minister eliminate that program?

Hon. L. Stephens: I just want to go back to the aboriginal for a moment. The federal dollars are separate from us. The child care funding that we provide for first nations…. Last year we provided $185,000 to the first nations here to develop some programs that will support their child care spaces. Within the child care in British Columbia, we are working with first nations to make sure that we can support and provide funding for first nations child care as well.

The child care resource and referral centres are completely funded until March 31, 2004. We have been working very closely with them over the last number of months and will continue to do so, to develop a quality enhancement initiative that we believe will be beneficial for child care providers and for parents. We are hoping to develop a provincial website for child care resource and referral. That is one of the outcomes we have committed to.

We're very well aware that the services parents require are valuable. We're looking at how we can perhaps partner with some of the community organizations to reduce costs. We're looking at how we can perhaps work with the Ministry of Children and Family Development as they develop their parent support programs. There are still a number of ways that we're looking at to preserve those child care resource and referral programs as much as possible.

J. MacPhail: The minister has eliminated the one-stop access program. That's a program for child care subsidies in the north. What's the plan for replacing that service?

Hon. L. Stephens: The one-stop programs have not been eliminated or terminated at all.

J. MacPhail: Is that true of Westcoast Resource and the Inform program as well?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Is the one-stop access program one that's going to be cut on March 31, 2004?

Hon. L. Stephens: Again, member, those one-stop access centres are very valuable. I just said that I thought we could use the same concept to provide services around the province, which is why I suggested that we're going to be looking at community organizations to partner with. The one-step access centres are a good pilot project and demonstrate clearly that that concept works well.

We've got a lot of options available to us. We're going to be working through them and making final decisions well before March 31, 2004. I recognize that organizations that are faced with significant change want to know what that entails just as soon as possible. We're prepared to do that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So the one-step access program, Westcoast Resource and the Inform program funding ends a year from now — okay? I realize that with this government you have to be very specific when you ask them the questions.

Those two programs meet the needs of rural and northern areas. That would be the heartlands. Their programs are being cut. If you need child care in the heartlands, you need a computer. Is that it?

Hon. L. Stephens: Member, I just said that over this next year we're going to be working with communities — that includes the heartlands of the province and the small and rural and remote parts of the province — to make sure that we do have resource and referral services for them. We're going to be looking at those communities and how we can partner with other community organizations. That's what we will continue to do. We recognize the value of these programs,

and we're going to be making every effort to make sure that communities retain them.

J. MacPhail: What are the minister's plans to provide adequate wages and benefits for credentialed child care workers?

Hon. L. Stephens: The increased operating grants that I spoke about earlier…. Because centres are receiving more in terms of their operating funding, they should be able to maintain their level of remuneration for their employees. However, it is up to the child care non-profit society or private operator to determine what their level of pay will be for their employees, and I'm sure they will do that. There isn't a stipulation that X number of this operating grant must go to wages and salaries. We feel that the child care operators are best able to make those kinds of business decisions on their own.

J. MacPhail: And yes, they are making business decisions as we speak. Has the minister been able to come up with how many children are looked after by the 880 centres that are having their funding cut?

Hon. L. Stephens: The ministry is now funding 73,000 spaces — up from 45,000 previously. That is due to the family child care providers that we are now funding. Of 73,000 spaces, 28,000 will see their funding decline, and this is directly related to the out-of-school program, which was the universal funding assistance program of the previous administration. There are 22,000 spaces there. These are very rough numbers, so I'll say this is approximate. There are 3,000 spaces in child-minding which we will not be funding, and approximately 3,000 that are related directly to Munroe. There are 45,000 spaces whose funding will increase. There are 17,000 preschool, 17,000 three-to-five-year-olds, 4,000 zero-to-three — infants and toddlers and family.

J. MacPhail: So 35 percent of children in child care in this province will be in centres that are having their funding cut. What's the feedback the minister's got on that?

Hon. L. Stephens: The feedback from the centres is from those that are impacted by the ending of the Munroe agreement. Some of those centres had some significant funding dollars flow to them for the union agreement. The other area that some of them are struggling with is the out-of-school, which was the universal child care program that government funded very heavily. Those two initiatives are causing some distress for some programs, and they're virtually all in the group centres, but as I say, there are 45,000 that are seeing their funding increased.

Hon. L. Stephens: We'll be funding the out-of-school care as simply another component to the age groupings that we're going to be funding now. It's not going to be a special set-aside funding arrangement as it has been in the past. As I mentioned earlier, in the group category the grade 1 and up will find funding now of $49 per child per month, as opposed to $25 that it has been in the past. In family care, of course, they will be funded now — they were not funded previously — and that amount will be $31 per child per month.

Hon. L. Stephens: Today is the first day of the new operating grant, and we are well ahead of what we had anticipated in the enrolment of child care providers.

Hon. L. Stephens: The staff tell me that virtually all of the information or correspondence they've had has been from the point of view of the child care providers — extremely little in terms of information or concerns from parents.

J. MacPhail: How is a parent's life changed as of today? Out-of-school care is incredibly important and was working extremely well. Many of the centres attached to schools…. What is the effect as of today? Can the minister just describe what the situation is like as of today?

Hon. L. Stephens: The child care centres will have enrolled today or by today. At the end of the month they submit their enrolments, and they will receive their money. They may or may not have changed their fee structures. Parents may or may not see a difference in their fees or in their service.

It's up to the individual child care provider, who is essentially operating their own business, to make their business decisions on how they run their centre. We are, as you know, providing funding supports for spaces and for the capital and for the quality initiatives, so we are doing what we can to make child care more affordable and more accessible.

Hon. L. Stephens: We anticipate that, as in any changeover and as with any new way of doing things, there are very likely going to be some glitches we may have to work out. But I think, on the whole, what we're hearing is that parents and providers are feeling good about this. We'll have to wait and see, as the days and the weeks go by, whether or not there will be some things we'll have to work out, but as of now things look just fine.

J. MacPhail: Well, just fine. That's interesting. I'm sure that comment will come back to haunt the minister.

Tell me: have any of the Liberal MLAs raised any concerns? Has the minister heard any concerns on a day-care-centre-by-day-care-centre concern — I don't know — from Nelson area, Castlegar area, Prince Rupert area? Any concerns?

Hon. L. Stephens: It's unfortunate the member missed the estimates this morning that we were having in the little House. A number of my colleagues took the opportunity to ask questions about child care in their communities — Burnaby particularly, and Vancouver-Burrard is another. I have to say to the member that through this process, as we've been developing this program, a great many of the MLAs — virtually from every region of the province — have spoken to me about some of the concerns that advocates and individuals had raised in their communities. We've listened to those. We've worked with the communities as best we can, with the child care providers and with our members to make sure that what we are putting in place is going to be workable.

As I've said earlier, we are going to be monitoring how this moves forward, and we're going to be making necessary changes as they come along — if, in fact, that's what we need to do. I want to just give the member some comfort that we will be maintaining our vigilance — if I can put it that way — on making sure that we provide quality, accessible services and affordable services for families, and to make sure that they are available across the province.

J. MacPhail: I didn't rise on a point of order, Mr. Chair, but it's inappropriate — and the minister has been in the House for as long as I have — to mention who's in the House and who's not at any point. It's against the rules.

J. MacPhail: You said: "It's unfortunate the member missed the estimates…."

It's particularly unfortunate that the member chose, on this particular topic…. She's describing that everything's fine. Absolutely everything is fine. I have discussed this. I've been present when Liberal backbenchers have discussed this very matter in a way of urging the minister to put more money into it — $25 million more. I've been on a committee, a select standing committee, where there was a great deal of discussion about this. The minister didn't even go halfway to meeting the concerns of the Liberal backbenchers who participated in that discussion.

I was trying to wonder, now that it's implemented, if everything was just fine…. And according to the minister, everything's just fine. So we'll see how this plays out. We'll see how the minister does the job of making substantial cuts to child care funding, throwing the system into chaos — which is what I'm hearing about before- and after-school care. And the minister thinks that everything is just fine.

Let's ask about another area: women's centres. How are things with women's centres funding? Last time we discussed this issue, the minister was going out working with the community to come up with new methods of funding women's centres. How's it going?

Hon. L. Stephens: Thank you again, member. The women's centres funding will expire March 31, 2004. We have been working with the women's centres. In fact, we've provided $3,000 in order to enable them to look at how they can do things differently. We continue to work with the women's centres to determine whether or not they can, in fact, partner with other organizations in their community, and we will continue to do so.

J. MacPhail: There's a reason why we do these estimates every year. It's because a year has passed since the last time we had discussions, and theoretically there is supposed to be new information. That's exactly the information…. In fact, I think if we pulled Hansard, it's probably word for word the exact information of one year ago. Here we are, one year closer to the government cutting 100 percent of the funding for women's centres. We're just 12 months away from that now. Can I have some specific details about how the search for new funding is going — specific details?

Hon. L. Stephens: We have a year to go. We had been working with them last year, and there are lots of things that still need to be discussed. We've given them $3,000 to plan for their own independence. We are trying to assist them in every way we can to do that. We've got a year to go. I expect there will be some new information for the member in the next six, seven or eight months. She may want to ask the question again at that time. As of today, there is no new information.

J. MacPhail: So there's no new information. The minister has been at it for a year. She's still going to cut funding 100 percent for the women's centres. There's no new information to offer about this great scheme she had last year. She went on about partnering with the community to fund the women's centres and how surely the community would come forward, and there's no new information. Fifty percent of the time has passed in which she's supposed to assist these women's centres, and no new information. What happens if, one year from now, there's no new information?

Hon. L. Stephens: I can assure the member there will be new information as we get to the end of the year. There have been some women's centres that have put forward some ideas for consideration, and they are actively working with us to explore some ways they can provide their services in their communities. Just this morning I got an e-mail from the Campbell Valley Women's Centre with some suggestions on something they perhaps could do, and they would like to have

some discussions around it. These kinds of things go on. As I said, when we have a final decision, I will make sure the member knows that.

J. MacPhail: Is the minister guaranteeing that no women's centre will close then?

Hon. L. Stephens: No, member, we are not guaranteeing that no women's centre will close. We are working to make sure that the services provided by the women's centres are available in communities, and those are the discussions that are ongoing.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, well, I'm not going to hold my breath, and the women's centres aren't holding their breath. But more importantly, the women who receive services from those centres are very, very worried. In 2001, Mr. Chair, 300,000 women received services from women's centres in this province — 300,000. That's 16 percent of all the females in this province, and the minister is saying: "Gee, I've been working at it for a year to try to figure out how not to have detrimental effects on those women because I'm cutting funding by 100 percent — a 100 percent funding cut. I've got no new information." What are the 300,000 women supposed to do?

Hon. L. Stephens: We are looking to see where the member got that number of 300,000. There is some concern around that number.

Hon. L. Stephens: The various communities are well aware of what services are required in their communities, and as I've said, many of them are looking to partner with other community groups and organizations. They can find synergies among themselves. They can share office space. They can share a variety of ways to still provide the services in the community at a reduced cost. This is what we've asked them to do, and many of them are in fact doing that.

J. MacPhail: I actually am completely flummoxed by that last answer. I'm sure the women's centres in rural communities will decide how they can share office space and with whom. It is stunning.

I'll be moving over to the estimates for the minister of state for the Olympics now, but I must say that this minister certainly has improved in her spin since last year. She certainly has improved on how to not give answers, how to have fun with math.

There has been a UN report. The minister likes to dismiss this. This whole government likes to dismiss any international body, no matter what that international body says. They just like to dismiss it. The UN has condemned this government for their cuts to services to women.

I expect every single MLA in this Legislature has heard directly from women who have been attacked by this government, whether it be through child care cuts, women's centres cuts, home care cuts or legal aid cuts. It goes on and on — cuts to services for children and families in the children and families ministry. Mr. Chair, it will be a very, very sorry day if we end up, next April Fool's Day, talking to this minister about how 300,000 women no longer have the services of women's centres in this province.

Hon. L. Stephens: Let's be clear about the UN Committee on CEDAW, what it is and who the B.C. CEDAW group was: a collection of the member's friends and supporters who went off to New York on their own to make representation — unfair and unfounded allegations — as to what this government was doing. There were a number of items that they raised.

J. MacPhail: Sort of like what the board of trade just did? Your friends. Sort of the same situation.

Hon. L. Stephens: Legal aid was one of them. The fact is that British Columbia has the third-highest level of legal aid funding in Canada, plus $25 million that the ministry of the Attorney General is spending on family justice services. In social assistance, we have $330 million in employment and skills training programs for individuals who require a hand up to get the kind of training they require to be employed at a high-paying job for the benefit of themselves and their families.

Another area that was mentioned was the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services and the fact that there was no longer a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality. My experience in previous years with the Ministry of Women's Equality, when it was a freestanding ministry, was one that was relatively isolated and marginalized from the mainstream of government. What we have done is make sure that the areas that this ministry is responsible for have a direct link to women — aboriginals, for one; immigrants and visible minorities, for another. We're looking at making sure that what we can do is work within the ministry and across ministries to stay connected and to have those cross-ministry impacts.

J. MacPhail: Why did you make an election promise to keep it, then? Why did you make a commitment to keep it?

Hon. L. Stephens: We have also made sure that we have maintained and protected the annual funding of $33.2 million for transition houses, safe homes, second-stage housing, our counselling programs for women and our counselling programs for children. Those have all been maintained. And we've just been through the child care programs.

Hon. L. Stephens: You know, Mr. Chair, the accusations from the member opposite and the groups that she supports and encourages have…. I believe, and most British Columbians believe, that what we are doing is going to be one area where we can make sure that we maintain essential priority services for women — in fact, improve those services as we see out into the future — as we move forward with our economic plan to make sure that the economic supports for women are in place, that the violence and the safety supports for women are in place, that the health services for women are in place and that the child care services for women are in place. I believe that this ministry, in particular, and the government, generally, have made sure that we do maintain these essential priority services for women.

J. MacPhail: This minister has no credibility whatsoever. She completely misled the electorate. That actually is a fact. When she stood up during the election, she had to actually say something, so she lied to the electorate and said….

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I need guidance here. I'm just repeating….

The Chair: You know full well that that's not parliamentary language. Please withdraw it. I ask you to withdraw it.

Here's what the minister said during the election. Maybe the facts can speak for themselves. "This Liberal government will have a freestanding ministry of women's equality" — said by that very member right there. Now she stands up and attacks a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality because her government doesn't have one.

I agree, Mr. Chair. Parliamentary language doesn't allow that, to describe it in its proper way, but the public understands how this minister treated them before the election and after the election.

I have no idea who the B.C. Committee to End Discrimination is — absolutely none — but I will tell you that the fact this minister stands up and says: "They make a presentation to the UN, and the UN does its own investigation, writes its own report…." This minister condemns those people, shows the lack of regard she has for women in this province, for poor people and for working people. Day after day, she stands and condemns people who are trying to bring justice to everybody in this province. She condemns the committee. She condemns the UN. That's exactly what she does.

I guess it's fine when the board of trade goes down and tries to reach out internationally. Does this government condemn that at all? No. As long as someone is in their message box supporting the tax cuts for the rich and cutting programs to pay for that, this minister is fine.

I'll tell you, Mr. Chair, the only part this minister played in the last election was to tell the women of British Columbia that there would be a freestanding Ministry of Women's Equality. Look where she is today. I think that's all that needs to be said.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the Minister of State for Community Charter could introduce his staff.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: I would like to introduce Brian Dolsen, who is heading the bid secretariat and has been, I believe, from the very beginning involved with bringing the 2010 Olympic Winter Games and the Paralympic Games to British Columbia and Vancouver.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could update. We've got about 20 minutes. I don't think it's going to take any longer than that.

Let me start. I'm concerned about two areas. I need information on two areas: the outreach that the bid committee and the minister are doing to ensure benefits for communities outside of the lower mainland and what steps are now being taken in preparation for July.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There are two elements that I think are very prominent right now in how we are working together with communities throughout British Columbia to make sure the economic benefits will certainly be spread throughout the province.

One of our more exciting programs, I think, that's going on right now is a series of workshops under the title "Going For Gold." We have had requests from 23 different communities to come with a team to talk about the economic opportunities that will be a part of bringing the games to British Columbia. During that workshop, we talk about how business of any nature can tap into the Olympic vision that we have for this province. We lay out the forums that will be available in the very near future. We also talk about the procurement website that will be available to small businesses and medium-sized businesses. Rather than wait for us to tell small businesses what they could do in providing a service or a product for the Olympics, we're enticing the businesses to start thinking and tell us what they believe they have as a product that would fit in what is needed in the large package of products that we will be needing just to host the games here.

That program was to have officially finished last week here in Victoria. It was the twenty-third meeting we had with the business communities. Because there are still more requests coming into the group that's handling these workshops, we're looking at expanding this program by going to another 15 communities. Clearly, the word is out in British Columbia that the games really create opportunities that maybe a year ago people were not really thinking about. Now, suddenly the awareness of the opportunities is becoming

very prominent in the province, and hence the fact that more communities are asking us to come and do workshops with their local business community. The second….

J. MacPhail: Thank you. I know I asked two questions, but maybe we can explore this. How do these forums work? To whom are these suggestions submitted, and on what basis do people make suggestions? Are they partnership suggestions? Is the government considering funding regional programs through the 2010 bid?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: First of all, the routing of any information that a small business from anywhere in British Columbia wants to be in the hands of at this moment…. Maybe the best would be the bid secretariat or the bid group itself. The information obviously will be handed over to the next team that will be created to manage the games if indeed on July 2 this year, in Prague, we are successful in bringing the games to Vancouver-Whistler.

So what we are doing is directing the business groups that are interested either to obtain more information or to actually look at the material needed to get on the list of potential suppliers of a product to a new website, a procurement website that will actually be launched within 14 days. That will be the easiest for people from wherever they are to get into the system, to get their name on the list. Then when the permanent group is created that will actually implement the Olympic plan and the operation of the Olympics right up to 2010, these will also be the people who will be dealing with the licences, the purchases of the products that are needed for the providing of the games or for providing souvenirs and whatever is needed to make the games come together. That's the route for the businesses.

J. MacPhail: Are these forums attended just by business, or do community leaders or community groups attend?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to reflect on the mix of people that were at the Victoria meeting, there were tourism people there. There were representatives of organizations — business organizations, the chamber in particular. There were small business people, and there were actually some regional board members in the meeting as well, so it's a wide variety. We do not restrict anybody from attending these meetings. They are advertised. They are locally organized, and we come by invitation. So far the experience is that, indeed, a broad representation of the community participates or at least comes to listen — for some — to what's happening there.

J. MacPhail: My second question was: what are the steps being taken now, until July 2? I just heard the minister refer to a permanent bid committee. Perhaps he could expand on, when we're successful, what changes occur.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Right now we are looking at a transition team. We haven't decided who will play a role on the transition team, but within a relatively short period of time after being successful, we will have new players that will be involved in implementing the 2010 Winter Olympics and Paralympic Games. The Canadian Olympic Committee will be involved. The IOC will be involved. We will certainly have provincial representation there as well.

The committee that will be created will then start subdividing some of the needs. There will be a security committee, and there will be a transportation committee — a committee for every sector that in total make up the Winter Games and Paralympic Games. There is nobody yet that we have pointed at as being the leader of the transition team that will be starting on July 3. Within, as I said, a couple of months a permanent team will come together that will have input from sports federations, plus the COC and the IOC.

J. MacPhail: Does the team have, for lack of a better term, a CEO that manages the budget? The budget that the auditor general has signed off on is a multibillion-dollar budget, but one of the pieces of advice the auditor general gave was that it was going to require excellent management of costs. How does that work? Does the bid corporation get a budget until the year 2010 for which it is responsible, and…? Well, I'll ask that question first.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: Just to clarify, the bid group — as she said, "Will the bid group get that money?" — is out of the picture. They were there to promote the games and be successful to bring the games to our shores. The team that will ultimately be created is the team I talked about, the implementation team. Of course, there are four parties involved in these games that will play a lead role. There's the federal government, the provincial government, the city of Vancouver and Whistler, and they will be part of that overall team.

Once that team is in place, they will be given the venue funds that are available. They also, of course, will have to rely very much on the funding that is provided through other sources. The cost of the venues in total, as the member knows, is $620 million, and $110 million of that $620 million is actually set aside for a legacy fund that will be there to support communities that have new venues built in the community, to maintain and keep the facilities in good shape so they do not become a burden to the community where they are built. The oval at Simon Fraser is a good example.

Then out of that $620 million also comes $40 million for a fund that will be used to work together with communities throughout British Columbia to create

live site centres. The live site centre idea is really focused on how we can bring people from a community together in a facility and enjoy the games together. The people in the lower mainland have the opportunity to come to the venues. Because of distance, that's doable, but if you live in Fort St. John, that is unfortunately not possible or not very easy to do. The $40 million that I talked about, the live site centres, will also come out of the $620 million.

The balance of that money is then for the venues that have to be built. That will be managed by the next team, the OCOG team. The cost of the games themselves, which is $1.2 billion, will be financed through other sources including broadcast rights, sponsorships — that is, money that will come through the IOC — the sale of tickets and the sale of tourist-related items. The OCOG themselves will also have an opportunity to bring in sponsors to add to that pot. The budget from these revenues matches very closely the budget that we have set or planned to spend on making the games a reality in 2010.

J. MacPhail: What public scrutiny will there be for the bid for the British Columbia taxpayer? This time next year, how will we be discussing the budget for the games — under what format?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: To say it in the simplest way, as we are on the board of that next body that is created to implement the games, we have a veto right. When the OCOG group has created the business plan based on what the bid book represents, obviously, we can go and scrutinize that in every detail. We are there when the expenditures are made. We can make sure they all fit within the strategy that we have laid out in the bid book, so we have every opportunity.

By the way, it is not just us. It's also the federal government that has that same right. We have every opportunity to be — on a day-to-day basis, almost, if we so desire — part of how the money flows through the system to achieve the goals we have set out to achieve with this. I can also add to it that in the…. Sorry.

There is also, as the member knows, a contingency incorporated in the cost. That contingency is controlled by the Ministry of Finance and controlled by Treasury Board, and no money will come out of it unless it is proven by the OCOG committee that the contingency has to be tapped into. Without the Minister of Finance's and Treasury Board's approval, they cannot get into that.

J. MacPhail: Does the IOC have the ability to impose expenses on the 2010 group that have not been anticipated, once we get the bid?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: There's a protocol agreement with the IOC. There are some requests for tickets for their guests. I do not believe, with all the documents signed, that there's any opportunity to come with new demands down the road, but I'll check quickly.

We have signed the contracts with the IOC. We have signed the contracts with the city. We have signed the contracts with the federals. They are part of the contracts and the protocol agreements with the IOC, so if there's any change, it can only happen if all the parties that I just mentioned are part of that.

J. MacPhail: Noting the hour, I just have one more question. At least in the media it was reported that the IOC evaluation committee had some thoughts around security for the bid during the games and the Sea to Sky Highway. What action is being taken between now and July 2 to address those issues?

Hon. T. Nebbeling: On the Sea to Sky Highway. The chairman mentioned, at one point, that he thought the distance between Vancouver and Whistler was considerably longer than he would have liked. I think he also retracted his statement and said it was really not a reason not to bring the games to British Columbia. However, with the improvements in the Sea to Sky corridor, the travelling time will be reduced by 20 minutes, according to the experts, so we're getting very close to the perfect time used to travel that distance.

The other reason he was concerned was that originally in our plan, the medal presentations for athletes that participated in the Nordic events and in the downhill events were supposed to have happened in B.C. Place in Vancouver. The distance between the two places was then, again, an issue for the IOC. As a reaction to that concern, we have committed to have a medal plaza in Whistler as well. That certainly satisfied them.

Hon. T. Nebbeling: The security. It's unfortunate, but we all keep looking at Salt Lake City when it comes to security. Of course, in Salt Lake City, not only was the security at an extremely high level because of September 11, but one of the things they did in Salt Lake City was that they actually had five different agencies doing security. At every gate, every point of control and with every action, there were always five people there, which made the cost excessively high.

We have worked together with the RCMP. The RCMP will be controlling and harmonizing all the security elements, so there is one team in place, and that by itself makes the cost considerations for security a whole different game. The number that is in the book is something that the security experts stand behind, because of that element. They certainly have justified in different discussions why the $190 million is, indeed, the number that is right to put into the bid book, because the circumstances are different here than they were in Salt Lake City.

J. MacPhail: I have about another half hour of questions on housing, so I thank the minister of state on the Olympic bid.

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

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

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd just like to give a brief overview. What we're going to do today is move through our estimates. We'll look at venture capital funds first. Then we'll do the liquor distribution branch, tourism and the remaining items of interest to members of the House.

I'm joined today by the Minister of State for Deregulation and also Todd Tessier, who works in our capital group, who has worked so diligently on the changes and has done a tremendous job. Thank you, Todd.

Let me just give a very brief overview of the ministry. The Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise is the primary provincial agency responsible for initiatives and programs dedicated to creating a strong provincial economy in British Columbia. Activities within the ministry are focused on building a competitive business environment, which gives the private sector the confidence to invest, generate opportunity and create jobs throughout British Columbia.

Within this context the ministry's principal objective is to remove barriers to business, and all members of the ministry team are to focus on this key objective. The four core business areas of the ministry are: (1) championing competitive business practices; (2) marketing and investment; (3) encouraging innovation and the development and transfer of new knowledge; (4) ensuring efficient, effective management and, of course, the initiative led by the Minister of State for Deregulation — achieving one-third reduction of red tape within three years.

The ministry is charged with responsibilities of establishing and expanding partnerships with entrepreneurs, businesses and organizations throughout British Columbia, encouraging a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship and developing and enhancing national and international investment and trading relations. We are the primary advocate within government for competitive interests of entrepreneurs, the business and investment community, with a focus on expanding pools of venture capital in the province.

The Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise remains committed to the vision and mission set out in our previous service plans. The ministry's prime focus last year was in devolving non-core activities and focusing on critical work items. This year's service plan includes several specific, new initiatives for the ministry. These include the Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre expansion, improving access to venture capital, one-stop business registration services and increased emphasis on economic development in the heartlands of British Columbia. In addition, we are refocusing our sales and marketing activities.

This year we are taking a much more structured approach, targeting priority markets and sectors in partnership with the private sector. The ministry will also lead key multiministry economic initiatives and coordinate government's response to major private sector projects.

Just to remind all members, our mission with respect to competition is to ensure British Columbia has the most attractive investment and business climate in North America; with respect to science, to encourage a culture of innovation and the development and transfer of new knowledge benefiting individuals, businesses and communities; and thirdly, enterprise, to promote growth of investment and trade by aggressively pursuing increased marketing of British Columbia.

I will now ask the Chair for the Minister of State to make some comments with respect to deregulation.

Hon. K. Falcon: The task I was given by the Premier was a pretty straightforward one: to put into place a framework and process to meet our new-era commitment to reduce the red tape and regulatory burden by one-third within our first three years in office. The task involved putting together a framework to deal not

only with the existing regulatory burden that had grown and been imposed on British Columbia particularly aggressively over the last decade, but also with how we are going to treat new regulations in the province.

The process we undertook was to put together a red tape reduction advisory task force. This task force was made up of really excellent representatives from the business community, chambers of commerce and business associations — the folks that are impacted and deal with the regulatory burden every single day. They made some very good recommendations to government. We took those recommendations, passed those recommendations on to the respective ministries, and we said to them: "While you are implementing and preparing your three-year deregulation plans outlining how you intend to meet your one-third target, make sure you keep these recommendations paramount and uppermost in your mind to ensure that as we go through this process, we do it in a manner that makes sure we meet the priorities that those who are dealing with the regulatory burden are suggesting."

The second thing we did was to make sure, in dealing with new regulations, that we didn't repeat the sins of the past. We didn't want to have a situation where we were dealing effectively with the existing thicket of regulations but were continuing to make the same old problems for the business community and public at large by imposing a poorly thought-out regulation. So we put into place a series of criteria that would ensure that any new regulations introduced in this province met a set of specific criteria.

I won't belabour the members with these criteria; most of you are familiar with them. Suffice to say they included things like requirements that a regulation be written in plain language; requirements that they have sunset clauses where necessary; requirements that we have at least a two-for-one replacement principle, meaning that for every new regulation we introduce, we eliminate at least two existing regulations; and most importantly, that regulations be results-based, where we focus on the outcome we're trying to achieve and move away from the very prescriptive approach of telling people exactly how they have to achieve that outcome.

The long and short of all this is that accountability is the key. Holding ourselves accountable and undertaking this process in as transparent a manner as possible was going to be the most critical thing. I'm proud that our ministry reports out every quarter in a very detailed ministry-by-ministry fashion, so the public can see what progress — or indeed, lack of progress, if that's the case — this government is making as it moves towards meeting its target. I am pleased to say, with the support of my colleague Minister Thorpe and with the work of the private members in our government and my colleagues in cabinet, we are on target, moving towards our one-third reduction.

R. Harris: Access to capital is absolutely critical in any new operation and new business that starts up — certainly that first critical zero-to-half-a-million dollars. I think we're all pretty familiar with what happened through the province, especially in the rural communities over the last decade in driving industry and opportunity out of this province and really devastating a lot of communities. Of course, one of the by-products of that is that today for any new businesses and operations or companies that want to start up, a lot of the financial institutions are a lot more hesitant and certainly require significantly more collateral and are just more demanding in what they're requiring from any new individual that would like to get involved in any kind of new opportunities.

As we see containerization as a possibility in the northwest, the cruise ship and some of the opportunities we're looking at…. There are a lot of individuals and, I think, organizations that are looking at completely different industries, but one of the barriers they are going to face is, in fact, that cash shortage or availability or access to capital.

My question to the minister is: how are the changes or the additional funds his ministry is going to be putting into the venture capital — or how they're going to use that money — going to benefit those kinds of rural communities and entrepreneurs that want to access capital and get things rolling again?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Before I answer the member's question, let me just introduce officially my deputy minister, Don Leitch, who is with me today; my assistant deputy minister responsible for finance, Doug Callbeck; and as I mentioned earlier, Todd Tessier, portfolio manager in the capital branch.

It's a very interesting question from the member and something the member and I have sat and talked about. I continue to look forward to ensuring that communities throughout British Columbia have the opportunity to access cash, venture capital, for their programs. The community venture capital program…. Last year we had it placed in 17 communities throughout British Columbia, 12 businesses, resulting in investments of about $7 million, creating 80 jobs. Our target for this year is 15 businesses throughout communities in British Columbia, raising $10 million and creating 125 jobs.

We've also, through legislation, through tax credits, increased funding for another labour-sponsored fund in the province, and we've increased tax credits to communities by 50 percent, up to $3 million. We've created a new fund for new media for $4 million. In total we have, through our tax credit programs, the ability to raise $67 million in British Columbia for small venture capital organizations and $80 million through labour sponsors, for a total of $147 million.

We believe this is just a start. We believe this is a step. We do not believe this is the end point. We are going to continue to work with communities throughout British Columbia, throughout the heartlands, with MLAs throughout the heartlands. With the changes we've introduced in the small business venture capital fund, our staff is out travelling around the heartlands

communicating to individuals, community leaders and communities the availability of these funds and how they can work for them in their communities.

I think one of the real keys is that we believe, anyhow, that the venture capital funds are mini-funds. They create opportunity in the communities, and they certainly have a lot less red tape. The other real key, we believe — which over time, communities will see the benefit of — is that, in fact, they're managed by people within those local communities who have the local expertise, who have the knowledge of the community and can understand the needs and opportunities of communities. Those are some of the things we're doing.

R. Harris: Thank you very much for the answer. I'm really quite pleased to hear about the improvements you've made to the small business venture capital funds and also the fact that your staff are going to be travelling through.

You actually, I think, answered my second question. One of the obstacles, of course, with a lot of venture funds is that fund managers tend to want to invest as close to home as they possibly can, so traditionally we've seen fund managers in the larger urban centres. They tend to have sort of a jaundice to wanting to go and look somewhere where they can't actually drive up and see how their investment is doing. Do I understand your answer correctly, in that you see some of these fund managers actually living and operating in the north — P.G. and other areas — where they're going to have a lot more comfort zone with the kind of investments they're going to be making?

Hon. R. Thorpe: The community venture capital funds. Yes, people will live in those communities. They will live in Prince George; they will live in Fernie; they will live in Summerland, B.C. They'll live in all of the communities throughout the heartlands of British Columbia, and they will have the opportunity to access these funds.

One of the things I was very pleased about with my staff, when we were developing these changes…. I suggested to them how important I thought it was for them to actually get out and travel around British Columbia and to meet folks. Todd is going to be leaving shortly. This week he's got meetings in Kamloops, Penticton, Kelowna, Prince George, Nanaimo and Nelson. So we are getting out there.

I want to say to the members of this House that any member in the province that wants our staff to come and meet the representatives in their communities on how our government can work with those communities or can provide opportunities, you let us know, and we'll be in your community working with you so that businesses in your community have the opportunity to raise funds, grow their businesses and have expertise in their communities.

R. Hawes: I think those are the only questions we had on venture capital. I was hoping to move this on. My questions are going to be around liquor distribution.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'd just like to introduce the staff that are with me today: the general manager of the liquor distribution branch, Jay Chambers; and we're joined by the director of finance, Roger Bissoondatt. Both of these folks have been working diligently on the thoughtful, thorough and deliberate process that we're going through with the liquor distribution branch.

R. Hawes: I'm going to contain my questions, actually, to the retail side. I know my colleague from Burquitlam and some of my other colleagues have some fairly detailed questions on distribution. I just want to ask a couple of questions about the retail side and the retail stores.

My first question would be around the announced closure of liquor stores and the fact that the British Columbia government is going to get out of retail sales of liquor. To do that, we're going to expand RASs — retail outlets, agency stores — and LRSs, the beer and wine stores, basically. There are two ministries involved here, and I'm wondering, because the LRS side is through the Solicitor General's ministry, can the minister maybe outline what kind of sharing of information or how these two ministries work together to make sure that as one side grows — the LRS side — it grows in a way that is going to allow you to close these retail stores?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, just let me make a comment about store closures. We are very sensitive to those who work in our retail system and those who have done a good job for the liquor distribution branch over the years. We're very sensitive to people facing change, and we are trying to do this in the most thoughtful and sensitive way we can. We will abide by our collective agreements with the BCGEU and the employees who work for us that are covered by that.

What we have said with respect to exiting the retailing stores is that it's going to be done on a community-by-community basis. Currently we have, as of March 28 of this year, 221 government liquor stores in the province. We have 325 licensed retail stores. We have 230 rural agency stores. Then we have a variety of other stores, for a total complement of 905 stores. That is a change of 127 from March 2002, with the majority of that change coming — 86 of them — from rural agency stores.

We have received from the primary liquor holders in the province…. Two hundred and fifty-eight applications have been granted for preclearance approval by the liquor control and licensing branch. They have met all the preliminary applicant requirements including applicant suitability, public interest, location, personal history information and formal consent to obtain criminal record search. It is at this stage that the appli-

cant is requested to submit floor plans for approvals before construction can come in.

In addition, there are 80 LRS applications that have been given approval in principle. These applicants have been advised, the floor plans have been approved for the proposed LRS and they can proceed with construction. Once the construction is completed and local health and fire approvals have been obtained, a final inspection of establishment will be made by LCLB prior to licensing. The liquor control and licensing branch has also denied 13 applications because the applicants did not meet the proper licensing locations and requirements. The net result of all of that is that we have granted 35 new stores in the period March 31, 2002, to March 28, 2003. So we are just starting the process.

With respect to how the two ministries work together, the Solicitor General and myself meet on a very regular basis and talk about issues that arise from time to time. More importantly than that, the general manager responsible for the liquor distribution branch and the general manager responsible for liquor control licensing branch speak virtually every day. They have updates on a weekly basis, and we have a very coordinated approach on what is happening between the two branches.

R. Hawes: Just to hone in on that a little bit more. I guess what I'm looking for is: is there some kind of a definitive plan — for the community-by-community analysis — when you say, gee, there are enough alternate sources that we can afford to close this store or we could close this store? Is there a plan for how this is analyzed? Is there communication that goes from Solicitor General to your ministry that says, here's what we've got for liquor outlets, so we know now what sorts of measurement criteria you're going to be using to determine when a store should close?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We, again, are at the very early stages of this implementation process, because one never knows until a licence has been granted what's going to actually take place in a community. We are tracking it though, from the preapprovals through, and we are monitoring each community in which we have liquor stores. Once the approvals go through and reach a point, we then are doing a financial analysis based on, one, service to the customer. Our primary concern is making sure the customers are serviced properly in a community, whatever that community may be. Then, of course, we are looking at the public safety issues, and then we are looking at the financial ramifications to the province. So that is a very disciplined process that we're going through.

We are working through a number of alternatives. We are not in a position, at this point in time, to say what is going to happen in each community, but it will unfold a community at a time.

I also just want to point out to members, another factor that we have to overlay in all of our decision-making is that…. You know, I sometimes receive feedback from the public that we're not going fast enough, and then I receive feedback from other people that maybe we're going too fast. One of the things that we have to take into our review is the length of time that we have leases in our 209 stores. If we were in a position to close all of our stores today, we would have lease penalties of $80 million to pay out. A year from today we'll have lease penalties of $48 million; two years from now, lease penalties of $37 million, and it goes on and on. We have to take these into account.

We are moving through this, again, in a thoughtful way. We know the potential impact on communities, but we are driven by the need to service the customer, to meet our public safety issues and to make sure the government achieves its net revenue target of $655 million.

R. Hawes: Thank you for that, again, minister. I think what I was more trying to get to was…. I'll use a hypothetical community that has a liquor store and a number of LRS stores. Those LRS stores are expanding, and perhaps there are a couple of new ones being put in. I'm wondering. I'm being asked this, and I know other members are being asked the same question by our constituents. At some stage, if there are a number of LRS stores…. If there's one liquor store with 12,000 square feet or something in the community, would six LRS stores of 2,000 or 3,000 square feet each be considered enough to replace it?

I'm thinking of it from a consumer standpoint. Consumers are telling me that what they're interested in is choice — selection — and price. They say they don't feel they're going to get the selection part of it from a much smaller store. Is there a plan to accommodate selection in this mix somewhere?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's an excellent hypothetical question, and I will answer it in a hypothetical way. Of course, we all know there are no hypotheticals.

First of all, the government has lifted the square-foot restriction on LRSs. It was 2,000 square feet. It has now been lifted. There is no ceiling on that.

What we have to do in each community…. If we just had six 1,000- to 2,000-square foot stores that were focused primarily on beer, would that replace a full, comprehensive government liquor store? Probably not, because customer service wouldn't be available if all six of them, in your hypothetical situation, were focused on beer. What we are committed to doing is this. As the approval process goes through, and as the buildout goes on, we are going to assess what is taking place in those communities and then make our judgments based on that. We are not going to have a one-size-fits-all, every-community-in-British-Columbia approach, because as you know and I know, communities are different.

What we believe is going to happen…. We have seen in Alberta that it has happened. Again, our approach is different. We believe we are going to see a significant increase in the number of listings and a

dramatic increase in the product availabilities in British Columbia. I can't remember how much Alberta went up, but it went up two- or threefold in the number of different product types. Now, is every store going to carry every product? No, they're not, because that's not good business. Do I believe customers in the hypothetical community that we talk about are going to be well served by a variety of retail outlets, some at 2,000 square feet, some at 5,000, perhaps some at 10,000? Yes, I do. Will those be built by the private sector? Yes, they will be, in my opinion.

R. Hawes: I guess I'll stick to the hypothetical. I know there are many communities in this province that have existing licence holders that are restricted by the size of their property, regardless of the fact that square footage is no longer going to be a consideration as far as we're concerned. We're not going to have a ceiling. They are bound by the size of their property and the local community bylaw. In many cases they can't build a store that's big enough to provide choice. Like any retailer, they're likely going to stock the items that move the fastest from the shelves, where in the existing government liquor stores there are brands of liquor that people buy that perhaps don't move as quickly off the shelves, but that choice is still there for them.

From a consumer standpoint, those that like to buy, for example, B.C. wines in wide selection are not going to see that along with spirits in a small LRS store — not likely. I'm just wondering how that gets addressed in a community where it's just not possible to build stores that are big enough because of the lot restrictions, the size restrictions and the local bylaws. How do we get around that one, or is there a plan to look at that? Are there alternatives?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, let us not confuse in our hypothetical analysis, although in some cases we use facts, therefore not being hypothetical any longer…. Most retailers, other than a government retailer, would not stock products on a store shelf that weren't selling on a regular turn basis.

Let me also be very clear. We see the primary liquor holders as a first step, not a last step. Primary liquor holders, as our process unfolds, will not be the only people in the province that are going to have licensed retail opportunities. We have said since the very beginning that we will not go from a public monopoly to a private-type monopoly. We believe that over time there will be other retail opportunities in British Columbia.

We did make a commitment to primary liquor holders because that was the most efficient method that offered us the most integrity and control over those getting into the business. That's why we have gone that route, coupled with our RASs. We do see, and we are working on, other modelling possibilities that will see other retail opportunities in the province.

R. Hawes: Thank you, minister, for that. That's getting a lot closer to the assurances that I want to be able to give my constituents, and I'm sure everybody else does. If I can paraphrase — and maybe you can tell me if I'm correct — the first cut is to allow the LRSs to expand and fill the market to the extent that they can do that. If they are not completely filling the market and providing the choice and selection the consumer demands, then there are going to be alternate models introduced. There are going to be alternate types of stores, perhaps free-standing or specialty stores or whatever, but choice and selection for the consumer is going to be the touchstone.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We will be driven by providing for the needs of the consumers throughout British Columbia, so they have choice, selection and competition. We believe that will be achieved over time in a variety of retail options.

Again, this is a first step, not the last step. It's a process that we've laid out carefully and, I believe, thoughtfully in our service plan. When we reviewed this, we did have the option of following what they did in Alberta. We thought that was not the best approach for British Columbia. We thought we should build a solution here. That's what we are doing.

We're having a phase-in approach. We are going to be driven by the needs of the consumer in all parts of British Columbia. We're also going to be driven by ensuring that we have the strongest public safety and enforcement regulations.

H. Bloy: I would like to thank the minister for working with me and for all his patience over the last couple of years on the liquor file. We are taking a number of new, bold steps and we're moving ahead. We've kind of covered the retail end. I could ask one question: how many steps are there? But I guess it's: how long is the string? We'll get there when we get there.

I want to talk about the warehouse and distribution. You've introduced a new model. I'd like to know if you could explain the model to me. My original explanation seems to be restrictive and limiting competition and not allowing the free enterprise system to work.

I would like to say that within the grocery industry and any other industry, product is able to be distributed all over the world, and we're trying to restrict and limit to one SKU per provincial supplier. They can go down the line and give it out to other people, but not everybody sells the same products. We have distribution systems set up in this place for the grocery industry right now that could take on this product for the food service industry, that could take on the product for their market, but I believe that your ministry has gone out and said: "Well, the manufacturer says, 'I like this.'" I'm not saying that's the best for the final consumer, because they're limiting the amount of competition in where their product goes. It's only going to go to one person, and there's going to be no freedom of

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I fundamentally disagree with the member. I believe that we could have gone…. We have a monopolistic distribution approach right now. We could have done like they've done in Alberta. They have one distribution company doing all of the warehousing and all of the distribution. We would have moved from a public sector monopoly to a private sector monopoly. We've chosen not to go that way because we believe in competition.

Currently in British Columbia we have eight private warehousing and distribution organizations. If we move to just having one, that means, effectively, a government that believes in free enterprise and competition would have put, potentially, seven out of business. That's fundamentally wrong in our view.

Again, this is why we're doing it in a measured approach. We are going to run in parallel. Our target date to start is July of this year. Our final implementation date is no later than July 2004. We're going to run the private sector distribution and warehousing along with the liquor distribution branch. Some people may say that's costly and not as efficient as it could be, but it's a route we've chosen.

One of the things we realize is we do not know every scenario that possibly could take place out in the marketplace, but we do know that customers, both individual purchasers and licensees, need to be served, and that's why we are going to do that. We also know that we haven't thought of everything and from time to time we may have to adjust. That's why we're going to go the parallel route.

We also believe that the individual brand owners have to assume the responsibility of their individual brands and their individuals SKUs. They also have to accept the responsibility of making sure the revenue that flows to the province flows in an orderly way and is not put at risk — $655 million flows to health care and education in British Columbia.

The individual brand owners are going to have the option of where they want their SKUs. We are working with the industry. We've held a number of forums. We have some more coming up. They are bringing information to the table; we are bringing information to the table. I'm very, very confident that when we all work together, we're going to have a system that provides for the needs of the citizens of British Columbia, provides competition, provides product to those in all parts of British Columbia, where they want it and when they want it there. It's a system that we believe is going to work.

H. Bloy: I'm really pleased with the way that we're heading, but you're still limiting…. You're saying that you're giving the manufacturer freedom of choice. The manufacturer can only allow one SKU to go to one distributor, therefore we will only have one distributor for that product. You are, in fact, limiting choice. Yes, you'll have these other regional distributors or what goes down….

One of the reasons that was explained to me originally as to why you wanted to limit the SKUs — and I'd still like to go on the SKU portion — was also because of the grey alcohol in this province. I would like to know what the liquor distribution board has done about grey alcohol to date, if anything. In today's world with the computer and the tracking systems we have, we should be able to control this alcohol.

I believe that, like Pepsi, Coke, Christie's and many other food products across the country…. You know, Christie's Cookies have one set wholesale price for their product across the country. There are lots of things we can do with liquor to open up the distribution. We as government have said: "One size doesn't fit all. We have to be unique." Here we're trying to put them all into the same bag instead of letting them decide how they're going to do it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, it would be very difficult. It certainly would be nice to have one wholesale price for liquor across this great country of Canada, but with the number of liquor boards we have and the various taxation regimes and markups, I wouldn't hold my breath on the achievement of that goal.

One of the interesting things, though — and my staff can correct me if I'm wrong in this conclusion — is that we have actually sought the advice of the companies that operate across Canada. They, too, are very, very concerned, as the member has expressed, about the grey market. They actually have a huge concern about it, and they are also actually the ones that, to my understanding, fully support the route we're going. It provides them with the things they need as they go forward.

With respect to illicit alcohol, I said to the staff of the liquor distribution branch…. When you were asking that question, I said: "That's very interesting. That's one of the questions I used to ask when I was in opposition." I am pleased to say that our liquor distribution branch and the Solicitor General's department together with Provincial Revenue are very, very concerned about this subject, as we are with illicit cigarettes, etc. We will be working in cooperation with various agencies: liquor control licensing; Canada Customs and Revenue Agency; Provincial Revenue, as I've mentioned; and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We do believe that there is — no one's able to quantify it, — a significant potential for additional revenue for the province.

H. Bloy: Do we have a task force now on preventing grey liquor or collecting our fair share of taxes? Is there something planned for the future?

We have these great B.C. wines here. We have this whole industry, and we have a distribution. You're talking about this as only the first step in many steps,

so why can't we allow B.C. wines to be sold in premises other than an LRS? And when will that happen? You know, within supermarkets, with government for control, but there may be some sort of system where we could feature B.C. wines within an industry.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As the member has rightly pointed out — and I would second his observation — yes, British Columbia has some excellent wines coming from the great region of the province known as the Okanagan, which I have the pleasure of representing part of. As the member will know, our government is committed to fair and free trade, not only in Canada but with the world. When you take a bold position like that, obviously we hope there are many wins for British Columbia products, but we have to make sure all products have the same access channels for sale. In this particular case we're talking about wine, and we'll talk about beverage alcohol.

Our government has been very clear that we are not looking at or contemplating sale of beverage alcohol in corner stores or grocery stores. We've been very clear on that point, and we cannot selectively say, whether it's British Columbia craft breweries or British Columbia–produced spirits or British Columbia wines, that they will receive preferential retail placement in venues where other products from around the world can't be sold. That flies against all the trade agreements Canada and British Columbia are signatories to.

H. Bloy: You know, in a number of ways I truly appreciate the distribution system we have and the quality of life. But we talk about the world market, and we talk about contravening all of these legal provisions that are in place, yet when we look around the world…. We can go to Washington State, next door, where you can buy beer and wine in grocery stores, gas stations and convenience stores. I don't see an excess of alcohol there, or alcoholism. I'm not sure of the numbers. You can see it in different parts of Canada; you can see it in Europe. We're not contemplating that right now, and I accept that, but I do look forward to a review of it or contemplation in the future. I don't know if you would have a time line on that.

Those types of reviews are not even on our radar screen. In fact, we've been very clear — very clear — that we will not be selling in corner stores and grocery stores. We have a major undertaking in front of us now in implementing the strategic plan we have. It's multi-year and very challenging, so I don't see that on the time horizon anywhere in the foreseeable future. Again, I want to state that we have very clearly stated we will not be selling beverage alcohol in grocery stores, and we will not be selling beverage alcohol in corner stores.

I'd like to change a little bit and talk about revenue for the province and the proposal that's coming through: flat tax for producers. We have three large producers in the province and medium and very small producers of beer. I believe that in negotiations that have been going on or discussions with your ministry over the last number of months, you've come to an agreement with them, where all the producers in the province agreed with the new concept of flat tax. Can you tell me how this will benefit the province and how we can move ahead?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, we have not finalized any agreements, because all agreements in this area are subject to Treasury Board approval. We are starting that process. I want to be very clear that we in British Columbia now, in all segments of our beverage alcohol system, have an ad valorem tax base. We have that in spirits; we have that in beer; we have that in wine. We are not looking at a flat tax system that is applicable to all sectors, because not all segments are equal. We will only entertain looking at adjustments in our method of taxation when we can be assured that our province will maintain its revenue-neutral position.

With respect to the spirit sector there has not been an interest in that area to proceed. With respect to the wine industry there has not been a unanimous position by the wine sector to proceed. In the brewing industry sector, yes, there has been an overall interest to proceed. We believe we are close to an agreement, but again, those are all subject to Treasury Board approvals. I would hope that we would have something concluded no later than the end of May, hopefully earlier. Again, that's subject to Treasury Board.

What we also are striving to do here is to recognize in British Columbia what other jurisdictions in Canada have recognized — that our small craft brewers do not have the opportunity for economies of scale that many of our large producers have. We believe that it's important to have a differential tax system on products which will encourage the ongoing viability of the craft brewing industry. When I say craft brewing industry, I'm talking about breweries that would probably make 15,000 hectolitres or less.

We believe that it's important to have another area, up to about 100,000 hectolitres in size, to make sure that relatively small brewers can remain competitive in the province. Of course, also, there would be the larger and world-size breweries. Generally, we see three categories. We're working through those details. We're close to having it finalized, as I said.

Our goal is to ensure that we have revenue neutrality. We are targeting about, I think, $364 million as a target that we need to achieve. It's $364 million that we have to be able to make sure we can deliver to the treasury.

One of the things that members should understand, if we're able to implement this, is that it's applicable, then, to brewers from around the world. If there are brewers around the world that are small craft brewers

— or next door in Washington State or Alberta — then they would have the 15,000-hectolitre-or-less rate apply to them, just as 100,000-or-less or 100,000-and-over would apply to them.

We're making progress. We're hopeful that we will be able to have something concluded and wrapped up by the end of May. The benefit of this is that this system would ensure that the province's revenue flows remain neutral. It would also be an end to the government doubling the price increase through its taxation every time that a producer has a price increase. The benefit would be to the end consumer in having the price increases rise at a lower rate than in the past.

H. Bloy: I would just like to thank the minister for the large steps that he's taken to bring B.C. in line with the rest of the world. I believe that the flat tax will go a long way in benefiting British Columbia producers. As the minister mentioned, it affects every producer around the world, but I look forward to it for British Columbia.

B. Locke: My colleague from Burnaby North would like to ask some other questions, but I have questions,also, with regard to the liquor distribution branch.

The Chair: Would the minister like to make some clarification or, for the benefit of the members, see the scheduling?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We've had to bring staff over, and they have other commitments later today. I thought we had agreed that we would do the venture capital. Todd — we've finished with him, and he's on his way to Kamloops or wherever he's off to. I've got the liquor distribution branch here, and then I have the president of Tourism B.C. here.

However, if members do have questions that pertain to their riding, and they can't be here, perhaps another member could ask those questions on their behalf, and I'd be pleased to try to answer them.

B. Locke: I guess, first of all, I want to thank the minister for resisting the Alberta model. As much as there may appear to be great advantages to it, there are lots of disadvantages to it, including excess and drinking and driving. I just want to make sure that is on the record.

The first question I had is regarding warehousing. I wondered if you could tell me how the order desk is going to work. The concern is that there wouldn't be a centralized way for licensees to place an order.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That's a very, very good question — a question that has come up in my own discussions with staff. First of all, I want to assure members and customers of the liquor distribution branch that we're going to run in parallel, so the liquor distribution branch order process will work hand in hand. We also are led to believe that the private sector initiative — and this one of the beauties of the private sector — sees an opportunity for an order desk to facilitate the needs of licensees and other customers. It is my understanding that some private sector people are working on a proposal as we speak. Again, I want to assure the member and various customers in British Columbia that we will be operating in parallel. We will be making sure, and making every effort as this system evolves to the private sector, that people will be able to have one-stop shopping.

B. Locke: Minister, you talked about the revenue to government and ensuring that the revenue remained secure. I wonder if you had explored shifting the market share from the pure retail GLS, LRS, RAS to the on-premise sector. I know there have been significant declines in the on-premise side, but revenue to government is certainly greater when it is sold on premise, especially on the PST side.

Hon. R. Thorpe: If I understand the question…. There's a possibility I don't, and it's not the member's fault; it would be my fault. If the thrust of the question is what we as government or the liquor distribution branch can do to attempt to have people consume more liquor on-premise as opposed to off-premise, there's very little — as a matter of fact, I believe there's nothing — we can do to that. That becomes an individual's decision on where they want to consume their beverage alcohol, should they choose to do that. One of the things we do note is that the area of consumption that has decreased significantly on premise is the draft beer segment. In fact, year over year it is down 4.4 percent in volume, which is a significant amount. I think every community has its own reasons; every individual makes their own choices. Of course, as we know, many changes have taken place in social behaviour. Perhaps that is driving some of the change.

The other area that we are investigating is…. As many members know, the LDB has serviced the licensee on-premise market on one-bottle picks. Traditionally, licensees have not been able to sell to other licensees. That is an area that we're working hand in hand with liquor control and licensing branch on at the present time. We hope and believe we will have a system in place no later than July 1 of this year so we can ensure that licensees are served in a method that they need to be served, so their businesses can continue to be viable and, hopefully, grow.

B. Locke: I suppose that one area in which government has an option is discounting for licensees, and perhaps that would change that market. I'll leave that with you.

I'd like to talk about rural agency stores for a minute, if I could. Can you tell me how many new rural agency stores have been appointed in the last year?

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to advise the member that 86 new rural agency stores are in place in rural British Columbia, in the heartlands of British Columbia, giving the citizens of the heartlands the same opportunity as people in urban major markets have to purchase beverage alcohol — whether it be wine for their Sunday dinner or a few beers so they can watch the Canucks win their hockey game.

They don't have to drive 20 kilometres any longer. Of course, my best example, and I see the member is not here, is 108 Mile House. I never could quite understand, if you lived in 108 Mile House, why you had to drive to 100 Mile House to buy your bottle of wine or your six-pack of beer. They now have service in that community.

In fact, we have 86 new locations — that's March 28, 2003, over March 31, 2002. We have another 42 currently being processed.

B. Locke: We know there are cold beer and wine stores, or LRSs, in small communities as well — the same communities that may have rural agents. I wonder if the minister can explain how in a small community that competition is supposed to be effective, when a rural agency store's price is regulated and licensed retail stores are not regulated.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, our government believes in competition. Our government believes that consumers should have choice. Quite frankly, why should rural communities not be afforded the same opportunities as people that live in major markets have? I live in a community that has two government liquor stores and three cold beer and wine stores. You know, some people choose to buy at the government prices, and some people choose to buy at the cold beer and wine stores. Again, that becomes a consumer choice.

I often look at this as not being a whole lot different, in my opinion, from when we, in our family, need a loaf of bread or some milk, and I decide either to go to one of the major supermarkets or to one of the mini-markets in my community. I think that's about convenience, I think that's about choice, and I think that's about serving the consumers that are in British Columbia.

B. Locke: As the minister is seeing an exit from the retail market, do you see that change to open, free pricing for rural agents?

B. Locke: Can the minister tell me what the different discounts are for the various liquor retailers? I'm going to include wine agents and wine agency stores, VQA stores — the whole gamut.

Hon. R. Thorpe: LRSs, 10 percent discount; independent wine stores, 30 percent. VQA stores are treated as winery sales, and the revenue flows to the wineries.

B. Locke: The VQA stores. Zero revenue goes to government from the sale of product through those stores?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Correct. Back in 1988, 1989, the government of the day passed the British Columbia Wine Act. You may recall that the industry was basically a throwaway industry. It had a significant impact. Acreage fell down under 1,000 acres of production. Most of the VQA wineries are very small in size. I'm happy to say that acreage in the Okanagan is now over 6,000 acres cultivated, creating significant employment on farms and in wineries.

I'm also very pleased to be able to say that we have a growing wine industry in British Columbia, not just in the Okanagan, but in the Fraser Valley and also here on Vancouver Island. I hope in the coming months to take some time, as I met some folks last week, and visit the wineries here on Vancouver Island. I think our premiumization of the wine industry not only offers us a tremendous agriculture opportunity, but offers a significant tourism opportunity.

Again, most of these are very small producers. Our treatment of those with respect to taxation is very similar to and very competitive with other jurisdictions around the world.

B. Locke: Is the minister contemplating any further expansion of any of either the wine stores or the VQA stores — either expansion in numbers or expansion in product line, including beer and liquor?

Hon. R. Thorpe: There originally were granted 12 B.C. Wine Institute stores. That was a result of free trade transition discussions back in…. I can't remember exactly the year, but if I had to guess, it would '93 or '94. There was an undertaking at the time, because there were 21 dormant licences in British Columbia, that after the successful implementation of the 12, the government of the day would consider increasing that to 21, the number that had originally been contemplated. The industry did come forward, and my colleague the Solicitor General and the Minister of Provincial Revenue signed off on that. They do now have 21 licences in the province.

They are VQA stores. We do not contemplate VQA stores being anything more than promoting British Columbia VQA wines. We do not contemplate them selling spirits; we do not contemplate them selling beer.

Hon. R. Thorpe: At this point in time we have not had any discussions nor been approached by anybody

B. Locke: Can the minister tell me who regulates and enforces wine stores, rural agency stores and GLSs?

B. Locke: Can the minister tell me what is the average size of — I don't know if they refer to it as red line in a GLS — the store area in a government liquor store?

B. Locke: I have no further questions on the LDB, so we'll do the rest later.

S. Brice: Obviously, there's such a wide range of communities, and I know you have reinforced with me that, in the end, you want the same or higher revenue to government and the same or better service to the consumer. I can tell you that I come from a community that's going to be a real challenge for you, because the liquor distribution branch has done too good a job.

Over the years the level of customer satisfaction in my community has been extremely high. The locations, the selection, the hours, the alternative payments — the use of credit cards — have all been responsive, particularly over the last decade, to the consumers. The second part of that, which is the same or higher customer satisfaction, is probably going to be a challenge in my community, which I would consider a suburban community to probably reflect a portion of the province that enjoys a very high level of customer satisfaction at this point.

I see in your objective 2.3, up to fiscal '05-06, going at the maximum number of closures up to '05-06…. Starting with 223, that would take down 130, so I'm looking at the end of '05-06. You've still got probably 93 locations, going with your maximum numbers. I'm going to ask you how you've turned your thoughts to how you're going to replicate the level of customer satisfaction in areas where the branch has already scoped out all the best locations, has taken that 5,500 to 6,500 square feet and has provided for the consumer such a huge selection and good hours. What sort of game plan do you have for dealing with what I would presume would probably be that group at that last 95 to 100, which are not going to transition as easily for you?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I'd just like to correct the member. Objective 2.3 gives indications as minimum number of GSs to be closed, not maximum numbers.

First of all, I thank you on behalf of the LDB team for your comments about customer service. Yes, the LDB has worked very hard at providing service to its customers. That's actually their responsibility.

In every other sector of retailing the customer will drive the satisfaction, and if a customer is not satisfied at store X or store Y, they will find store A or store B. I have every confidence that the private sector will be able to provide as good as and, I'm sure they would say, better than, customer service than the branch, but the customers will decide that in time.

I don't know if the member was here when I spoke about this, and perhaps she wasn't. We do envisage that there will be other retail models in place in the province to serve the needs of British Columbians. We do not see that it will only be the expansion of the cold beer and wine stores in the model that they're going to have. We do see that the possibility does exist. We are looking at other options as I speak now. We certainly haven't reached any other conclusions, but I can assure this member and other members there has not been a shortage of British Columbia entrepreneurs that see a significant retail opportunity to provide customer choice and unique shopping experiences and that are very, very interested in getting into the retailing of beverage alcohol throughout the entire province, whether it be rural or urban markets.

I think we live in obviously changing times, but again I have full confidence in the private sector to invest and to create private sector jobs, but most importantly to provide the customer with the choices and the service they demand.

The minister, in responding to a question from the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, talked about the private monopoly versus the public monopoly. I wonder if he can just expand on that. I'm wondering if he's referring to separately owned retailers, or if he was talking about the distribution network.

V. Roddick: Just to follow up on the minister's recent comments re entrepreneurs and private sector jobs. Is there room in your plans for more customer choice, for community flexibility, for independent wine stores? Our community of Delta South, in particular Tsawwassen, is really looking for something along that line. I was wondering if your plans throughout the province would hold a place for this kind of store — customer flexibility, customer choice — or just a larger wine store handling everything — VQA and the world.

Hon. R. Thorpe: At this point in time we are not contemplating implementing those things, as again, we are working through the 300 or 400 applications we

Actually, I can say that the member — it's a matter of public record — has forwarded to me a request from her community that has spurred us at the liquor distribution branch to review a number of potential retail options. Again, those are not options that we are going to rush out and implement tomorrow or next week. But they are options that we have if we are going to discharge our responsibilities correctly in providing the customers with choice — options that we are investigating and assessing. That's our responsibility.

Members may be interested that right now, private individuals who are not part of the primary liquor holder licence group that is moving through on process right now…. We have 1,400 names on file of people that have expressed an interest in looking at other retail venues. That says to me that there is a lot of interest in the private sector investing, the private sector creating jobs. But again, we have to stay focused on our task at hand, and that's the implementation of the private liquor licence holders first, getting those operations up and running, then making our community-by-community analysis, and then going forward.

We are doing the work. We are looking at the options. Those things will fit in as time unfolds.

V. Roddick: Thank you, minister. That's the end of the LDB. I have some further questions, but I understand that you wanted to let the LDB staff off the hook.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I'm pleased to have with me the president of Tourism B.C., the Crown corporation that looks after tourism for the province, Mr. Rod Harris. If we had specific questions with respect to tourism, I'd be pleased to deal with those, and then Rod can get back to his office and make sure we're driving forward getting people here to British Columbia.

K. Johnston: My question has to do with the recent announcement of, I believe, $500,000 to seven tourism associations across British Columbia. I just wondered if I could get a sense of what exactly those funds will be expended for.

Hon. R. Thorpe: That was an announcement of $500,000. We gave $75,000 to six regional tourism organizations throughout the province, plus we gave $50,000 to aboriginal tourism. Those funds are to be matched, within those regions and with those organizations, with other private sector and other availability of raising funds.

Quite frankly, that is a result of my travelling around to various regions of the province and meeting individual tourism associations and individual community tourism operators that said: "You know, there's never quite enough money to do projects." I'm not going to be critical of Tourism B.C., as they have faced, like all other organizations, spending priority decisions.

This message came up continually as I travelled around the heartlands of British Columbia. Through the very good efforts of my staff and my ministry, we were able to prudently manage our budgets, and we had an opportunity to address a need that regional tourism organizations and aboriginal tourism had addressed to us. That's what drove us to do that.

We are very hopeful that those funds will help them do whatever they believe in their regions is the most important thing to do to drive tourism, whether it is a program in Fort St. John to stay an extra day, or some signage in Sparwood as people come into the province, or if it has something to do with valley tourism in the Okanagan. Those are going to be the decisions of those regional organizations. It's just a small token of what we were able to do.

I might also add to the member that we are working very hard with Tourism B.C. realizing opportunities and challenges that are faced in the world marketplace today. We will also have another very positive announcement with respect to tourism in the coming ten days.

K. Johnston: Keeping in mind the answer which was given with regard to regionalization of these funds, is there a coordinated approach in terms of all of British Columbia coming together to reach out to the world to bring tourism? What markets, specifically, are we looking at going after to attract people to British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, we are continually working through Tourism B.C. and through the regional tourism organizations in a cooperative manner. I'm advised that on Monday of this week, the regional tourism organizations that received this additional funding — this one-time, extra funding — actually had a conference call to see how they all could coordinate to maximize their return.

We also have other programs through Tourism B.C. in which we are maximizing the use of our funds and trying to lever those up with funds from the private sector and from the Canadian Tourism Commission in order that we can focus on specific markets and achieve specific results. One area happens to be a program we call B.C. Escapes. We have, I believe, two dimensions to that program: one that sort of focuses on the golden triangle of Victoria, Vancouver and Whistler; and the other focuses in on the heartlands of the province.

Again, those are done in a coordinated effort, whether it be linked to skiing in the winter, to golf, to ecotourism or to sport fishing — whatever the different categories are. Yes, coordination is a key role that Tourism B.C. plays in us being able to maximize our spend so we can attempt to be heard in a marketplace that is very, very competitive.

K. Johnston: In terms of my second part — I guess I was still talking and not listening — in terms of who

we are trying to market and target…. Target market is, I guess, an expression. Is it the people of British Columbia? Is it the people of Canada? Or do we have a real extensive program for international visitors in terms of our marketing strategy?

Hon. R. Thorpe: At the back of our service plan it gives some highlights where we have offices and where we have people working on our behalf. Obviously, a key huge focus market for us is the United States of America — our good friends and the people that bring us a lot of business. We, in fact, quite frankly, had some great concerns after the September 11 tragic events. When originally that happened — months after — we had forecasted significant decreases. I believe the figures now show that we had increases, and that was in large part thanks to our friends throughout the United States. But we also have efforts in Australia, Germany, Japan, U.K. and in Taiwan.

I am pleased to say I met with officials in the Taiwan office last year when I was there. I had the opportunity to attend Kanata, a tourism marketing convention in Japan, and also celebrate Tourism B.C.'s tenth anniversary there, so we have a coordinated effort. You know, the reason we do have a coordinated and focused effort is because (1) it's the right thing to do; and (2) when you're challenged with the resources that you have, you have to spend them in a very focused way. Tourism B.C. is achieving that, and we're pleased with the results.

B. Locke: Minister, a number of communities have the grandfathered hotel tax. Those funds aren't allocated by the industry. They're allocated by, I guess, local council. Can you tell me if you are going to be reviewing that formula for those grandfathered tax areas?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, that responsibility falls under the Minister of Finance. But, to my knowledge, I have not been approached by anyone on reviewing those that had been grandfathered. I do know that those new applicants that come forward do have to have the support of their hotelier community to ensure that, I believe, over 50 percent of those folks in the community agree with the proposal and where the moneys are going to be spent. But that is for the Ministry of Finance. On the grandfathering aspect, I have not heard of anything in that area.

H. Bloy: One question about your tourism plan: are you planning on encouraging British Columbians to travel the province this year? I'd like to make a personal statement that I purchased a trip at a charity auction to take the Rocky Mountaineer to Calgary. Friends of ours from Ontario are flying out here, and they're joining us on this two-day trip. We plan on renting a car and travelling in northern British Columbia this summer to enjoy all the great benefits of it and do some fishing. I'm curious to see if your plan will be encouraging British Columbians to enjoy this great province.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We believe that through the various regional programs, that's one of the focuses they focus in on. I thank the member for bringing people out. I'm surprised he's limited himself to two. I thought he would be much more ambitious and have many more people than that come and visit him so he could take them around to all parts of British Columbia.

Last year I left on August 10, and I travelled for 19 days to 22 communities, from Whistler to Nanaimo to Telegraph Cove to Port Hardy to Prince Rupert to the Nass to Kitimat to Smithers to Houston and over to Prince George, down to McBride, Valemount, Dawson Creek, Fort St. John, Tumbler Ridge and Hudson Hope. I would encourage all members of this House…. I applaud the member for taking that initiative.

There's a reason it's called Super, Natural British Columbia. You know, it's too bad that often we're in this location. It's a wonderful location here in Victoria, but there's so much to see. We'll take the member's note there. I'm sure Tourism B.C. would look at if there are things — obviously, it's very difficult to do for this year — that we couldn't do. I know some programs that have worked in other jurisdictions and communities — be a tourist in your own town. You can be a tourist in your own province.

We're very, very encouraged by the number of Canadians visiting British Columbia. I think last year we had record visitations from Alberta into British Columbia. Again, we encourage everyone to visit British Columbia, and we encourage all members of this House and all other British Columbians to have their friends come out from all parts of Canada to visit British Columbia.

K. Johnston: I believe that's the end of the direct tourism questioning. I know members have lots of questions on the service plan and the estimates themselves.

S. Brice: I'd like, minister, to move to goal 2 and the performance measure for overseeing and construction of the Vancouver convention centre. I see that your target for '03-04 is to conclude arrangements for the construction of an expanded convention and exhibition centre. I'd like to ask the minister if he could advise me as to where we are in the process.

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, we're very excited that the Vancouver convention centre is moving forward. Earlier this year we purchased the land. We have set up a Crown corporation to oversee this project. It's chaired by the deputy minister to the Premier. Also on the board are the Deputy Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise and the Deputy Minister of Finance. The budget for the overall project is $495 million. The opening date is the year 2008. We believe construction will start next year.

We have agreements, commitments, in place for the federal government to put in about $2.25 million to the province and the tourism industry of $19 million. We're moving forward. We have a project manager in place. If we haven't yet, we're very close to having architects in place. We expect to start construction early next year.

S. Brice: I have a particular interest, minister, in seeing whether or not, in your plans for the Vancouver convention centre, your project team is considering a green building program and whether or not you would consider seeking a LEEDS designation. I think it would not only assist us in meeting some of the targets we're going to have to meet environmentally but also would be an excellent marketing opportunity for our province.

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I thank the member for her question. We are looking to make sure the buildout of this convention centre is done in the most effective, efficient manner. We want to make sure it's built so that operational expenses are thought of before it's being built so we achieve those efficiencies in ongoing operations. Whether it's going to be a LEEDS project or not I can't confirm at this point in time, but we are sensitive to the technological advancements and the green building code. All of those points will be considered as we build it out on time and on budget and we open it in 2008.

S. Brice: Thank you, minister. I'm encouraged by that. I'm not surprised, because I know our government does have, particularly in the advanced education sector, a pretty well-thought-out direction in terms of construction and moving towards a green building initiative.

At what point in your planning and your design would you be able to indicate whether or not there might be an opportunity for a designation which we could market? I think that, this being the showpiece for our province, we would have a lot of marketing opportunities if we could give conventions and tours and so on a chance to come and see how B.C. does it.

Hon. R. Thorpe: As I said, architects have just been retained. We'll be moving through those processes. The board obviously meets on a very regular basis. I would expect that those decisions would be finalized by the end of this calendar year.

I might also add to the member that we are already starting, or will be starting shortly, the marketing of the new facility. Tentatively at this point in time, I am scheduled to travel with major Tourism Vancouver and hotel operators in September to Washington, D.C., to start selling the benefits of our new convention centre.

As the member is no doubt aware, the lead time for conventions of the nature that we will be attracting to British Columbia is in the four- to seven-year range. We're starting now, because it's one of the things we want to do. We want to make every effort to make sure we have very few dark nights and we have the opportunity to showcase what we believe will be one of the world's leading convention centres to people from around the world. We'll be making those decisions by the end of this year, but we are already starting our marketing and sales efforts now.

S. Brice: Minister, I am, of course, not surprised to hear that you are looking at your ongoing operating costs. Obviously, energy efficiency and water conservation and all will be folded into that. I will sit down at this point. I feel that, in light of other colleagues and messages they would want to push, I certainly want to be on the record as saying that there will be, I'm sure, great opportunities to showcase British Columbia wood products in this new facility.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We will be making every effort in this new facility to showcase — and show off, too — not only British Columbia forest products but all products of British Columbia. As you know, our government, under the leadership of the Premier, is committed to revitalizing our forest products industry by working with our industry. What better opportunity do we have than to showcase it in a facility that people are going to come to from around the world?

V. Roddick: Delta South is going to be faced with significant challenges over the next few years to meet some of these exciting economic needs of the province. The Vancouver Port Authority is already planning to double its container capacity, and we cannot handle the traffic as it stands now. Ten year ago when the original pod was developed, Vancouver Port established a Delta Port liaison committee. Would the minister work with the Vancouver Port Authority to reinstate this committee to ensure the ability of the overall community, which includes all the various business sectors and the Tsawwassen first nations?

Hon. R. Thorpe: First of all, I would like to thank the member for that question. The member raises an excellent point. We in our ministry are committed to working with communities, to building partnerships as we build — and in some places reignite — the economic engines in British Columbia. We understand the concerns the folks in Delta would have about this project. The reason I understand these concerns is because the people in Delta are represented by two great MLAs, for Delta South and Delta North, and they've talked to me about this.

The members for Delta South and Delta North have my assurances as the minister responsible that we will work very closely with the Delta Port–Vancouver Port project team that is working on this. We will tell them in the strongest terms that it is important from our perspective to ensure they have complete involvement of the community including the first nations, so that working together we can build solutions and create economic opportunities for all in the region, not only in

the Delta region but in the entire lower mainland. In fact, as this project goes forward it would have economic benefits for the entire province.

The member also has my assurance that we will work with the Ministry of Transportation to ensure that all aspects of the traffic flow are considered and weighed appropriately in reaching any decisions that take place in that area.

The most important thing I want to commit to the member for Delta South and also the member for Delta North, who I know is sitting here today, is that I would want them to play a key part in keeping me, as the minister responsible, advised of what is going on in their communities. I look forward to their participation also as we study, review and attempt to move forward with an exciting project for British Columbia.

V. Roddick: Thank you. You have even answered my second question. I would just like to reiterate that it is hugely necessary that we have a seamless integration of the transportation system between the B.C. Ferries expansion, the Tsawwassen first nations and the Vancouver port. I appreciate the minister's comments.

B. Locke: My question to the minister is about expanding markets, particularly India. I know you've recently been on a trade mission to India. I wonder if you can tell me what areas of interest there are for B.C. and what opportunities there are in India for us.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I thank the member for the question. India offers British Columbia an excellent long-term opportunity. India is one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. It's also a jurisdiction that is removing its restrictive barriers and duties as it moves forward. It also is a marketplace that is estimated to have an affluent middle class in the numbers of up to 300 million people.

What we are interested in doing in India is, first of all, developing the potential for our forest products. Our forest products, as we have found from our difficulties with our friends in the United States with our softwood lumber dispute…. We have had too many eggs in one basket. As we look to diversify markets, we have identified India as a potential market. Again, this will not be done overnight. These things take time. They take a lot of effort by a lot of people, and we have to be persistent.

We see two areas. We see the possibilities of working in the area of wood-frame construction, which again, is going to take some time. We have some experience in that, as we've done that in the Taiwan market. Also value-added wood products. B.C. Wood has established a showroom in Mumbai and are looking at some renewed plans as we go forward. Currently they have a number of applications before the forest investment account for possible work there.

We also see opportunity in the area of environmental technologies. We also see the opportunity in biotech relationships, high-tech relationships and also the film industry. So we see a number of relationships. I expect to be making a trip to India later this year. Again, we're looking for some breakthrough opportunities. Our long-term prospects, though, are for forest products.

We are also trying to attract investment from India into British Columbia. India has a world reputation for its software development, its high-tech development. We believe that British Columbia offers Indian companies a great place to establish businesses as they, too, try to pursue the treasured United States market.

B. Locke: I wonder if you can tell me how businesses in B.C., especially businesses that are owned by people of Indian descent, can get involved in your mission or in visits?

Hon. R. Thorpe: My staff are continually meeting with business people, both of Indian and non-Indian descent, who have an interest in the Indian market. If you have constituents that we haven't contacted or know of people that are interested, please direct them directly to me, and I'll make sure my staff is aware of that.

We also work with the Canada-India Business Council, have established very good working relationships with them, and of course we work with many members of caucus who have extensive contacts in this very valued part of the British Columbia community.

We will want to make sure when we go to India, as when we go to Taiwan or Japan or other overseas markets, that we are representing those who want to do business there and those who have knowledge of the particular markets. We are going to work in true partnership with our entrepreneurs, with our small businesses and with our larger businesses as we focus on India, Japan, China, Taiwan and the United States.

K. Johnston: The Vancouver Convention and Exhibition Centre project is, I think, an unbelievably exciting thing for the future of all of British Columbia because it's going to draw so many people here who will travel all over the province.

I just had a couple of question to the minister. In the estimates it indicates a figure of $67 million being spent in this fiscal year now. I'm just wondering what exactly that is. How did we determine that number?

Hon. R. Thorpe: That is a cash flow run-out based on as we plan the project and as we incur costs on the project. Of that $67 million, I believe $33 million will be to cover the land purchases. Again, it's a cash flow as we engage architects, do studies, get ready for engineering drawings, as we go through it. That's what those funds are designed to do: to pay our bills as we go along, as folks in British Columbia see their new convention centre being built.

K. Johnston: Thank you for that, minister. In terms of the timing, the total commitment in year 2000 dollars

is $495 million, and the minister has already spoken on the split between federal-provincial and the actual tourism group that's in there. I just was wondering what the phasing of that…. Is it as the project goes along, or is there a certain milepost — for example, if somebody sends us a cheque from the federal government? How does the timing on the funding work?

Hon. R. Thorpe: We have the overall commitment from the federal government. We have the overall commitment from the tourism industry. We are currently working in very, very good partnership with both parties.

Our overall intent is that their moneys will flow to us so that we'll flow shares, proportionately, to cover the expenses of building the centre.

K. Johnston: Just shifting gears a little bit. When we had that time off in our ridings, I went through the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview and visited about 180 small businesses — just dropping in. A lot of the questions I had, and I got back were…. Although we've done some pretty good stuff in terms of tax levels, small corporation tax levels and things like that, what other initiatives might be on the horizon to support the small businesses of British Columbia?

Hon. R. Thorpe: Yes, we've lowered the small business tax. We've increased the small business tax threshold by 50 percent to $300,000. We are cutting red tape, we've introduced balanced labour legislation, and we're conducting an ongoing review of WCB. We are creating much more access to the small business venture capital fund. We've introduced a new media fund of $4 million for investment purposes.

So we have a variety of items there. We also are in the final stages of putting in place a single business number in British Columbia. It's a multipartner e-business initiative to simplify the relationship between business and government through this single identifier. It would be the federal business number.

We have a number of things going on. We are going to continue to work with our chambers of commerce, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and other organizations that represent the views of small business on how we can make it easier for them to do business in British Columbia and to create investment and jobs in British Columbia, not only in the riding of Vancouver-Fraserview but through the rest of the heartlands of British Columbia.

One of the goals of the service plan is to heighten the national and international competitiveness of B.C.'s science and technology sector. I guess just about every jurisdiction in the world is probably chasing that sector. I was wondering what sort of things we would be doing. What would make it special, and what would make them come to British Columbia in terms of the high-tech sector?

Hon. R. Thorpe: One of the things we have is some of the best-kept secrets in the world here in British Columbia — a great place to live, to raise and educate your family, and to develop a very successful world-class business.

Last year the Premier and I went with business delegates to San Francisco and visited a number of financiers and small business high-tech industries. We are currently working with Genome B.C. We've just completed a $27.5 million funding arrangement with them. Genome B.C. is a world-leading centre for scientific development. We are also working with the biotech sector. We just received a document from them establishing their priorities. The document is called Getting There.

We are also working with George Hunter, the executive director of the B.C. Technology Industries Association, who is leading a group of seven sectors — including our wireless, our new media, our biotech, our high-tech and other sectors — in developing a strategic plan which will focus us on the key markets we want to go to. Generally, that's a market in the United States. Generally, it's California, Washington and Seattle, with some links to Taiwan and Japan. We are working hand in hand in partnership with the industry sectors. Of course, Fuel Cells Canada is a major opportunity for us here in British Columbia. We are doing a number of things in that area.

I want to say that the Premier has personally committed to leading a leading-edge marketing trip every year. We've conducted one, we're planning another, and we're going to continue.

One of the great things and one of the reasons we should be very proud is that we have the educational institutions in place. Through our universities and technology schools we are producing excellent students, and that's key to producing excellent science. That's key to companies locating and building here in British Columbia.

We've also increased substantially our commitment on venture capital. We're not stopping where we are. It's another step. We're going to continue to work to make sure, because we need venture capital here to grow those businesses.

Recently we've attracted PeopleSoft. PeopleSoft have chosen British Columbia as a software development centre. They have just under a hundred employees already, and they've only been here months. I met with them last week. They told me they are so pleased with the progress they're making in British Columbia. In fact, their operation in British Columbia ranks as the highest productivity centre in their PeopleSoft software development organization. That's a great feather in the cap of British Columbia — of our advanced education system and the productivity and quality of our workers.

There are a number of things we're pulling together, but the key is that we're working with the in-

dustry sectors and listening to them, because they know what they need. They know where they need government to assist, and most importantly, they know where they need government to get out of their way.

K. Johnston: I appreciate the minister's response on that and the work he's doing in attracting and making sure we are a destination for high-tech business like PeopleSoft.

My final question to the minister has to do with the service plan. He talks about a change from previous plans and specifically about a more structured approach in the sales and marketing side to priority markets and sectors in partnership with the private sector. I wonder if the minister could just expand on that a little bit for me, as to what that focus actually means.

Hon. R. Thorpe: We will be coming forward very shortly with a document that's going to clearly show what our priority markets are, what our priority sectors are and what we believe our priority opportunities are. One of the things we're trying to do…. There's a tendency to try to be all things to all people every day. That, quite frankly, in this business is a recipe to ensure that you don't get a whole bunch done. That's not acceptable to us. Therefore, we're going to be very focused.

We want to attempt to, as best we can, create a sales environment within our ministry that would replicate the private sector. In other words, we want to go fish where the fish are. We don't want to be chasing small schools up and down the coast when there's no chance. That is going to mean sometimes having to say no to people, whatever their little pet project is, as we pursue a focused approach.

What we're going to try to do in the coming year is institute that very focused, results-based approach to actually getting new businesses here to invest in British Columbia, building partnerships with parts of the world that we believe offer us long-term opportunity and, most of all, working in real partnership with our various sectors that we have identified as growth — whether that be tourism, film, biotech, high-tech. I should never start down this road, because you always leave somebody out, and then you get a letter the next day.

We want to make sure our forest products are represented properly overseas, that we expand our markets, that we invite mining investment back into British Columbia. Exploration is up 25 percent year over year. We want it to be up even more.

We've got our heartlands economic strategy that we're going to be working on. We're going to need investment to help us do that. We've got our resort strategy. We're going to want to make sure we're bringing investors from around the world to look at British Columbia so that we can develop the potential we have throughout British Columbia. It's going to be much more of a business sales approach within government, focused on those areas that we believe can provide investment opportunities and job creation throughout British Columbia.

B. Locke: I'm going to switch the questions to the Minister of State for Deregulation.

Can the minister of state tell me how deregulation is going? Where is he finding the most burdensome regulation on industry?

Hon. K. Falcon: I would answer that in a couple of ways. First, I would say that the measurement of reducing the regulatory burden is an inexact science at best. One of the reasons we wanted to quantify it was so that we had some way of determining whether we were achieving our objectives or not. That's why we had the regulatory count.

The regulatory count gives us one measurement to determine whether or not we are at least moving in the right direction, but I always like to point out to people that it is only one measurement, and it is an imperfect measurement. It gives us a quantification in terms of numerical numbers. It does not give us an assessment in terms of what the impact is to the small business people.

The only other way we can measure that is by listening to what folks are telling us. What people are telling us, generally speaking, is that they're seeing some improvements in some sectors a lot more than others. The changes to the Labour Code, employment standards and liquor licensing regulations have had a big impact on the hospitality industry, for example. We are hearing some very positive feedback.

Oil and gas sector and mining sector. We're starting to get some positive feedback that we're definitely moving in the right direction there. There's much more room to go, but we're moving in the right direction.

The greatest holdup, candidly, appears to be with a few ministries. The two most prominent would be the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. That is largely because the ministries are required to go through a rather extraordinary set of consultative processes. Those processes are ongoing and continue to be ongoing. My hope is that some of those will at some point come to an end. At that point, when they come to an end, we will be able to actually implement some of the changes that we have been hearing from the public.

My degree of confidence that that will happen has been increasing proportionate to the amount of time it has been taking. I think that over the next six months…. I am hopeful that we will start to actually make some real progress there in those ministries. That will have a huge impact on folks on the ground in terms of noticing the burden being lifted.

B. Locke: I know that certainly, minister, you've canvassed the private members extensively on deregulation initiatives, and I wondered if you could tell me how you've dealt with business and how they've had input into the changes.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's a very good question, member. The business community, being one of the most obvious communities that actually is impacted by government regulation, is often the most vocal in terms of coming to us and asking for relief.

We have tried to accommodate some of those interests through the Red Tape Reduction Task Force that I put together. It's a task force not made up exclusively of business representatives, but they had very good representation on that advisory panel. That panel has made recommendations, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that we then passed on to the ministries to consider as they put together their deregulation plans.

We also have a website where we ask for recommendations and suggestions from members of the public. We have a waste-buster website that has a regulatory component so that when members of the public are frustrated at government regulation or something in government that is wasteful, they can also access that.

I travel the province as often as I can to speak to local chambers, Rotaries and Lions Clubs. Every time, I make a point of ensuring that if any of them have any concerns or regulatory issues they want to address, they bring them to my attention, and I will do my best to advocate on their behalf to try to deal with those.

The private members in this government, I just want to add for the record, have been excellent in terms of bringing forth regulatory issues that concern individual constituents or small businesses within their communities. They bring them to my attention, and then I work either with the Crown corporations or the ministries to try to solve those. In most cases we can bring about a solution that actually addresses the concerns raised by the private members.

B. Locke: I'm going to ask specifically about industry sector groups — specifically, the cosmetologists. We have received several inquiries from them complaining about changes. I wanted to ask the minister if he could respond to that.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, it seems we have an inordinate amount of interest amongst the private members over this issue.

A little background, I think, is necessary. The Cosmetologists Act and the Barbers Act were two acts that were passed in the 1920s — I believe 1924 and 1928, respectively. They've been on the books every since. No one quite understands why. The best we can figure is that back in the twenties, believe it or not, barbers used to engage in dental work too — a frightening thought, but nevertheless it's true. Therefore, there was a feeling that they should be regulated.

You should know that only 11 of the 167 trades and occupations in this province today are actually compulsory. The vast majority of them are voluntary trades. What we are doing by repealing those ancient acts off the books is actually dealing with barbers and cosmetologists the way we deal with the overwhelming majority of trades in this province. The cosmetologists and barbers are the only two trades that are required by law to pay an annual fee to practise their trades. That is something that strikes me as discriminatory and something that is totally inappropriate.

The member may also know that we've had…. Many examples have been played up in the media over the years where we had people…. I recall that the Vancouver Province, I believe, did a big story about a barber from Italy who had been practising his trade for some 25 years. He came to British Columbia and found that he could not practise the trade in this province until he actually went and took the entire training course, with all the associated fees that had to paid, and do that entire process before he was able to practise the trade in British Columbia. That doesn't make any sense. As a result, we are following the vast majority of the provinces in this country and dealing with those two associations as voluntary trades.

B. Locke: My final question, minister, is: when you are doing your deregulation, do you look at the ministries that are dealing with social safety net issues and education and health? Do you use that lens with any of those ministries?

Hon. K. Falcon: We do. We said from the beginning, when we went through the deregulation exercise, that our priority would be on those regulations that have the most direct bearing on economic competitiveness. Our goal is to get this economy moving, particularly in the heartlands of the province, and that remains our priority. However, there are regulations in the social ministries that have a huge impact, a burdensome impact, on the public at large.

I am actually quite pleased with the progress that's been made in the social ministries, in the advances they've made in deregulation. It's really actually very impressive. The Ministry of Children and Family Development, the Ministry of Human Resources, the Ministry of Education — all of them have made significant reductions. This affects folks very directly when they come to apply for social assistance or when they have a situation with a child in government care or what have you. The fact that we are eliminating a lot of the unnecessary regulation is very helpful to those people.

I just might state for the record that the opposition often tries to point out that the Ministry of Human Resources is requiring a 23-page form to be filled out by recipients of disability level 2, and I always like to correct that by pointing out that actually, only one page needs to be filled out by the recipients themselves. The balance is filled out by the doctors to ensure that the condition they suffer from is, of course, something the province should be covering under permanent disability.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I just wanted to thank the members for their questions today. I also wanted to make sure the members know that we count on their advice or guidance every day. If they have questions, or if they have items they believe that I or the minister of state need to follow up, we want them to come and talk

to us. Starting and rebuilding the economy of British Columbia is truly a team effort.

I also want to thank my colleague the Minister of State for Deregulation and publicly applaud him for his achievement in achieving his deregulation goal for this year on behalf of our government. Also, I want to thank my deputy and our senior management teams at the ministry, at the branch, at the agencies and Crowns, that worked so very hard in putting this stuff together. Now, more important than all of this, is getting on with putting the plan to….

I also just wanted to — this is the first time I've ever done this — recognize, just by some first names, some of the folks who work very hard in making this happen. This, by no means, is an exhaustive list. It is a representative list, so I'd like to thank: Carol Ann, Linda, Jim, Dale, Ian, Todd, Gord, Mark, David, Chris, Norman — if I could only read my writing — Brenda, Robert, Don, Dennis, Matthew, Tom, Nancy, Jani, Andrew and Rosita. Of course, I'd like very much to thank the staff in my office: Jamie, Sam, Nav, Caroline, Jay, Pam and Bob.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. Just very quickly. I would like to add to what the minister has stated. I would like to, very briefly, for the record, thank not only my staff in my office, who have been exceptionally helpful, Jay Sclosar and Pam Shatzko, but also the staff — very small staff, I might add — in the deregulation secretariat: Carol Ann Rolf, my director; Lois Smith, who retired recently as executive secretary and executive administrative assistant — a wonderful person; Georgina Tourangeau; Mary-Ethel Audley; John Champion; and all the deregulation contacts across government that really worked hard to help us meet our targets. I just want that for the record. Thank you very much.

The Chair: Thank you very much, minister. I would like to thank both our minister and minister of state as well as the members for asking questions here this afternoon.

The Chair: We will take a short recess and reconvene within five minutes to deal with further estimates.

Hon. J. Murray: It's my pleasure to introduce today the 2003-04 budget for the ministry. Joining me this afternoon are Gord Macatee, the Deputy Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection; Margaret Eckenfelder, assistant deputy minister, environmental protection division, who's left for a moment and has been replaced by Eric Partridge; Rodger Hunter, assistant deputy minister, planning, innovation and enforcement division, who will join us in a few minutes; and Nancy Wilkin, assistant deputy minister of the environmental stewardship division. The ministry executive have been ably assisted by Sheila Taylor, director of financial and administrative planning and reporting division, and Harold Cull, manager of the financial planning and reporting division.

Hon. members, may I begin with a few comments about the outstanding job being done by the people of the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection. They've demonstrated innovation as much as determination over the past 12 months. The people of Water, Land and Air Protection have demonstrated courage and compassion in supporting their fellow colleagues in the wake of last fall's tragic events in Kamloops.

May I take a moment to reiterate the government's sympathy to the families — the wives and children of the deceased — and to the co-workers of the deceased. The government and my ministry will continue to provide support for our employees and their families.

The government as an employer takes its responsibilities around workplace safety seriously. We'll continue to ensure that we have safe, secure workplaces for all our employees.

Permit me now to move to our planned activities in 2003-04. I'm proud to support the budget, of which this vote is a part, and the direction it will take our province — the direction of balanced budgets. We are well on our way to creating a new era of economic, social and environmental renewal and revitalization in all parts of the province.

In my ministry our key approach emphasizes partnerships with business, as we are, for example, implementing new product stewardship programs. It emphasizes partnerships with conservation and advocacy groups, enhancing our territorial watershed and wildlife habitats. Jurisdictions worldwide have recognized that each of us has a responsibility to be a steward of the environment, but we need to work together to accomplish that.

In my ministry we have a principled environmental policy approach where the ministry sets standards and outcomes and applies penalties if they are not respected. We are developing a consistent approach. It's results-based. Government will establish desired outcomes and necessary frameworks, but will not dictate how its partners in business and municipal government and its stakeholders will achieve those desired results.

Our approach is science-based. I appointed, for example, an independent panel of bear scientists recommended by the International Association for Bear

Research and Management to conduct a review of our grizzly bear management conservation science and practices. Those scientists confirmed that our ministry approach is sound and effective.

Our approach is based on the public interest, not on special interests. The recreation stewardship panel is an example of a process. That was a panel composed of well-respected experts. Through this process the panel heard from dozens of organizations representing hundreds of thousands of British Columbians. In accepting the panel's report, we have made meaningful change based on sound public policy and the public interest.

Our approach reflects regional differences. Our caucus is playing a critical role in bringing forward those regional perspectives. For example, several members have helped to develop strategies to prevent human-wildlife conflicts in their regions, working directly with stakeholders and the conservation officer service toward a new human-wildlife conflict strategy which will protect public safety in rural communities. I appreciate caucus members' involvement and support on these and the many other projects they've helped me with.

Finally, our approach is based on accessible and transparent information. Our expert panel, for example, that reviewed the Contaminated Site Regulation, used web-based consultations in addition to written submissions. My ministry's website traffic will total more than 7 million visits, representing almost a million different visitors in this fiscal year. These visitors will have viewed and downloaded more than 65 million pages of information about the ministry, its programs and activities. Web-based visits will continue to grow. We will continue adding to the range of information available on-line.

The Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection is living up to the commitment I made to all hon. members last year in this debate that we would establish open, transparent and accountable relationships.

I want to touch for a moment on first nations. First nations have a valuable perspective to offer governments as landowners and as stewards of the environment. In the Speech from the Throne this year our government renewed its commitment to the province's first nations. My ministry is supporting the Premier's goals of increased economic opportunity for first nations by expanding first nations opportunity and involvement in the co-management of B.C. parks and recreation services.

I'd like to emphasize how proud I am of our government's record of environmental achievement. There have been some critics who question this government's commitment to a cleaner, safer and healthier environment, and there has been some sensationalist media coverage that strives to undermine public confidence. May I assure all hon. members that the evidence is to the contrary. My ministry and our government, under our Premier's leadership, have made tremendous strides. Barely 21 months into our mandate, and all the while dealing with a massive financial burden left by the previous government, we have accomplished a number of significant achievements in the protection of British Columbia's environment.

Our $16 million drinking water action plan strengthens source protection for drinking water, and groundwater in this province will be protected for the very first time. This drinking water action plan and the upcoming groundwater regulations are a historic step forward in protecting the quality of our drinking water and safeguarding people's health.

The B.C. energy policy has environmental goals as a primary foundation. I think all members are proud that we have a target of producing 50 percent of all new electricity from clean and renewable sources, which leads the way in North America.

Over 30 million litres of used lubricating oil, the equivalent of a supertanker, and millions of oil filters and containers that used to end up in landfills and worse, will now be recycled, thanks to an end-of-life stewardship program that the ministry announced with industry in January.

The protection of critical wildlife habitat has been accelerated under the new Forest and Range Practices Act. This is an important environmental improvement in which we are working hand in hand with the Ministry of Forests, industry and other stakeholders.

Living rivers mean healthy communities. The establishment of a $2 million living rivers trust fund that I announced last summer is an important first step. My ministry is currently developing this strategy, which will protect and restore B.C.'s rivers and waterways. The strategy will utilize scientifically based standards and mechanisms for integrated watershed management, and will provide long-term funding for river restoration projects.

We've enhanced our conservation officer service's ability to enforce environmental rules by enabling partnerships with other police officers and by establishing a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week call centre. These highly trained enforcement professionals can now be in the field, rather than deskbound, returning voice mail messages and doing paperwork. The ministry continues to inform the public through the media each time offenders are convicted and fined.

Ministry biologists have now completed a number of partnership-based endangered species recovery plans. Through the new biodiversity branch we are developing a long-term vision and action plan for managing our environment responsibly and creating certainty. This will assist our forest industry, our businesses and our communities to meet the very real public and international expectation that our economic development will happen in a way that maintains our reputation as Super, Natural British Columbia.

Our list of environmental accomplishments would be a proud legacy for any government, let alone one not yet at its two-year mark. I will gladly compare our record of achievement to that of any previous government and, indeed, previous ministers of the environment.

By focusing on outcomes rather than prescriptive approaches, we've also introduced changes to reduce overlap and red tape. We have much more to do in the coming months. This supports our goal of working with other ministries to improve the quality of life and the economies of the heartlands of our province.

We've contributed $5 million to habitat enhancement this past year, primarily in heartlands communities. We've established comprehensive and enforceable environmental standards for our aquaculture industry — standards that were simply not a priority for the previous government and that support that industry's important contributions in heartlands communities. Provincewide funding for the bear smart program helps protect public safety in rural communities.

In the past most of B.C. parks and wildlife recreation revenues were returned to government's general treasury. Now, for the first time ever, through our recreation stewardship plan, all fees and licences collected for hunting, fishing and camping will be dedicated to the delivery of those services and to wildlife objectives. I can't overemphasize how important this change will be for the long-term protection of our fish and wildlife programs and for improving outdoor recreation in British Columbia.

Our government recognizes the strong public support that exists for B.C.'s world-class recreational fishing and the important role our freshwater hatcheries play in the province's economic heartlands. We are currently looking at new approaches to managing our world-class freshwater fish hatcheries program that will protect the quality of the service while reducing costs and while developing freshwater fishing opportunities.

The changes we are making to park, fish and wildlife recreation will support British Columbia's heartlands economic strategy and contribute to the doubling of tourism revenues in the coming years. These are dramatic shifts and dramatic contributions.

We are updating our major environmental laws to streamline and modernize our approach and reduce red tape that frustrates economic activity without helping the environment. I will shortly introduce in the Legislature revisions to the Waste Management Act. Currently, there are more than 30 different regulations and in excess of 50 policy and protocol documents, which together with the other provisions of the act add up to approximately 5,000 regulatory requirements. In addition, there are over 3,000 site-specific permits currently issued to approximately 2,000 operations in British Columbia. Sources of pollution and opportunities for prevention have changed significantly in recent years, and we need to make changes. We are undertaking the first comprehensive review of this legislation in over 20 years, and we will be making amendments to this act.

Similarly, government is determined to fix the contaminated-site rules in this province, which, as they exist today, are slow, cumbersome and tie up valuable property in legal knots. It means that contaminated sites are taking too long to clean up, cost too much and sometimes don't get cleaned up at all. We need to improve our environmental results by cleaning up these sites and getting them back into productive use in a system that is efficient, timely, cost-effective, fair and accountable. In order to accomplish this, the government will be introducing changes to the contaminated-site regulations this spring.

This spring we will also propose improvements to both the flood hazard management legislation and the Pesticide Control Act. B.C. has shown great leadership in developing policies that support greenhouse gas emission reductions. Our government has policies like clean and renewable energy targets, mentioned earlier, and leading energy conservation strategies. Our government and my ministry working with other ministries continue our work to develop the provincial climate change action plan.

Last fall Premier Campbell outlined British Columbia's five major areas of concern in the implementation of the Kyoto treaty on greenhouse gas emissions. Our province and, indeed, all provinces face unique circumstances and unique opportunities, and any implementation process must and will address these unique positions and concerns.

As the chair this year of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, I will be seeking product stewardship solutions to electronic and information technology waste with my provincial colleagues. Through my role with the council I will seek to improve our understanding of the links between children's health and their environment so that these negative impacts can be reduced.

All these changes will significantly improve this government's ability to maintain its balance between a safe and healthy environment and a robust economy, which is our primary objective at this time. My ministry is committed to a more effective and commonsense approach. We will use the best available science, set enforceable standards, develop partnerships and expect results. Those who choose to break our laws will be punished, and I take my role in this very seriously. By doing our job well as a ministry, we contribute to economic and social goals in this province.

Over and over we have heard from British Columbians that the quality of life matters. The environment must be cleaner, it must be safer, and it must be healthier. I am mindful that we have borrowed the environment in which we live from our children and grandchildren. We must return it to them in the future in a condition we can all be proud of.

International markets demand that the environment is protected, and British Columbia wants to show the world that our government recognizes these demands and expectations from our customers in the international marketplace. There is an economic, social and environmental facet to much of what we do in our province. Using good science and working together, I believe we can create an environmental management regime in British Columbia as innovative and effective as any on this continent.

I look forward to discussing my ministry's plans in detail as this estimates debate continues. We will be debating my ministry's budget for the fiscal year 2003-04. Net operating expenditures will be $130.057 million. We anticipate revenues of $10.674 million in the coming fiscal year and recoveries of $39.136 million.

Please note that the additional recoveries to the ministry are consistent with the recreation stewardship panel recommendation that program revenues and expenditures appear in the same place to ensure greater accountability and transparency. This accounting change results in no net change to the government's bottom line. Our projected full-time-equivalent utilization for the coming fiscal year is 998 full-time-equivalent staff.

R. Masi: I have a couple of questions for the minister relative to Burns Bog, which I'm sure is no surprise to the minister.

Referencing the history a little bit, back in 1995-96 there was a tentative deal put on the table with the government and the owners of the bog at the time. It didn't last. It was close to being signed but collapsed, and down it went. Following that, there were a number of ministers from 1996 on who in fact attempted to garner a deal with the owners of Burns Bog — still no closure, still no deal. Time went on.

I brought this question forward on an annual basis during estimates. It's now 2003, eight years later, and from my constituents' point of view there's still no resolution. I'm still being asked: "What are you people doing about resolving the problem with Burns Bog and securing Burns Bog for the good of the public?"

Can the minister give me an update on the progress of the Burns Bog situation at the present time?

Hon. J. Murray: We have done a very significant act to further our goal as a government of acquiring and protecting Burns Bog. We protected the funding that is required to do that. It is in the ministry's budget for this year so that it is ready and available when we come to a satisfactory negotiation.

I appreciate the enthusiasm of the member's constituents because this is a unique ecosystem, and it functions, in a way, as the lungs of the lower mainland. It cleans our air. As a government we remain as committed as ever to acquiring and protecting Burns Bog. We have said to the taxpayers of British Columbia that we will pay fair market value and no more. We are still negotiating with that intent and with that principle.

R. Masi: I understand there is a federal involvement in the process of negotiations. Are the federal people directly involved with negotiations with the owners, or is this primarily a provincial matter?

Hon. J. Murray: The federal government is not directly involved in negotiations. They're being handled through the partnerships group out of the Ministry of Finance. There are some other minor financial partners that have committed funds for this purchase as well.

R. Masi: There is a financial commitment from the federal government, I understand. At least there was. Does that commitment still hold?

Hon. J. Murray: The last time I spoke with a federal minister about this issue, that does still hold and those funds were still available. I guess I have no control over decisions made in the federal government, but that was the case the last time I had a conversation.

R. Masi: In terms of the state of the court decision relative to the $25 million loan to the owners that was made by the previous government, where do we stand now on that foreclosure? I understand there was a court case involving that.

Hon. J. Murray: The disclosure issues are being handled by the Ministry of Competition, Science and Enterprise, and I will not be providing any details on that.

R. Masi: So the key question that I was going to ask — would the lands be turned over to the province as a result of a foreclosure? — will not be dealt with by your ministry.

Hon. J. Murray: That's not something we're able to discuss at this time. We'll provide the member with information as soon as it becomes available.

R. Masi: Was there any date in terms of the time frame from the date of the court decision to the date that the owners had to appeal — I think it's called an appeal, anyway — or the number of months involved there?

Hon. J. Murray: The member's question is a matter that's part of the negotiations being handled by another ministry, so I won't be providing details on that. When they are available from the other ministry, we'd be happy to share them with the member.

K. Stewart: I have three broad questions. One deals with park fees and funding. The second deals with the increased fees with regard to fisheries and hunting and the allocation of those funds. The third is an acquisition-type question. Would you rather I gave one at a time or all three?

K. Stewart: Okay. The first question surrounds the increased park fees and the structure — a couple of questions about where the fees will apply and the ra-

tionale to the areas where the fees will apply. I'm talking about the day-use fees that are new. My understanding is that most of those will be remunerated by way of parking. I understand that most of the jurisdictions where they occur are in the lower mainland, and I just wonder why some of the higher-volume parks in the interior and maybe in other regions didn't have that apply or if they did and I haven't been informed as such at this point.

Hon. J. Murray: The areas that were selected for the day-use fees are in the lower mainland and southern Vancouver Island. Particular parks were selected based on the kind of facilities that they have and that they offer visitors — parks with more facilities, higher visitor use and more visitors from out of the local area, attracting visitors from out of province especially. The ministry is developing a three-year plan for its park fees. This was year 1 of the plan. We will be looking at parks that fit those criteria in the Thompson-Okanagan in the coming months.

K. Stewart: Just further to that, I notice that some of the parks that were excluded from some of the other regions were ones that had similar types of amenities. When you look at the little chart that has all the little Xs in the boxes of which they have, it appears there were some very similar. You're saying those will be looked at in further years for potential revenue?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, there are parks in other parts of British Columbia that satisfy those criteria. We wanted to start with, in a way, a trial of the day-use fee and decided on a trial in the areas where the parks are currently having fees applied. We will be looking at how it works as we develop this plan further over the coming years, and we'll be in discussion with members and with groups in their communities as we develop it.

K. Stewart: Further to the question, with regard to a park that is adjoining my riding and is a fairly high-volume park. I think it meets the criteria of one of these funding shifts where they're going to be gaining some revenue. One of the concerns that's been expressed to me by many of the local park users — I'm talking specifically of local park users — is the need for improvement into the park. The response is that they appreciate the fact that there needs to be more funding, especially for back country and some of the other facilities that have gone significantly downhill over the last 15 or 20 years.

One of the requests that was made to me by those members is to ensure that I put forward the question or the case that at least a portion of that funding be returned to the park where it's generated. I think from my perspective, it's only fair that if we're gaining a significant new revenue from the usage of a facility that people have had historical use of without paying revenue, they at least share in some improvement from the fees that are put upon them. Would the minister like to respond to that?

Hon. J. Murray: Yes, 15 percent of the fee will go to the park facility operator. That operator has increased maintenance and responsibility, so we intend that over time, these fees will contribute to not only a stabilization but an improvement of the ability to provide services and facilities in the parks.

K. Stewart: What I'm looking at specifically is outside of what's in the past practice of the park operator. This particular park I'm referring to has had a park operator, a contractor, in there for a number of years, and they have specific areas of responsibility within their contract. The areas I am referring to are outside of that — the usage areas that a person who's using facilities that haven't, in the past few contracts, been the responsibility of the contractor but have been the responsibility of the provincial government, those areas where improvement is needed. They have been run down, let go. In some cases they're very dangerous. It's important, I believe, that they be improved for liability purposes and also just for the general enjoyment of the public, to make some of the areas more accessible without being dangerous.

That is the area where I am suggesting and asking the question with regard to funding. Is part of this funding…? These people have to pay through parking, in my understanding, to go into the park. They may walk right through the area the park contractor has been traditionally responsible for maintaining and keeping up, into the further trails, back country, etc. They are paying the price. Are they going to gain the benefit?

Hon. J. Murray: Public safety is the number one priority in the B.C. parks prioritization of the capital budget. Each year there is some budget for the highest-priority items. It might have to do with water quality or the sanitation or sewer systems.

That being said, there have been financial constraints in the parks system. As the member and many people are aware, there has been more than a doubling of the area under the responsibility of B.C. Parks in our parks and protected areas system. Parks budgets have declined successively since the 1980s. That has led to the shrinkage of the services and facilities in B.C. parks over a number of years. That ties into the public's prioritization of some other aspects of government service, such as health care and education and the cost increases in some of those other categories.

We are addressing that chronic shortfall of funding that has led to a backlog of $40 million in terms of maintenance of facilities in B.C. parks. That's a real concern that I share with the member and people that use our parks system. The first step to address that is to stabilize the funding available for the parks system, and we have done that by making the change which directs all recreation revenues to providing those services and reduces

the vulnerability of the parks system to global budgets available to this ministry and government as a whole.

We aim to begin to strengthen our ability to make those investments and those operational activities in several ways, one of which is through a park trust or foundation through which the government can encourage donations that will go to improving the parks system. Also, as these increase over time in the future, those fees will be available to improve the parks system.

We've stopped the decline in funding that's been going on since the late eighties, and we have a plan for increasing the resources that will be available to address those very legitimate concerns the member is expressing.

K. Stewart: In closing on that topic, I just want to emphasize in the strongest terms my concern that if we are going to be extracting funding from a specific park, which is an increase, a new fee for that park, some of that funding go to improve some of the areas that have, as mentioned by the minister, been let go for the last 15 to 20 years — which, I appreciate, is certainly part of the problem.

Secondly, her comment about donations is…. Certainly, we'll be looking for any types of donations within the community. Those that will be paying the $3 to $5, or whatever it is, for the usage of a park that hasn't had areas improved…. I think they would view that as a donation every time they use it.

I'd just like to leave that topic and move on to another area of a fee increase where there's a service being provided — that's through the fishing and hunting increases — and to the hatchery-type program. My question on the hatcheries program is quite specific. I understand through the hatcheries program how there'd be this transition over to an independent body to take over these facilities, with the funding going directly to them. I think this is a very good thing, and I support the minister for doing that.

There are some ancillary-type programs that various community organizations in my region — one would be our Alouette River Management Society…. They have traditionally had types of funding through various sources which are sort of ancillary to the hatchery-type program, where they improve the river quality. They're doing many studies affiliated with the outcomes of some of the hatchery programs. I just wonder by what method those types of ancillary-type programs will be able to gain access, if they will, through the hatchery program. Can the minister give some comment or direction on how that may be able to occur?

Hon. J. Murray: I see the transition in the management of fish culture as potentially creating opportunities for partnerships such as that. We do still maintain the habitat conservation trust fund, which does fund projects for fisheries enhancement and habitat improvement.

K. Stewart: One final question, if I may. That's good news, and I appreciate that. I think it's a very positive initiative that's been taken to help restore some of the funding that's been lost over the years.

My final question relates back a bit to the Burns Bog question, although it's not Burns Bog. It's an acquisition that we've been trying to complete in my riding, Codd Island. It's with regard to acquisition funding. The question of the Burns Bog funding continued to be there. There was some commitment from the ministry of some funding towards the Codd Island project. I just wonder: what's the status of that, now that we're finished this fiscal year? Is there still the will on the government's part to continue with their share of funding with that into the future? You know how important that is to our community and how hard they've worked for that.

Hon. J. Murray: I'm very pleased to reassure the member that the Codd Island acquisition remains high on the ministry's priority list. There is a certain amount of funding each year through the Crown land account for acquisitions such as Codd Island.

K. Stewart: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and progress on this initiative, and that the committee be allowed 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