Hansard -- Wednesday, April 30, 2003 p.m. -- Vol. 14, No. 12 (HTML)



CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		6349

Tributes		6349
	Clem Chapple Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		6350
	Industry Training Authority Act (Bill 34) Hon. S. Bond Personal Information Protection Act (Bill 38) Hon. S. Santori

Statements (Standing Order 25b)		6351
	Women's hockey championship D. Hayer University of Victoria I. Chong National Volunteer Week H. Bloy

Oral Questions		6352
	Fair Pharmacare registration J. MacPhail Hon. C. Hansen Infant mortality rate S. Orr Hon. S. Hawkins Barkerville historic site J. Wilson Hon. G. Abbott Long-term care beds in Powell River area H. Long Hon. K. Whittred Fair Pharmacare registration J. MacPhail

Reports from Committees		6355
	Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills

Petitions		6355
	J. MacPhail

Motions on Notice		6355
	Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform (Motion 99) Hon. G. Campbell J. MacPhail P. Nettleton Hon. G. Plant J. Bray Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt M. Hunter P. Bell B. Suffredine B. Bennett Hon. M. de Jong R. Sultan G. Trumper Hon. G. Cheema Appointment of Special Committee on Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform (Motion 100) Hon. G. Plant

Committee of Supply		6374
	Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General and Ministry Responsible for Treaty Negotiations (continued) T. Christensen Hon. G. Plant R. Lee J. MacPhail

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		6395
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued) Hon. S. Bond J. MacPhail L. Mayencourt J. Les S. Brice

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, it was my distinct pleasure today to meet with the Order of British Columbia Advisory Council membership. We had a very wonderful meeting today and a lunch and came to some marvellous conclusions.

I would like to introduce the members: the chairman of the committee, the Hon. Lance S.G. Finch, Chief Justice of British Columbia; Dr. David H. Turpin, president and vice-chancellor of the University of Victoria; Ms. Patricia Wallace, president, Union of B.C. Municipalities, and a councillor from the great city of Kamloops; Andrew Wilkinson, deputy minister, intergovernmental relations secretariat; Patsy George, Order of B.C.; and Gian Singh Sandhu, Order of B.C. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure that one of the things you agreed with during your discussions at lunch was that there's an awful lot of exceptional British Columbians out there who you're all going to have to file through. I want to say thank you to both the Speaker and the members of the advisory council for the work they're doing.

Hon. G. Campbell: It's with regret that I inform the House today of the passing of Clem Chapple. I first met Clem back in the early seventies when I was working as executive assistant for the mayor of Vancouver and he was at work in the media. In the sixties he started off with the Victoria Times as a reporter, but he really spent the vast majority of his time and his working life as a reporter for BCTV, and he was, indeed, the Victoria bureau chief from 1981 to 1984.

Clem was struck with cancer. All of us who knew him and who had associations with him were hopeful that his cancer had, in fact, gone into remission and was permanently gone. Unfortunately, he has just succumbed, after a lengthy battle with that disease.

He is survived by his son Julius and by his daughter, Alexandra. I know there are many times when those of us who are in this House or in public life look at members of the media and forget they've got families as all the rest of us do, but Clem does.

He served a real service to the public in British Columbia with years of reporting on the issues of the day in a way that was forthright and informative. I know that his family will miss him. Certainly, our prayers and our hopes go out to Clem Chapple's family. Our thanks for his service. I would hope that the House and you, Mr. Speaker, will let the Chapple family know that we, too, share their loss and send them our condolences.

J. MacPhail: I would like to join with the Premier and all members of the Legislature in not only mourning the passing of Mr. Chapple but also celebrating his long career.

The Premier is quite right. Mr. Chapple was probably the introductory member of the gallery to many of us in politics. He certainly was in my case. When I first entered the public domain of politics, Clem Chapple was the first person to interview me, and I was extremely nervous. He was a huge presence, both physically and from an intelligence point of view. I had a person with me, and I introduced the reporter to this person as "Chem Clapple." I was just so nervous. Of course, as was his way of doing things, he actually reported that on TV as well. My career has never recovered from that. So I want to get it right.

Clem, we miss you greatly, and I join with the Premier and all members of the government caucus in mourning your passing.

R. Hawes: This morning the British Columbia Association of Optometrists met with a number of members of the Legislature and demonstrated a program they've put together for preschoolers that would show the importance of eye-testing, early eye-testing, for children. In fact, it's quite astonishing. They pointed out that up to one in five young children has vision problems that are, in some cases, misdiagnosed as behavioral problems or, at times, attention deficit disorder.

The program they've put together is a wonderful program. They've done it on their own initiative and should be congratulated for that.

In the precincts today from the British Columbia Association of Optometrists…. Unlike the introduction the other day when they weren't here, today they are. They are led by Dr. John Gentles, president of the association; Dr. Mary Lou Riederer, vice-president; Dr. Paul Geneau, past president; Dr. Joan Hansen, president-elect of the Canadian Association of Optometrists; Dr. Paul Neumann; Dr. Michael Kellam; Dr. Lorie Bradley; and Cheryl Williams, the chief executive officer of the association. Could the House please make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: We're joined on the floor this afternoon by a former member of this assembly who represented the great city of Richmond some years back and who, in his life since politics, has developed a significant reputation and expertise as a political scientist with particular interest in electoral reform. He's here to

watch the debate this afternoon. He may probably be hoping in some way that he could participate in it, but we'll have to hold him back from that. I hope that all members of the House will join me in extending a very warm welcome to Nick Loenen.

Hon. L. Reid: I want to join with my colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission and acknowledge and, hopefully, encourage parents of youngsters in our province — two- and three-year-olds — to absolutely go and seek the early vision screening. Dr. Joan Hansen is in the audience today, and she in fact performed that for my little girl at the age of two. It is an amazing gift that you can give very young children, which will indeed have a benefit in the school system of British Columbia. If I could encourage members of this House, their extended families and members of the British Columbia populace to seek that service, it would be a benefit to all British Columbians.

Hon. S. Bond: I'd like to ask the House to join me today in welcoming a number of guests to the gallery: first of all, from my staff, Stuart Clark, the director of industry training; Mr. Jim Utley, the vice-president of human resources for Teck Cominco Ltd.; Eric Gerrits, the president of the Canadian Home Builders Association of British Columbia; and Bob Clarke, the executive director of the Automotive Retailers Association.

Mr. Utley is a member of our industry training advisory committee, and Mr. Gerrits's and Mr. Clarke's associations are both partners in two dynamic pilot projects that will lead to innovative industry training in British Columbia. I'd like you to help me in welcoming them and thanking them for the work that they have provided and the input into the projects that have been created.

D. MacKay: I take pleasure today in standing and introducing a friend of our family for the past 35 years and the man who delivered both my children. I'd like the House to please give a warm welcome to Dr. Peter Culbert from Williams Lake.

V. Roddick: I have two exciting introductions to make today on behalf of Delta South. The Ladner Footmen, members of the Delta Field Lacrosse Association, coached by Vic Clayman and Clayton Bennett, won their first-ever provincial championship, to be followed by the Tsawwassen Extreme girls soccer team, who scored a major victory at the Gordon Head tournament in Victoria, playing what their coaches Jeff Irving and Martin Ray described as "the perfect game." The depth of the Extreme lineup was displayed by nine different players scoring in a 10-0 win against Victoria. Will the House give both teams well-deserved congratulations.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students from Pacific Academy in my constituency of Surrey-Tynehead and also ten grade 9 international students coming all the way from Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Mexico. Joining them is their teacher, Mrs. Sharon Douglas, as well as many parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedule to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

J. MacPhail: We always have interesting people dropping by our offices. Today relatives of one of our staff dropped by, and they are in the chamber. Irving Sommerville and his wife Mabel and daughter, Sandra, are relations of one of our staff members. Sandra actually worked for Cyril Keeper, who was an NDP MP from Manitoba. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Industry Training Authority Act.

Hon. S. Bond: After careful review of the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, we believe that a new model is needed to govern the industry training and apprenticeship system in British Columbia, a system that provides individual trainees with training opportunities that lead to employment and addresses skill shortages and meets employer demand for skilled workers.

The Industry Training Authority Act, which enables the establishment of this new training model, implements recommendations contained in the discussion paper entitled A New Model for Industry Training in British Columbia. This discussion paper, which was prepared by government working with the Industry Transition Advisory Committee, was the basis of broad consultation in January and February of 2003 through eight regional forums. Many of the participants at the forums agreed that changes to the current industry training system are necessary. Their suggestions and concerns have been helpful in shaping the new model for industry training and apprenticeship in British Columbia.

The Industry Training Authority Act establishes the Industry Training Authority, which will be responsible for increasing the quality and quantity of training in British Columbia in order to address current and projected shortages. The act contains general enabling powers of the authority which will allow for the establishment of a more flexible and innovative industry training and apprenticeship system with new mecha-

nisms for skills development, assessment of skills and knowledge, and the granting of credentials.

The minister's powers to make regulations will allow for the designation of training programs that meet provincial, interprovincial or national standards and will ensure the recognition of interprovincial Red Seal trade credentials which facilitate interprovincial labour mobility. The new governance structure and service delivery system that are provided for by this act will assure an industry-led system that is responsive to trainees and employers' needs as well as to economic change.

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

Bill 34 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. S. Santori presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Personal Information Protection Act.

Hon. S. Santori: I move that Bill 38 be introduced and read a first time now.

Hon. S. Santori: This government is committed to ensuring that the B.C. private sector is positioned to take full advantage of commercial opportunities, especially in electronic commerce. This government is also dedicated, in its strategic plan, to removing barriers to business.

As part of those commitments and the province's leadership in protecting the personal information of British Columbians, I am pleased to introduce the Personal Information Protection Act. This bill is important for British Columbia for a number of important reasons, but certainly there is no reason more important to British Columbia business than providing a plain-language, easy-to-implement alternative to the confusing and cumbersome federal private sector privacy act that will cover British Columbia in January 2004 if the province does not pass its own legislation.

By retaining provincial jurisdiction over this important aspect of provincial commercial activity, this bill will reduce the regulatory burden for the B.C. private sector, fill in significant gaps left by the federal act and provide provincial oversight instead of oversight by a federal commissioner located in Ottawa.

Polls and surveys have shown a consistently high level of concern over the use of personal information over the Internet, a concern that is recognized as having a stifling effect on the public's utilization of electronic commerce. This bill will help to reassure British Columbians that their personal information is protected when they participate in electronic transactions.

This bill will also ensure that British Columbia is able to take advantage of international trade opportunities. The European Union, for example, may not allow trade with B.C. companies involving personal information if the province does not have its own act, because of the gaps in coverage left if B.C. is covered under the federal act.

This bill also responds to 92 percent of British Columbians surveyed who want this legislation and is in keeping with the overwhelming consensus of the over 150 B.C. business organizations or groups consulted that do not want to be covered by the federal act. This bill minimizes the impact of privacy regulation on the B.C. private sector by creating less regulation and clearer regulation than the federal legislation — important for small and medium-sized provincial businesses.

It ensures provincial control over this important aspect of the B.C. economy, avoiding both federal regulation and oversight. It promotes harmonization with other jurisdictions by providing a model provincial statute that other jurisdictions can copy. It provides an essential foundation for electronic commerce and international trade by ensuring that British Columbia is in compliance with international standards for data protection, and it represents the culmination of extensive consultations incorporating private sector input in striking a balance between the public's strong desire to protect its personal information and the need for business to use personal information for legitimate business purposes.

Hon. Speaker, I move that Bill 38 be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 38 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.

D. Hayer: I want to say how proud I am of the Vancouver Canucks and how exciting they are making the Stanley Cup playoffs. But, you know, the hockey excitement has not been confined to GM Place and the Stanley Cup. Back in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead we hosted the Western Shield women's hockey championship, and these playoffs were also very exciting. We had teams throughout western Canada playing in my riding, and at times Fleetwood rink was as tense as it was in Salt Lake City when our Canadian women battled for and won the gold.

Our own Fleetwood Hawks finished the four-day competition with a bronze medal. Perhaps one day we

may see one of my constituents representing Canada in the Olympics at the next women's hockey finals.

So while I want to congratulate the Vancouver Canucks and wish them much luck and skill in their pursuit of the Stanley Cup, I also want to tell Fleetwood Hawks; their coach, Harbs Bains, as well as his assistant, Wendy Kaiser; and the chair of the host committee, Karen and Rick Kupchuk, that they did Surrey, my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and all my constituents proud in the Western Shield women's hockey championship.

I. Chong: It is my great pleasure to announce that this year the University of Victoria is saluting post-secondary education by celebrating the fortieth anniversary of UVic and the 100th anniversary of its predecessor, Victoria College. Both the campus and the community are coming alive with more than 90 special events this year.

Victoria College first threw open its doors in 1903 as a public, co-ed, two-year university college. Then in 1963, in the last of many moves, Victoria College established itself on the Gordon Head campus site and officially became the University of Victoria.

Over the last 40 years UVic has established itself as one of Canada's leading universities. People around the world recognize UVic for its dedication to excellence in teaching and for its innovative and interdisciplinary approaches to research and scholarship.

Researchers at the University of Victoria work on the cutting edge of knowledge creation, making major contributions in a wide range of fields from fuel cells and cancer cells to climate change and cultural change. Thirty-seven current or former UVic faculty members have been elected fellows of the Royal Society of Canada, Canada's most prestigious accolade.

Today more than 18,000 undergraduate and graduate students from around the world enjoy a campus community that offers outstanding social, cultural, artistic, environmental and athletic opportunities.

At least seven members of this House are proud UVic alumni, including the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services; the Minister of Human Resources; the Minister of Health Services; and, of course, my colleague sitting right next to me, the member for Chilliwack-Kent.

I congratulate the University of Victoria and its predecessors on their centennial. May they continue to bring pride to the people of Victoria and British Columbia, and may they continue to play a role in the health of the world by contributing to the multitude of the wise.

H. Bloy: It gives me an honour today to rise in the House in support of National Volunteer Week. As most of you know, I have been an avid volunteer and a supporter of community groups, as I know every member of this House has been.

It's just in the past week I was with the Burnaby Optimist Club, where they held a banquet honouring a number of students in an essay-writing contest. The Optimist Club of Burnaby is supporting youth, and they recognize them. In the past week I was with the Burquitlam Lions Club over Easter at an Easter egg hunt, where there were over 500 participants coming out and probably 75 volunteers, with many things donated as a gift to the community. In the past two weeks I've sent a letter in support of Scouts Canada in a fundraising effort.

It's the experience, but in my position it's been an honour to meet so many volunteers in this province. We wouldn't have the cities and the communities that we enjoy today without volunteers. Volunteers do their work quietly, and we must recognize that contribution as often as we can. In community they strengthen bonds and family, and they help those who cannot help themselves.

It's a privilege for me to stand here today and salute all the volunteers of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Yesterday the Minister of Health Services announced what amounts to a new deadline to register for Pharmacare coverage. Will he confirm today that the new deadline for registration is January 1, 2004, and that those British Columbians who register after that are hit with big drug bills and will not be reimbursed?

Hon. C. Hansen: I have said this many, many times to this member over the last couple of days, but I will repeat it again. There is no deadline for registering for Pharmacare. She or anyone she knows can register today, tomorrow, next week or next year.

J. MacPhail: I know that the Minister of Health Services gets his little message box every morning, but perhaps he could listen to the question. I asked what happens…

J. MacPhail: …if one doesn't register by the new deadline he set yesterday, which is January 1, 2004. As the minister knows, yesterday he announced this new deadline in response to a scripted question from the member for Saanich South. But yesterday the minister

also admitted that the decision to set the new deadline was made months ago, but that they deliberately withheld that information. That's an astonishing admission of deliberate deception on the part of this minister.

How can the minister accuse anyone — whether it be a Liberal constituency association, a senior or the opposition — of fearmongering, when he admits that he deliberately kept British Columbians in the dark about the new rules?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I would caution us all to use parliamentary language, and "deliberate deception" is unparliamentary.

Hon. C. Hansen: I will reiterate this once again. There is no deadline for registration for the new Fair Pharmacare program. But I will try to help the member just a little bit. I think what she is trying to refer to is the fact that if an individual British Columbian does not take the time to get registered and would have been eligible for benefits had they been registered, we will reimburse them at the end of this calendar year for any overpayment they may have made. That is eminently fair, but there is still no deadline. A person can register whenever they want. There is no obligation for an individual to register.

It's a great program. It provides more financial assistance to 280,000 British Columbia families compared to the program that was in place before. I'm proud of the program, and I can assure British Columbians that, first of all, there's no obligation for them to register if they don't want to take advantage of these benefits. Secondly, they can register at any time, whether it's this year or next year.

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

J. MacPhail: How insulting to the people of British Columbia that he would somehow suggest there's not a deadline because if they don't want the benefits, they don't have to register. How insulting to the poor, the sick and the elderly in this province. Yesterday he set a new…

J. MacPhail: …deadline, saying that if you don't register by December 31, you don't get your benefits retroactively. Not only did the minister deliberately withhold that information that would have helped ease the worry and confusion that surrounds this botched registration process, but he deliberately communicated and advertised information that was incorrect about the program's requirements, according to the information he gives here on an hourly basis. While the minister was keeping quiet about the changed rules allowing British Columbians to be reimbursed if they registered after May 1, information provided on his website and through advertising tells those same British Columbians that if they fail to register, they will lose benefits.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order. Hon. member, can we have the question now, please.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker. Here's the question. I'm giving information that deliberately contradicts what the minister says.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I understand, hon. member. Could we please have the question now.

J. MacPhail: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the question on the website: "What if I don't register by May 1?" The answer is: "You will not be eligible to receive your maximum financial assistance." Can the Minister of Health Services explain why he continues to spread information that he knows is not correct, according to his own website?

Hon. C. Hansen: There has been no change in policy on this file since we announced it. There has been no change in the information. I think the excerpt that the member just read out is…. We want to make sure that a low- or middle-income family in British Columbia that is eligible for benefits under the Fair Pharmacare gets them at the time they get their prescriptions filled. The only way those families can get those benefits at the time they get their prescriptions filled is to make sure they are registered.

I am pleased to report that of the 450,000 families that have benefited from Fair Pharmacare in the past and most of whom will continue to benefit in the future — and many more families will benefit in the future — those families, overwhelmingly, are already signed up. They will get the benefits starting tomorrow.

It's unfortunate that this member did not get a more comprehensive understanding of the program from the start. Clearly, we have seen her understanding of this issue flip-flop from day to day as we have gone through this process.

S. Orr: My question is to the Minister of Health Planning. Recently the media and the opposition have highlighted an increase in infant mortality rates. Furthermore, some have suggested that this government no longer uses the infant mortality rate as a measure of success in health care. This is very worrisome, if true.

Therefore, I ask the minister to please tell us if this government has abandoned infant mortality rate as a performance measure and to explain how we compare to the rest of Canada.

Hon. S. Hawkins: The measure of infant mortality is, always has been and will continue to be measured in B.C. Vital Statistics collects the information, and it is monitored. The provincial health officer reviews the data. It's used by both the Ministry of Health Services and the Ministry of Health Planning to assess how we can continue to improve on it.

Hon. S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, the provincial health officer informs me that he is aware of the rise in infant mortality. In 2001 there were 40,391 live births and 162 deaths. In 2002 there were 39,870 live births and 177 deaths. This data is not complete for that year. When it's completed, the provincial health officer will be reviewing it.

He advises me that it is too early to say whether it's statistically significant or whether it indicates a trend. He also advises that it's too early to say what's causing the increase. It could be SIDS — sudden infant death syndrome. It could be congenital anomalies.

We are committed to making sure that infant mortality in B.C. is decreasing. We have the best infant mortality in the country according to our latest data, and we're going to continue to work with our provincial health officer and our health authorities to make sure that we keep it low.

J. Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. I recently heard from a number of constituents who have expressed concern regarding the devolution of management for the Barkerville historic site.

Barkerville is an important part of the tourist industry in my riding, as well as being a significant piece of history for Cariboo residents. Can the Minister of Community, Aboriginal, and Women's Services explain what steps have been taken to ensure that tourism in Barkerville will not be negatively affected by this initiative and that all of the historical artifacts will be protected?

Hon. G. Abbott: I certainly agree with the member that Barkerville is a huge tourism and cultural resource to the Cariboo. Certainly, what we're going to do through the devolution process is ensure that that great resource is both protected and enhanced.

We have had some experience in the past with community-based, non-profit and private sector management of heritage sites, and we're going to build on that very good experience in areas like Barkerville, Fort Steele and elsewhere.

We have taken a good deal longer — and it certainly was our plan from the beginning to take longer — for some of the larger, more complex sites in the province, like Barkerville and Fort Steele. But in just a few days, early in May, we will be going to an RFP for Barkerville. I'm very confident that we will end up with some very excellent management for Barkerville as a consequence of that.

H. Long: My question is to the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care. Some of my constituents have approached me with concerns about the number of long-term care beds in the Powell River area. Families have had to face separation when those with needs for Alzheimer palliative care sometimes have had to leave the community in order to receive care they need.

Can the Minister of State for Intermediate, Long Term and Home Care explain what efforts are being made to keep families together and to ensure that long-term care is available in my riding?

Our first goal, of course, is always to ensure that the patient has the appropriate bed for their level of care. To that end we are working in our redesign of long-term care to ensure that all communities, including heartland communities, have a broad range of options for seniors' care.

Powell River will be receiving new complex care beds. In addition, there will be assisted-living beds; 20 have already been opened at Glacier Apartments. And as we speak, B.C. Housing and the Vancouver coastal health authority are working together on a project to renovate the Olive Devaud Residence into assisted-living units.

J. MacPhail: It turns out that my constituency office is as troubled as the Liberal constituency office. We've been trying for hours this morning to fax registration forms for seniors who can't afford to wait for the minister to reimburse them at the end of the year, if that rule still applies — nothing but busy signals. As a result of the minister's misinformation campaign, these constituents are desperate to get registered before the minister changes the rules again.

I know the minister's had trouble keeping his story straight and is lost in the tangled web of contradictory and confusing information he's provided British Columbians.

So I ask the minister this: would it help if the opposition provided him with a full briefing on the changes to the Pharmacare system that he announced last February, with a detailed accounting of the flip-flopping, the contradiction, the withheld information and the spread misinformation? If it might help him clear up the confusion, I would be happy to do that for him.

B. Lekstrom: I have the honour to present a report from the Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills.

"Your Select Standing Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private Bills begs leave to report as follows:

"(1) that the preamble to Bill Pr405, intituled Score Resources Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading;

"(2) that the preamble to Bill Pr403, intituled Cam Glass Inc. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill proceed to second reading;

"(3) that the preamble to Bill Pr404, intituled M&M Insulations Ltd. (Corporate Restoration) Act, 2003, has been approved, and the committee recommends that the bill as amended proceed to second reading.

Bills Pr405, Pr403 and Pr404 ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

J. MacPhail: I rise to table a petition signed by 50 displaced IWA workers asking the government to enforce section 71 of the Forest Act. Their jobs are directly affected by the decision not to enforce the laws that are designed to protect their jobs.

Hon. G. Campbell: I move Motion 99 standing in the name of the Attorney General on the order paper.

I am pleased to stand today in support of this motion. It is a long time. In fact, this has never happened before, where a legislative body has said to the people who elect them that they want the advice of the public on how we should elect our elected representatives in the province of British Columbia. Indeed, if you go back to 1858, this is the first time in 145 years we are actually giving the people of British Columbia a direct say in how they should elect the MLAs that are meant to serve them. After all, in a democracy, we should remember we are here at the service and the pleasure of the people of this province.

On April 17, 1999, while I was still in opposition, I said that it was time we gave the people of B.C. the right to demonstrate how they want to elect their MLAs. I am proud to stand here today and say that this is the first government in the history of British Columbia — this is the first government in the history of our country — that has given the people that right.

There is no more fundamental tenet that we agree to as we seek office than that in a democracy, the rules of the democracy should be designed by the people they serve, not by the power brokers who may wish that the democracy worked in their interests. It is by turning to the people and trusting the public that I believe we can re-establish the critical link between our democratic institutions and those that they are supposed to serve.

I said before, as we entered office, that we wanted to try to restore and re-establish the trust of the public for their public institutions. I can think of no more important way to do that than for those of us who are fortunate enough to be elected and to serve in these institutions to trust the public, to trust the public's judgment and to trust the public wisdom as we fashion a legislature that will truly meet the needs of every single part of this great province.

Today we are debating a motion that will make our commitment to the people of B.C. a reality. The citizens assembly, as I said, is a first for British Columbia. It's interesting that since 1949 — between 1949 and 2001 — there was not a government in this province that was elected by more than 50 percent of the popular vote. There have been people that have asked legitimate questions with regard to how we elect our elected representatives. The former MLA Nick Loenen, who has looked at this and examined this for some time, has some suggestions for how he thinks we could improve the system. I know members of this chamber, having experienced it, will have their own suggestions.

The critical thing for us to recognize is that in a democracy, the open sharing of information, the open search for solutions to reform, to reinvigorate and to revitalize our public institutions should be an ongoing learning experience. It should be an ongoing search for discovery of what will do the best for the people that live in our province. I am proud to support this motion, and I am proud to be part of a legislature that has tabled it in the hopes that we can create that revitalization.

These decisions should be made by those who elect us. Last September the government asked Gordon Gibson, a former member of this House, a former leader of a political party in the province but, more importantly, someone who has spent his life examining our public institutions in Canada and here in British Columbia…. We released Mr. Gibson's report, and I recommended both to members of this assembly and to members of the public who are interested to look at the various issues Mr. Gibson dealt with and the recommendations he came forward with. It is his recommendations that form the foundation for the motion which is before this House today.

There are some critical components of those recommendations, which I believe are fundamental to both the spirit and the intent of what this government is committed to doing. We wanted as much as we could in this government to depoliticize this process, to have this process driven by citizens. As hard as it is for those of us who stand in this assembly or who sit in this assembly and serve an elected office to recognize, there are some British Columbians who aren't spending their every waking hour thinking about what we do and how we do it.

Hon. G. Campbell: That's true. But for us, what we want to do is try and engage those British Columbians — all British Columbians — in looking at this, because we have a gift here. We have a gift that those of us who were born in Canada or born in British Columbia sometimes take for granted. We have a gift where it is indeed the work of the ballot, the casting of that ballot, that can constitute the momentum for change, the catalyst for change, the catalyst for strengthening our social union here in this province, the catalyst for building the kinds of communities that we want and the vehicle for imagining a future and then bringing people together to pursue that future.

I've worked and lived in a country where indeed it was not the ballot that drove those changes. It was the bullet. I've lived in a country that saw changes in government that were carried out by coup, by military fiat. I've never even come close to thinking that would happen in Canada. We're fortunate to live in a country that does take the ballot and our democratic institutions seriously. Not just seriously — they're the very foundation of our culture, our beliefs, and what we can pursue and achieve as a country and as a province.

I was not, and the government was not, wanting to cast our citizens assembly in the former moulds that we may have had in the past where political interests — where a specific interest in a specific result — drove the decisions of the assembly. I should say again that I am proud that an assembly with this makeup is willing to say to citizens: "You decide."

There is no secret. We did particularly well in the last election with the given set of rules for electing MLAs in British Columbia. There is also no secret that I believe each member of this House is committed to strengthening this institution. I believe that by giving the people of British Columbia the chance to shape this institution, we will do just that.

In keeping our commitment to people, we said prior to the election that we believed the assembly should be selected like a jury. It should be randomly selected. It should be a selection process that reaches out to each part of this province and, indeed, is reflective of the people that live here in this province. Building on the foundation of Mr. Gibson's recommendations, our recommendation that you will see in the terms of reference says that we have asked the chief electoral officer to help guide a randomly selected citizens assembly.

First, let me say this: we all know in this House that every British Columbian who is eligible to vote and eligible to be on the voters list has not necessarily registered. I would like to tell the members of the assembly and the public today that we want to encourage that registration. We will try to encourage it to take place in ways that will build our voters list and make sure that as many people as possible are registered, that we at least give citizens the chance to register.

The chief electoral officer will then be asked to stratify a sample of names. That simply does this: it provides for an equal number of names from each riding. It will provide for an equal number of men and women. It will provide for a distribution that's reflective of the age of British Columbians. Anyone who is 18 years or over and on the voters list will be eligible. Again, we want our assembly to be reflective of the generations that live in British Columbia, of the regions that exist in British Columbia and of the interests that exist in British Columbia.

Interested persons will be able to attend local selection meetings. They will self-select. They will randomly select, but they will self-select. It is important for all of us to recognize that this is an act of true citizenship. It is an act that will require those who participate to become educated, to spend time in deliberation and in public hearings across the province. I believe that it's critical that they know both their obligations and their responsibilities, as well as the timetable for action that will be laid out for the citizens assembly.

We said that we wanted membership to be representative of the entire province. There is not a member in this House that doesn't recognize what an enormous place British Columbia is, how vast our province is and indeed how vast even regions within the province can be. In terms of meeting the needs of the regions of the

people who live there, we wanted to be sure that there was broad representation from each part and each corner of the province. To achieve that, the terms of reference provide a large membership of two members for each of the electoral districts that serve in this province, for a total of 158 members plus the chair, which will make the citizens assembly 159.

It is important, I believe, for us to recognize that while Mr. Gibson recommended some top-up provisions, we felt the expansion of the committee provided for more representation and more opportunity for people throughout the province.

We said we would have a mandate to hold public hearings throughout B.C. That will take place. And again, I want to say this clearly to this House. We have recommended the appointment of a chair, and as you'll know from the second motion before the House, it is suggested that a special legislative committee be established to review that nomination from the government. Should that legislative committee unanimously support the chair, then we will ask the chair to look at how this process should work, how many meetings should take place and where they should take place. But the spirit and the intent of the government are clear, and the budget for the assembly is clear. We expect those meetings to be taking place throughout the province. It's important to allow the people of our province to have not just the oral opportunity but also the written opportunity to present to the citizens assembly. That is provided for in the terms of reference.

We said we wanted to ensure clear endorsement by the assembly. Now, those of us who have been involved in public life for some time know there's nothing that can take up more time — often for fewer results — than a constitutional debate, a debate about the ifs and buts and what-ifs and maybes that take place in the world we live in. I've experienced this at the local level of government, and I've seen it time and time again where, because there is no single decision that's made, there is never a decision to improve the system, if that is indeed what's necessitated and required in the judgment of the assembly.

We have specifically asked the assembly to recommend a specific change. If the assembly recommends a change by a majority vote of the assembly, that will require at least 80 members of the assembly to support it. If the assembly recommends a change, then that option will be submitted to a provincewide referendum on May 17, 2005, just like we said it would be.

The government wants to ensure that all British Columbians have an opportunity to vote before any change is adopted. We want to be sure any change that is adopted is truly endorsed by the regions of the province and the people of the province. We believe this is a fundamental and significant change, and we therefore have placed a double approval process in place.

First, the assembly must receive a 50-percent-plus-one approval rate from 60 percent of the ridings in the province. That's important, because at the end of the day we know we have to bring the whole province together as we make these changes, if indeed they should be recommended.

Secondly, this change will require 60 percent overall voter approval. There are some who have already suggested that that is too high an approval rating. Clearly, the government disagrees with that. We believe this is a significant change. It's a significant change that should require the kind of approval that says, indeed, a great majority of people in this province feel that they will benefit from this change — that they will benefit from this change, Mr. Speaker; not that we or any given political party will benefit from the change.

I believe this is a very important step. One of the critical keystones of this assembly's success will rest in the person of the chair. It was important, I believe, for the chair to truly guide the assembly as we move forward. As you know, the government has nominated Dr. Jack Blaney, the former president of Simon Fraser University, the current chair of the Fraser Basin Council, the man who was the driving force behind the dialogue centre at Simon Fraser University, which is internationally recognized as a centre for building learning and understanding and for decisive decision-making. Mr. Blaney is known not just as a conceptual thinker but as a consensus builder. I believe he brings significant talents to the onerous task that lies ahead.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be clear about this. I certainly do not know what a citizens assembly will decide. I do know this — that given the opportunity, citizens will be creative, will be thoughtful, will be integrative, will concern themselves with our entire province, will concern themselves with how government truly can serve the needs and the ideas of British Columbians from every corner of this province.

I have confidence in the people of British Columbia. I have confidence that we have put forward before this House today a motion which will set in motion a true public debate, a true public discussion, a true public opportunity for learning about one of the critical parts of our lives: our democratic institution, our Legislature. This is a gift we've been given by previous generations. This is our opportunity to strengthen that gift. This is our opportunity to restore some of the confidence and trust that people should have in this great institution. This institution is not made up of us as individuals. Each of us has the opportunity to serve. Each of us is given the privilege of service when we come here.

I believe that in passing and supporting this motion, we will have exercised that privilege in a way that is exceptional, in a way that says we remember first and foremost that we are here at the service of the people of this province. There's no more important message that we could send.

J. MacPhail: Speaking to the resolution for the citizens assembly, I make the following comments. Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I wrote to the Premier as leader of the NDP offering our support for a process whereby the people of British Columbia could participate in a non-partisan discussion of electoral reform. It

is worth noting that Canada is one of the few liberal democracies continuing to use the first-past-the-post system. Elsewhere, the first-past-the-post system has been losing ground certainly in recent years.

In 1993 New Zealanders voted in a referendum to scrap first-past-the-post and to replace it with proportional representation. In the United Kingdom the Labour government, in its first term, introduced versions of proportional representation into the elections for the new Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. The government also adopted proportional representation for the election of United Kingdom members of the European Parliament in 1999 and is considering holding a referendum on reforming elections to the Westminster Parliament.

In Canada as a whole, the proportion of Canadians expressing dissatisfaction with the electoral system increased from 39 percent to 49 percent just between the years of 1990 and 2000 — a big shift by the beginning of this decade. The biggest change was registered right here in British Columbia, where the proportion of respondents who find first-past-the-post unacceptable increased from 43 percent to a full 63 percent — the highest level of dissatisfaction of any region. That study was Howe and Northrup of 2000.

A survey conducted in early 2001 by the Canada West Foundation found that 71.6 percent of westerners, including 75.9 percent of British Columbians, favour the introduction of an electoral system based on proportional representation. That study was done by the Canada West Foundation in the year 2001.

Electoral reform is also championed by non-partisan organizations such as Fair Voting B.C. — former MLA Nick Loenen is here today to observe the debate; it was a pleasure to see him on the floor of the Legislature — and also by a national group, Fair Vote Canada, founded in August 2000.

Those who are watching this debate…. For the information of the members of this chamber but also those in the public who are watching, a copy of my letter to the Premier is available at www.bc.ndp.ca. I know that the Liberal MLAs go to that site regularly, but I also hope the public will go and view that letter I sent to the Premier last year.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it is true. It is such a popular site that it is hard to get into. It's a little easier than the Pharmacare registration.

I would like to take some of the highlights that our proposal at that time made to the Premier. At the time, my proposal contemplated an appointed commission that would have included expertise from other jurisdictions and then an accompanying process that would have allowed the general population to participate in a referendum on a selection of options, followed then by a final referendum on a single option.

The government this week has brought forward an alternative model, which is in large part the result of the hard work of Mr. Gordon Gibson. He has considered this problem at length, along with the assistance of many knowledgable British Columbians, and has also considered the expectations of government and the promises it has made.

I would be remiss if I did not point out that Fair Vote Canada and others have expressed concern for the requirement of a supermajority, which is seen as an impediment to achieving the kinds of reform that some — I would say many — people are hoping for.

Acknowledging some of the shortcomings of this proposal but also acknowledging the need for reform, I do not want to impede the progress of this debate, whatever the form through which it will take place. But we also want to hold true to the commitment, best articulated by Mr. Gibson, that the process, from beginning to end, be as transparent as is possible.

Therefore, when I was approached by the government some weeks ago with the suggestion for appointing Mr. Blaney as chair, rather than holding to Mr. Gibson's suggestion of a candidate search by a committee of the Legislature, I made an alternate suggestion that fell between the government's original suggestion of merely appointing Mr. Blaney and Mr. Gibson's suggestion about a rather longer process of selection. I suggested that a confirmation hearing might be the way to meet the test of transparency but also deal with the very real problem of a limited time line on this initiative.

I am pleased that the government acknowledged that suggestion and put it in place. I'm also pleased that the government has sought to make the process more transparent by allowing for confirmation hearings for the lead staff. That was another suggestion I made a few weeks ago, and I'm pleased the government has embraced it.

Despite the late date for the beginning of this process, many of the suggestions from Mr. Gibson are sage and should not be dismissed without full regard for the potential impact of dismissing his suggestions on both process and outcome. The government has accepted many of Mr. Gibson's suggestions, but I am concerned that it has left unanswered the matter of taking the time to make sure all British Columbians know they need to be on the voters list.

I did hear the Premier address that in his remarks earlier, except I do note that just a couple of days ago, April 28, the government backgrounder on the summary of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform has this response to a recommendation made by Mr. Gibson: "Mr. Gibson recommended that the selection process should be preceded by a publicity campaign for those not on the voters list to sign up." The decision listed by the government is: "No decision taken. Await recommendations of the chair."

I hope we can take the Premier's words now that this government is going to proceed with a publicity campaign. However, I am concerned that the chair has not been granted the authority to make minor adjustments that may result in a change in the voters list and that would change the makeup of the assembly to better represent the population as a whole.

I would therefore propose an amendment to the motion. I believe the government has a copy of that amendment, and the Table has a copy of the amendment. I'll read the amendment to the motion into the record. Moved by me:

This amendment would grant the chair the opportunity to adjust the membership of the assembly to compensate for the underrepresentation of minority communities, as well as allow an alternative approach to the problems associated with using the voters list to draw the membership….

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member, are you speaking now to the amendment? Have you moved the amendment?

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we'll just take a moment while we ensure that the amendment is in order.

In the meantime, the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries seeks the floor for an introduction. Shall leave be granted?

Hon. J. van Dongen: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today 46 grades 4 and 5 students accompanied by a number of parents and their teachers, Mrs. Kehler and Miss Schmidt, and they're from Philip Sheffield Elementary School in Abbotsford. Philip Sheffield School is very notable because it was once attended by a former Premier of this House, Premier Bill Vander Zalm. I ask the House to please make all of these students welcome.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, we will just pause here for a few moments while we check out one aspect of the amendment. Please stand by.

Hon. members, we have determined that the amendment is in order. We will now proceed with the debate on the amendment.

J. MacPhail: My amendment would grant the chair the opportunity to adjust the membership of the assembly to compensate for the underrepresentation of minority communities, as well as allow an alternative approach to the problems associated with using the voters list to draw the membership from. Of course, in particular, should the chair determine there isn't enough time to conduct a program of publicly encouraging sign-up over the course of two to three months — again, a recommendation Mr. Gibson made and the government has remained silent on until the Premier's speech today — then some 800,000 British Columbians will not be considered for membership.

As Mr. Gibson points out, the group most underrepresented is young people between the ages of 18 to 24. I'm sure all members of the Legislature join with me in wanting to make sure that generation is properly represented. This would be one way the chair could try to make amends for failings in the sample process.

Another example I give you on perhaps the potential for underrepresentation is this. Aboriginal persons make up only around 2 percent — perhaps a little bit more, but right now about 2 percent — of the British Columbia population and so would only, by the law of averages, take up three positions in an assembly of 158 persons. Mathematically, the standard deviation on a number so small is close to two, meaning that the actual number selected could be just one aboriginal person or perhaps even none. It would be a shame if these proud people, who have a special constitutional role in the history and future of British Columbia, were to be completely excluded.

In support of the amendment to the motion, I refer members to Mr. Gibson's report, pages 9 and 19, for a review of his arguments on these matters.

P. Nettleton: Thank you for this opportunity to speak to the amendment to the motion. Indeed, I am rising in support of the motion to take very seriously Mr. Gibson's recommendation, as referenced by the Leader of the Opposition, that the chair of the citizens assembly be able to appoint four members.

I am disappointed to learn that the government has rejected this recommendation. Even the most carefully constructed, randomly developed selection process is subject to issues of potential underrepresentation. That is why even the government here takes public opinion survey results with a large grain of salt or two. There's just no way they are done perfectly, and so we must compensate.

The goal is to get a citizens assembly to look at electoral reform, and that assembly would be composed of

people representative of the population of our province. What happens if, as luck would have it, a certain group such as aboriginals are left off the assembly after the names have been pulled from the hat? Surely, the government would want to have a first nations perspective on this most important issue. Surely, they would want to be known for allowing for the input of British Columbians from all walks of life. Surely, that is why Mr. Gibson has added this recommendation and has done so in a reasoned and cautious manner. Funny that the government now rejects this.

You would think that on the one hand, they are so committed to making electoral reform happen in the interests of enhancing democracy as it is practised in this province. But on the other hand, the government appears not to be doing so, or at least not doing their utmost to ensure that the assembly itself — the bedrock of this new-era promise — is properly constructed and constituted.

In conclusion, I support the inclusion of this recommendation when it comes to the selection of the citizens assembly. It will ensure that the assembly does the job it will be entrusted to do to the best of its ability and in a thorough manner.

Hon. G. Plant: I appreciate the spirit with which I believe the amendment is offered — that is, to ensure that the citizens assembly is as broadly representative of British Columbia as it can be. I want to speak now to the amendment, recognizing that after we deal with the amendment, I assume the opposition leader will have more to say about the main motion. I look forward to continued debate.

There are a couple of things that I think are relevant to the context of this issue. They were part of the context, I suppose, identified by the opposition leader in making the motion. She pointed out a concern with respect to underrepresentation of young people on the voters list.

I think she was right to point out that in the documents we released a day or so ago at the time that we released Mr. Gibson's report, we stated that government had essentially not taken a position that we would undertake a campaign to encourage voter registration at this point. We thought that might be a matter that could be left to the chair, but actually I think we do have an obligation here as government to do some of that work now.

When the Premier said in his remarks earlier that he thought that we did have an obligation to encourage voter registration, he meant it. That is the view that we have as government, so there will be some work done in that regard that does not require that we wait until the appointment of the chair. It may be that the appointment of the chair will not take long, in which case some of this work may overlap with the chair's appointment.

I think we have to acknowledge that there is an issue with respect to underrepresentation in the voters list. That issue was identified by Mr. Gibson. We acknowledge it, and I think we understand and accept an obligation to move forward to help address that issue. I believe it's almost inevitably the case that that work will involve some activity on the part of the Elections B.C. folks, and I intend to commence that discussion immediately. In terms of making sure that we address this issue of underrepresentation, I want to assure the House that we take that issue seriously, and we are going to move forward with it.

There's also the issue that the member for Prince George–Omineca identified of making sure that the assembly has the input of all British Columbians. I think that assurance is implicit in the fact that we believe this assembly has an obligation to spend some time travelling around the province and listening to British Columbians. I think the members of the assembly will feel an obligation to listen to and receive input from all British Columbians, so all British Columbians will indeed have an opportunity to provide input to the assembly.

But the question that the amendment speaks to, fundamentally, is: how do we constitute the assembly? We think that the principle of random selection is important. When we spoke to Mr. Gibson about his recommendations with respect to the size and composition of the assembly, we asked him, among other things, whether and to what extent his views about the size of the assembly were influenced by the fact that the terms of reference for his work required that he take into consideration issues of budget.

He said that, in fact, his views were to some extent influenced by the issue of budget. To put that in another way, in offering the recommendation that the assembly should be somewhere between 79 and 100 or so people, Mr. Gibson was trying to live within the terms of a budget that he thought was reasonable. That process, influenced or not by budget, inevitably led Mr. Gibson to wrestle pretty hard with the question of: how do you get an assembly that is as representative as possible?

The members of the assembly and members of the public who have read Mr. Gibson's report will have seen, I think, that he identified that it's not necessarily the easiest issue in the world and also offered a number of ideas for how to get to an assembly that would be as representative as possible of the interests of all British Columbians.

Our view is that the majority of the concerns about representativeness of the assembly can actually be dealt with and are being dealt with in our proposal, which is essentially to double the size of the assembly. When I read the analysis in Mr. Gibson's report that supports the amendment that the opposition leader has put forward, I read it from the perspective of the context that Mr. Gibson had before him. I think that because the circumstances have changed in a pretty important way, the need for the amendment and the need for the process contemplated by the amendment have also changed.

By making the assembly essentially twice as large as it had originally been conceived it could be, we have

increased significantly the chance that the assembly will be representative of the broad diversity of British Columbia. We know going in that the first round of selection of possible members of the assembly will be organized in a way that ensures gender balance, geographic distribution and some measure of age balance. I may have more to say about those issues when we get to the main motion.

By doubling the size of the assembly, I think we've made it much more likely that we're going to achieve a balanced and representative assembly. If we abandon the principle of randomness to adopt a principle that says the chair or some other person can select members of the assembly, there are, I think, both practical and theoretical problems.

First of all, the practical problems. It's not completely clear where the names will come from that will constitute the source of the top-up members or proposed members that are contemplated. I have to say that while the voters list is clearly the best tool for identifying the right class of British Columbians to participate in this process, the voters list doesn't tell us very much about people other than their names and their places of residence.

To get beyond that, even to deal with issues of age and gender — although I'm sure the voters list would be helpful for most cases as far as gender goes — will require a bit of work on the part of those who undertake the first stratification. To get beyond that even further, to explore issues of ethnic identity, and so on, will require even more work and perhaps a measure of invasion of personal privacy, in some respects, that some may find difficult to accept. I'm not saying that those issues are insurmountable obstacles, but it seems to me that they are pretty important practical challenges.

The philosophical issue, I think, is where I finally come to a landing on the proposed amendment. I think that by giving the chair the power to appoint members to the assembly, we are changing in a way that is more important than I may be able to appreciate standing here — changing in a pretty important way the fundamental makeup of the assembly.

There will be some members who will have been selected by random and some who will have been appointed by the chair. It may be that you could do it in a way that that wouldn't be known. I'm not sure how certain you could be about keeping that so for the whole time that the assembly was at work. The main reason why that is so is because, if the member's proposal were to be accepted, there would be at least one and as many as four constituencies that would have one, two, three or four more members representing their constituency than would be produced by the proposal that we have here, which will have two constituents from each constituency in the province.

I don't claim that these things are absolutely black and white. I don't know that there is an absolutely right answer to these things. I think that the extent to which it takes a bit of time to think your way through them is made clear by the fact that Mr. Gibson took quite a bit of time to think his way through them.

We've changed the framework a little bit — and I think in an important way — by doubling the size of the assembly. I think that has a great likelihood of producing an assembly that is broadly representative of the people of British Columbia. We're going to do some work to give all those people in British Columbia who could be on the voters list, but aren't, a chance to sign up if they want to. That's probably work we should always be doing in any event.

For those reasons, I think that we should maintain the basic structure of the recommendations set out in the terms of reference, and the government will not be supporting the amendment put forward by the opposition leader.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, hon. members. The question will be on the amendment as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I will read it just so that everyone is clear as to what the amendment is.

J. Bray: I am proud to rise in support of this motion. First, I wish to congratulate the Premier, the Attorney General and all members of government for fulfilling what I believe is one of our boldest new-era commitments: the establishment of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

For my constituents, the issue of electoral reform and the citizens assembly is very prominent. In discussions I have had in my community, members of my community have had great anticipation that we would reach this day and that a real process would be developed to let the voters review and choose the method of electing their MLAs. For me, this is one of my proudest days as a legislator. I believe this is a progressive step in our vision of parliamentary reform that honours the voters rather than serving political parties.

The subject is important because politics comprises the institutions, rules and practices which permit and limit access to state power. Politics, if you will, is the space between citizens and state. It was W.H. Auden who said: "There is no such thing as the perfect democratic state, good for all time." Our political institutions change even when we're not paying attention to them. But as circumstances change, so, too, will our attention focus from time to time on the need to embrace more consciously the project of political reform.

The Premier has mentioned this to some extent, but I wish to review some of the history around how we've arrived at this day. For many, this particular story begins on election night in 1996. The B.C. Liberal Party lost the provincial election by six seats, despite winning a majority of the popular vote. The election may have marked a turning point in B.C.'s political history, because the outcome prompted people of every political stripe and even people not committed to any political party to take a good, long look at their electoral system. Some said the system had failed us. Others argued that the will of the people had not been served. There was a call for electoral reform, and that call has never really ended.

Fast-forward, then, to 2001. In the run-up to the campaign, we told voters it was time for a change — not just a change in the cast of governors but also a change in the way government works and a change even in the institutions of government themselves. In our campaign platform we committed to changing the public service, to changing the operations of government and to opening up a formal discussion about electoral reform through the mechanism of a citizens assembly.

The results of the last election have, for some, shifted the focus of debate on electoral reform. In the last election a majority of the popular vote translated into a massive majority for one party in the Legislature. As a result, parties like the Greens received a significant number of votes but received no seats or elected representatives in the Legislature.

The question of electoral reform raised in 1996 has not been answered, but it may have been redefined. At times the current debate focuses more on ways of ensuring political parties are happy with the number of seats they get on election day, but the fundamental goal of elections is not to serve the needs of political parties. The goal of elections is to give citizens a voice in choosing their government. Thus the urgent question for 1996, 2001 and all elections is: how do we create a system that better serves all the people of the province?

The history of electoral reform in British Columbia has traditionally focused on enfranchising political parties — not enfranchising political parties, rather, but enfranchising voters. In 1876, for example, B.C. dropped property ownership as a qualification to vote, thereby expanding the franchise. Forty years later the province extended voting rights to women. The voting age has been dropped over time from 21 to 18. Even the most significant changes in the last ten years have focused on reforming politics to better serve the interests of voters — for example, the 1995 Recall and Initiative Act.

Of course, there is also a legislative history of regulating political parties, culminating in the 1995 Election Act, a statute which prescribes, in 160 pages of mind-numbing detail, the way in which we are and are not permitted to engage in electoral democracy. But the main focus is, and ought to be, not the political party but the voter. We must re-engage the public in the whole process around elections, around having representatives and around engaging that communication between government and individuals. We've heard a lot of talk over the last several years about the disinterest that young people feel in elections and the electoral process, that various levels of government are seeing declining numbers of people turning out to vote as they feel the system doesn't reflect their wishes — ergo, why should I participate? That is not good for democracy; that is not good for the Canadian way of life or the British Columbia way of life. It is time for us to engage in the conversation with British Columbians, by British Columbians, for British Columbians about how to re-engage people in the process of elections.

It's not an easy task, but I do believe that we need to ensure that our inquiry is not limited to a mindset that automatically identifies partisan representation as a benchmark of a successful electoral system. To date, our government has amended the Constitution Act to provide that, barring dissolution for lack of confidence, provincial general elections will be held on the second Tuesday in May every four years. Similarly, we have

followed up the fixed election date reform with laws establishing a fixed date for tabling the provincial budget and a set legislative calendar. We have also committed to free votes in the Legislature to permit MLAs to vote freely on behalf of their constituents on all matters not specifically identified as a vote of confidence.

This brings us back to the citizens assembly. B.C. is a unique political entity. We are neither New Zealand nor Germany nor Israel. Our population is widely dispersed and diverse. We cannot redesign our electoral system without asking ourselves the question: what is it we expect our MLAs to do?

The fundamental objective of the citizens assembly takes us back to the fundamental objective of electoral reform. To achieve this objective, we believe it necessary to take the question of electoral reform out of the hands of politicians and place it in the hands of people we are elected to serve. The challenge was to find a way to create a citizens assembly that effectively represents the citizens of this province and gives voice to their concerns.

The motion before us now answers that challenge. This motion sets forth the terms of reference that will ensure that the process will reflect the views of citizens picked at random, that the system will reflect the views of all regions — urban, semi-urban and rural — and that should a change be recommended there is enough time for public debate and education before the referendum question.

I have been very encouraged by the initial response to the proposed citizens assembly. In fact, I note in my own community, which has a diverse political spectrum represented, some very positive feedback. I've also noticed that we've had some good, positive feedback from others in the community. I'd like to just read a few of those examples.

From Chris Delaney of the Unity Party: "We support the criteria put forward by the B.C. government for the assembly, especially the requirement that this be a citizens assembly by not allowing politicians or parties to participate. B.C. Unity feels strongly that all political parties are in a conflict of interest with respect to recommending electoral system change and that they should not try to influence the outcome of the assembly."

I think that is exactly the intent that we're bringing forward. We're actually removing our own self-interest. All political parties and individuals in political parties are going to have that self-interest. We remove that from the process.

Also, from Fair Voting B.C., I quote from director Julian West: "The government deserves high marks for keeping this election promise and for placing the public interest first."

This is why I think this is such a significant step forward in our whole vision for parliamentary reform. We are actually removing our own vested interest from the process. This will be a citizens assembly that will decide for the public how MLAs will be elected, but what's critical — and what I hope to convey during my comments — is that it's not about just changing the way 1996 may have unfolded or the way 2001 may have unfolded.

What the citizens assembly is going to be reviewing is how we hold elections for the next 150 years perhaps, just as we have not really had this process in the first 150 years. We're not just talking about doing things for the Liberal Party or the Green Party or the NDP Party, because 100 years from now all those parties will probably have different names and be talking about different things, but the voter will still be there. We have to ensure that 50 and 60 years from now, voters aren't so disengaged from the process of elections that it almost makes it meaningless — that so few people participate that it is no longer representative of anything but special interests rather than the interests of every British Columbian and every voter.

As a representative of a very active, engaged community, the citizens assembly represents a bold move forward in our vision for parliamentary reform. I believe that the entire country will watch this process — the process of citizen involvement, public engagement and democracy.

Today I am proud to be a Member of the Legislative Assembly, proud to be a British Columbian and proud to be a Canadian. I encourage all my constituents to contact my office over the weeks and months ahead to learn how to become involved and how they can make a contribution to this process.

In closing, the electoral system belongs to the people. It is only fitting that they should decide how they wish to elect MLAs.

Hon. G. Halsey-Brandt: I rise this afternoon in favour, of course, of Motion 99, the creation of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform.

It's been almost 150 years since the founding of the colony of British Columbia, and our province has had the same system of electing its government over that past almost 150 years. Of course, that system is first past the post. Whoever gets the most votes in a riding takes that particular riding or that seat. This, of course, is our tradition of the British parliamentary system. It's the same across Canada, and it's been the same over the years in much of the British Commonwealth.

Today, however, it's being used in increasingly limited numbers of nations around the world and in states that make up those nations. Today it's still used in Great Britain. It's used to some extent in the United States, Australia and perhaps, as I said, a few other countries. But even in countries like the United States and particularly Australia — in the particular states that make up those nations — they not only have members of their congress, but they also have a senate as well within each state, which tends to balance off different views within those jurisdictions.

The first-past-the-post system has indeed stood the test of time across Canada, because it has brought stability to our governments. We have had relatively few minority governments in Canada or in British Colum-

bia. However, as was stated earlier by other members, the drawback is that many parties and people in our province and in Canada who make up perhaps a smaller minority of voters in those constituencies feel that their interests are not being served.

When we do look around the world, in fact, there are many different methods of elections that are being used. Part of the pleasure of the particular portfolio that I hold in intergovernmental relations is the opportunity to meet with many ambassadors or consul generals representing those countries around the world. Just yesterday I had the opportunity to introduce to this Legislature the ambassador from Hungary. I had the opportunity after that to have a brief meeting with him. One of the items we did cover, because I knew this was coming up today, was what system they used in Hungary. It's fascinating, because in a sense it's very new to their nation.

As we know, when the end of the Cold War came in the late 1980s, Hungary was a one-party state. That's what the constitution in fact laid out in that nation. At the end of the eighties they had to sit down and decide how they wanted to be governed as a new nation of Hungary in 1989.

A nation of ten million people, fairly small in geographic area, had a little over 300 deputies in their Legislature. The system they chose was to do half of those deputies by geographic areas — by riding, if you will — and half based on proportional representation. There was a caveat that parties had to get 5 percent, at least, of the popular vote in order to qualify for that proportional representation. If they didn't get that, they were redistributed to other parties on a preferential ballot. That's how they came, as a new nation, to understand how democracy would work in that country.

Sort of the other extreme is Holland. I understand that in that country, there are no ridings per se. It's all done by proportional representation. Perhaps in a country that small in terms of geographic area that system could work well for them.

The country of New Zealand was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition a few minutes ago. It brought in a combination of geographical ridings and proportional representation back in 1993. Each person in each one of those ridings gets two ballots — one for their local member and one for the party list that comes out that they wish to vote for.

The thing that intrigued me about New Zealand was that they were perhaps wise enough to build into this change they brought in that they would review it after two or three elections to see how it worked out. The population would have a chance to perhaps have another referendum, after two or three elections passed, to see if they were comfortable with that system or whether they wanted to go back to their old system. That's something that the citizens assembly might think about.

This motion on the citizens assembly offers us a chance to have a fresh look at our electoral methods in British Columbia. Most importantly, the responsibility for this review is with the people of British Columbia, randomly selected. Perhaps unfortunately for some of us, it's not involving the politicians, as we have a very strong vested interest and are a little too close to the question. Perhaps first past the post will be chosen as the best system, and that will be the end of the debate, but perhaps another system that reflects the diverse geography and wide variety of political viewpoints will be recommended to the electorate. That will be up to the assembly and go to a referendum in 2005.

In conclusion, I wish to congratulate the Premier and this government for the courage to bring this motion for electoral reform forward. Certainly, it's part of our New Era election document, and we are living up to that commitment. I look forward to a lively debate by the citizens assembly and, if the recommendation for change is made, a debate during the referendum period.

I would like to also thank personally Mr. Gordon Gibson for his work in preparing his report on the citizens assembly and all those British Columbians who took the time to provide their input into Mr. Gibson's report on this very important issue.

M. Hunter: I rise today on what I think is a very bright day for democracy in British Columbia. I want to add my thanks to those of some of my colleagues who have spoken to the Premier, for his vision in bringing this initiative to the state it is now at. I also want to offer my thanks to my friend Gordon Gibson for the enormous public service he has provided in giving us the basis for this debate and for moving forward.

I have to say that my entry into public life was a bit of a surprise to me in many senses, but I made the leap because, like many of my co-citizens, I was jaded and I was cynical about the state of our public institutions and what was happening to them. I was attracted to public life by a political party and a leader who promised to put the people's interest first. Really, today I rise on this motion because I just can't forgo the opportunity to speak on a subject that is extremely important and that affected my personal life by bringing me here.

This is a very important landmark step that we are making in our promise to provide open government. The charge we are giving our fellow citizens, whoever they may be — those who will comprise the assembly — is indeed, as other members have stated, a serious one. The right to vote is one that was hard won, it was hard fought, and it has been hard defended over many, many years. In fact, it is a right, as we know it, that stretches back in my culture 400 years. Four hundred years ago or more, my forefathers fought a civil war to establish the right of the people to govern themselves under the guidance, not the rule, of the monarch. It is why we sit here in this chamber two swords' length apart. That's a result of the civil war. It is a right that I think about every time I enter this chamber. And I think anybody who tells you they don't have a certain

Four hundred years later in our corner of the world we are now going about asking how our right to vote should be exercised and how, in effect, we govern ourselves. I know that there are many examples of different voting systems and democratic systems based on British or French or American models. I'm sure the assembly will examine proportional representation in all its forms. It will examine runoff votes. It will examine first past the post and others.

But at the end of the day, I really hope the assembly will look at stability of governance and how any proposals they may develop affect the stability of how we govern ourselves, because voting mechanisms can affect and have affected that important part of this institutional structure. I believe the double majority system that is part of this motion is an important safeguard to ensure that if any changes are recommended, they will be clearly understood and clearly approved by the people.

Mr. Speaker, the time will come for discussions on technical issues, and I can assure you and my colleagues that I intend to submit my views, which I hold quite strongly, and I hope other citizens will express their views strongly as well. That's not what this debate today is about, and we could spend an awful lot of time discussing the merits. Indeed, this is why we have a citizens assembly to talk about those technical issues.

What is important today is that we are breaking a mould in Canada. The citizens assembly moves this province away from the Meech Lake and Charlottetown we-know-it-all-and-we'll-tell-you-what's-best approach to constitutional reform. That approach did not serve this country, did not serve this province. Here the people are going to decide the future of how they will exercise that hard-won right to vote. I am proud to support this motion and to be part of the evolution of democracy in British Columbia.

P. Bell: I think this motion, being numbered Motion 99, is truly symbolic of something — certainly of the greatest hockey player that we all know and love. In my view, 99 years from now people will look back at today as a historic day in the province. And I'm not so sure that this won't be a historic day, in fact, for democracy.

There are many bold moves this government has taken in its first just under two years of office, but none more bold than this particular one. Perhaps when in the year 2103 we look back at today, we'll see that we've truly changed the face of democracy. And I think that's a good thing.

We've evolved as a society. We've accepted our current electoral systems and all the history that goes along with them. But no one has actually taken the time or thought to sit down and allow our citizens to decide for themselves what the best electoral system is for governance here in British Columbia. I think that when you look at all the changes…. The Premier certainly said that this year was going to be the year of forestry. Although I believe this particular initiative, Motion 99, has not had, perhaps, the press that some of the forestry innovations we have moved ahead on have had, I think that really it will change the face of the history of this province more than anything else.

There are some very, very exciting parts of this motion. I think the fact that we are engaging all of British Columbia in the process and that every individual who would like to have their thoughts and feelings and emotions about our voting system addressed will have that ability…. In fact, I have received more e-mails from volunteers, individuals who actually didn't understand how the selection process would work for the citizens assembly…. I've had many, many individuals already, just in the last 48 hours or so, volunteer to sit on this committee, because they feel that it's such a significant initiative we're taking. I've had to break the bad news to them that, in fact, the citizens assembly will be selected similarly to the way a jury is selected.

I think it makes a tremendous amount of sense to exclude the people that are closest to the political system. I think we need to open it up to all of our citizenry, especially the individuals that will be impacted by this.

It's a very, very exciting time. It is historic, in my view. It's something that I am very proud to be part of and that I fully support. I think it's integral to our model of governance. I think it's absolutely critical that we move ahead. This building that we stand in today has been open for about 106 years, and we haven't changed our voting system in 106 years. I think the fact that this government is willing to actually have a look at something that will dynamically change the way our representatives are elected is truly a comment on our openness and our willingness to do the right thing for the people of British Columbia, as opposed to the right thing for the politicians that are here.

Make no mistake. Every government before us has had the ability to do what we are doing here today. Every single government that has sat in this particular Legislature for the last 106 years, and the ones going back before that, had the ability to make the decision that the Premier and the Attorney General have delivered on here today, and yet none have been so brave as to do so. I believe that you have to be brave to make the type of decision that we are making here today, because under many of the new voting systems, if they are so chosen, there may be many of us that aren't here in the future. You know, if we're doing it for the right reasons — if we're doing it because it provides for better representation — then I think it's the right thing to do, and I fully support that.

I am going to eagerly follow the process and monitor the functionality of the citizens assembly. I think it is an absolutely wonderful thing. I congratulate the Premier for his vision in moving forward on this election commitment. I most certainly congratulate the Attorney General for his vision and his dedication and his very, very hard work on this. I think he's found an excellent balance. I believe he's brought regionalism

into the equation, which I think is significant and important. I fully support the notion of the 60 percent support for passage. I think that makes a tremendous amount of sense. This is a huge decision, not one to be taken lightly, and I think it has to be supported broadly.

I think the Attorney General has done a wonderful job here. I fully support this. I am proud to be part of a Legislature that has the type of vision and the willingness to move forward on the difficult decisions that we're faced with here today.

B. Suffredine: I rise in support of the motion as well. I saw something just a little while ago today that emphasized to me how important people in small communities feel this is. The announcement was only made at noon on Monday of our intention to proceed on this, and already today there was an editorial published in the Arrow Lakes News in Nakusp strongly supporting the concept and suggesting that the citizens assembly is worth the time and expense. In my view, if people in small communities in a short time frame can quickly recognize how important it is to them, that says volumes as to how much they appreciate government listening.

It's a very bold step. I was one of the members elected to this Legislature with less than 50 percent of the voting majority. Since my election, there have been a number of people who have advocated proportional representation. They ran a bit of a referendum of sorts in my riding, and it probably had the strongest number of people anywhere in the province supporting that system of representation. But the question of what the best system is isn't something we should be telling the citizens assembly. I know they advocate that, because right now we have the system of who gets the most votes, even if that's not a majority.

If we were looking at something like proportional representation, do we then translate that into a statement of: if someone gets 1 or 2 or 3 percent of the vote, do they get 1 or 2 or 3 percent of representation in this House? Is that the natural way of getting a House that can never make those hard decisions? Should we be looking, for example, at a preferential ballot where we get a one, two and three choice? How do we ensure that opposition is heard without paralyzing the Legislature?

This Legislature has to, on occasion, wrestle with difficult choices. I was one of the members, as well, who recently went through a recall campaign, and recall there was being used to intimidate members of government to not support the government. The system of voting has to be a fair system that lets that representation occur and encourages members to use their judgment.

What's most important about it is that we restore trust. People around the country, particularly in the small communities that I represent, express a feeling of disenfranchisement. It's been said that there is to be selection based on the same system that the jury system works. Now, as you may know, I attended many a jury trial, and in all the years I practised law, there was only one occasion where a jury was unable to come to a result — one occasion in close to 30 years where a jury was unable to come to a result — and that was the first time in the courts in the Kootenays in 45 years that had happened. Simply put, I know the jury system works, and I know this method of selection offers us some strong prospects.

I know it's a risk for me as a member that we're going to change the system, and the system that elected me may not elect me if we change the method of voting. But it's a risk I'm willing to take — and I'll take very willingly — to improve the confidence of all the people who vote in our system and our system of government. Making them feel empowered is the most important thing we can do, and I congratulate the Attorney General for taking this rather bold initiative.

B. Bennett: I rise to speak in support of the motion, Motion 99. It's my honour to do so.

I think that in addition to speaking in support of the actual motion, we're all today — from what I can hear — speaking in support of what the motion stands for. It stands for people who are elected — who have a vested interest in supporting an existing process — being prepared to put that process to a test and, for a change, to allow the public to decide whether that's the appropriate process or not.

I went on to the Net today just trying to find some information about citizens assemblies, and I was really surprised at the amount of information that there is on the Net from around the world. There are many, many people around the world today who are concerned about the state of modern democracy. I picked up one piece that I thought was quite good and quite representative of the mood out there, I guess. It's from a group in Toronto, the citizens assembly for Toronto. I'll just give you a short quote from what those folks are saying.

You wonder sometimes how we got here, how we got to this sort of attitude that I think all of us run into in our ridings. There is a tremendously high level of cynicism out there, and I guess that's one of the reasons

why many of us came here in the first place. We wanted to be a voice for those folks out there that feel disenfranchised and alienated from what they view as the centre of power.

I think this government's commitment to depoliticize our approach to the citizens assembly is something that we should be inordinately proud of, and I'm personally very proud of it. Specifically, what I'm referring to…. Mr. Gibson made several specific recommendations, and then government dealt individually with those recommendations, accepted most of them and made some changes to some of them. I want to refer specifically to some of the recommendations that Mr. Gibson made, which were altered by this government — and I think rightly so — on the basis of principle. I refer specifically to the selection process and also to eligibility. Under the selection process, Mr. Gibson recommended that there ought to be election by peers to raise equality of the constituent assembly membership. Government decided that there would be regional selection meetings, but the selection would be by random sample only, and the reason given for the difference is that voting by peers introduces an element of electioneering into the process and moves away from the random model. I think that's true to the principle that we're following in creating this citizens assembly.

Also under selection process, Mr. Gibson recommended that one member per riding be selected and then 21 more members be selected from those not initially successful. The government decision was for two citizens assembly members per riding for a total of 158, and no top-up power for the chair, which was suggested by the opposition in the opposition's request for an amendment earlier this afternoon. I think, with all due respect to the opposition in suggesting that amendment, that perhaps the opposition doesn't quite get it. We really are trying to remove all potential for politics and control, and, I think quite rightly, we're trying to remove any appearance that we have any ideas of a preconceived outcome of this exercise.

I ran into a former member of the Legislature. He was here a number of years ago. In fact, he was a member of cabinet. We met at a social function, and we got talking about the citizens assembly and this initiative, this commitment that we had made in the New Era document under the Premier's leadership. This former member really couldn't understand why we were doing this. He said to me: "What are you guys doing? You're opening yourself up to a result that you can't control." I told him that that actually is the point of this exercise. We want the people to tell us what they think about how members should be sent to this Legislature.

It's an honour, a personal honour, to support the motion. To pick up a little bit on what the member for Prince George North indicated, this happens to be Motion 99. I assume that's just accidental, but it does happen to be the old number for The Great One. I think The Great One, Wayne Gretzky, would be proud of this. This is, I think, a typically Canadian initiative. We are prepared to allow people who are not in politics, who don't have a vested interest…. They have nothing to win or gain, other than they want to make a contribution, I think, to democracy in this country.

It's a historic, precedent-setting motion. It's a historic, precedent-setting exercise to enter into. I think it's unheard of anywhere across this country, certainly. It's an indication that this government trusts the people. We know that there is wisdom in the people. I believe entirely that there is wisdom in the people. I am completely willing to allow the people of this province to come together through the citizens assembly and to decide whether the method for electing members in British Columbia that we have today is appropriate or whether we should move to another method for electing members.

Once again, I do want to thank the Premier for his leadership because I know he drove this issue. I'm very proud of him for doing that, and I'm glad to be part of a team that has the intestinal fortitude to do this.

Hon. M. de Jong: Thanks, Mr. Speaker — and to the members, to the Attorney General and to the Premier, of course, for initiating a process that gives me a reason to be on my feet today to do something I don't often do. I believe so passionately in the exercise that is beginning, and will begin, as a result of the passage of this motion that I did want to register for all time in the pages we call Hansard my complete support for what is taking place here.

It has occurred to me that as we all go about our business — the Attorney General as the chief lawmaker and negotiating treaties; the Premier and all the things that he does; and each member of this House meeting with constituents, engaged in volunteer activities in their communities, trying to stay in touch with as many people as possible, dealing with the issues on a day-to-day basis…. Those things that are so important to the people we represent, therefore important to us, and we try to understand the problems that our constituents face…. It's very difficult. It's difficult at a very practical level to think about some of the larger issues.

Is there anything larger when it comes to politics, when it comes to democracy, than examining how it is that we elect the people who represent us? Other speakers have made these observations. I don't want to take an unnecessary amount of time. It is an interesting phenomenon — isn't it? I was thinking about this the other day as I was driving down the road, and I have been thinking about this a lot, because, of course, none of us knows what's going to emerge out of the other end of the pipe.

Imagine that. Imagine a government initiating a process legitimately — and something as important as this — and saying, as the member for East Kootenay just did: "I don't know what's going to emerge, and I won't be able to control it, and the party that holds virtually all of the seats in the Legislature won't have control over that process. We're turning the people loose to make some fundamentally important decisions."

I was thinking about how it is that politicians come to places like this. I think all of us have our own indi-

vidual story to tell. It usually begins by being a member of society — working, going to school, raising a family — and government does something, and you say: "God, how could anyone be so stupid? How could a government make such a stupid decision?" That follows on another stupid decision and then another stupid decision.

Then you begin to question the institution itself. Maybe it's just because it's a stupid institution. Then you say: "Well, I'm going to change that. I'm going to try and change that." A necessary component, prerequisite to wanting to change it, is that you've got to join the club. So you throw your name in. Maybe you join a party, or maybe you're already a member of a party. You decide to get some friends together, and you run for a nomination.

If you're lucky, you win the nomination, and then you run in an election. All the while, in the back of your mind you're thinking to yourself: "God, you know, I have to make so many changes. The reason I'm here is because that other government, the one I'm running against, made all these stupid decisions. Look at what they do over in Victoria or in Ottawa or in Edmonton — in any one of the capitals. The whole thing is not working. Now I'm going to go over there and change that."

Then lo and behold, you put your name on a ballot, and you run in an election campaign, and you have 28 days of fun. You go to all-candidates meetings, and on election night when you've got a box of Cheezies on one side and some potato chips on the other and a whole bunch of your friends in the room, the guy comes on TV and says you've been elected.

Maybe you have a glass of champagne to celebrate — or tea, in my case — and you say: "Look at this. I've been elected." Almost overnight a transformation begins, because you walk into this chamber, this democratic institution, and you're a member of a pretty exclusive club to represent British Columbians. As you walk down the corridors here — you know, there haven't been that many members of this club in 130 years — suddenly you begin to think: "Well, you know, maybe it's not so bad after all. I mean, how bad could it be? I'm here."

It's natural. You begin to think to yourself: "Well, all of those problems I had with the…. Maybe I didn't understand, because, you know, the people were smart enough to elect me." You know, Mr. Speaker, I've been here a while, almost ten years now, and that same sense that I think I had — and that I heard from people back then about their level of disconnection with the institutions that create the laws that govern them — still exists. In fact, I think it has become exacerbated, not necessarily because of anything any single government has done, but it is a feeling that has developed over the years.

When the institutions themselves begin to lose legitimacy in the eyes of the public they are designed to serve, then we have a problem. That, I'm sad to say, is where I believe we are today. That is not designed to cast any amount of disrespect on this chamber, which is a product of a longstanding democratic history and an institution that can trace its roots back to Westminster, but it is, I think, a reflection of the reality that exists in the minds of many members of the public.

As other members have said in this debate, today we are passing a motion that says to one and all: it's time to put up or shut up. You can be involved in re-creating one of your most important political institutions — that is, by being involved in reforming, if you choose to, the manner in which you elect people to that political institution. Pretty heady stuff — big stuff.

It's a debate that I think will, over time, engage the attention of many people with many different ideas. It won't be politicians. We're members of another club now. We're members of the club that can't be involved in reforming electoral laws or the manner in which we elect people to this institution. Anyone that's been involved in politics or has run for public office in the last couple of elections is precluded because we — the Premier, the Attorney General, I think the members of this House — actually said that we want to have the unvarnished views of the unbiased and the benefit of the views of British Columbians. We've initiated a process that will let that happen.

We've said to British Columbians that if that body of 158-plus-one British Columbians makes a recommendation for change — and we don't know what that recommendation is going to be — you're going to get a chance to vote on it on May 17, 2005. On May 17, 2005, if that body of British Columbians has a recommendation to change the way we elect our politicians, every single British Columbian that is eligible to vote will have a say in determining whether or not that becomes the law.

I think it is an exercise that will reinvigorate our democratic process, and I think others have articulated their pride and their support. I'm just thrilled to be a member of a government that has the courage to follow through on a very specific pledge — but, you know, parties make pledges — to follow through on a commitment to put the fate of the politicians, the members and the institution itself back into the hands of the people it was designed to serve.

We will await the deliberations of this body with interest and the recommendations that it presents. I can tell you this, and I wanted to say this today, because when I think of all the things that I have said over ten years in this chamber, I'm not sure a lot of those speeches are things I'll ever want to reread ten or 20 or 30 years from now, when this place may look very different — or maybe not — and I'm bringing my kids or grandkids through here. I'm just vain enough that I might pull a dusty old volume of Hansard off the table or the shelf and say: "You know, the impetus for that change came on April 30. The mechanism that allowed for that change came on April 30 from a government that had the courage to put this institution back into the hands of the people it is designed to serve." I'm

R. Sultan: Inspired by the remarks of the member for Abbotsford–Mount Lehman, I have requested to be inserted into the speaking order because this is, indeed, an important occasion.

I would like to begin by complimenting the Premier and the Attorney General. I would like to begin by complimenting the B.C. Liberal Party, which inserted this concept into their election plank and which has followed through on that promise with the mandate to Gordon Gibson, a truly distinguished British Columbian, to develop this concept of the citizens assembly.

This is a historic moment. Will this Legislature be remembered for passing the coalbed methane act as history evolves? Will it be remembered for the debate on the deadline inherent in Fair Pharmacare, or will it be remembered for one of the myriad of miscellaneous statutes bills that our Attorney General has presented to us with great excitement from time to time? I don't think so. What this Legislature will be remembered for will be its act of generosity and risk-taking in putting forward a bill to really reconstitute our system of democracy in British Columbia.

Many would say, as others have pointed out, that Canadian democracy today is not really in the finest condition. Some would say that it is flawed. We seem to have a tendency in some quarters to operate according to a model of what might to some be perceived as a one-party state. We have a tradition, the academicians point out, of choosing elitist solutions to our problems. Perhaps compared to others around the world, we don't really, truly feel that democratic when it comes right down to issues of governance. This has been an enduring Canadian issue from the Family Compact to the situation we observe in our senior government today. The result, I agree, as others have pointed out, has been encouragement of political indifference, low voter turnouts, a disconnect between the voters and the government, and a decay of the government model which has motivated western civilization, really, from Athens to Westminster.

This is an unfortunate situation and one that I think, when we turn our minds to it, we should disparage. The old Canadian model of appointing a royal commission or a committee of wise men with a few token women sprinkled in — a model which, curiously, always seems to end up with people of the same gender, by and large, who went to the same school, drawn from the same neighbourhood, representing the same point of view, and who even were members of the same club — is a model that I think has run its course. But too often this has been the Canadian way.

The radical notion motivating the Premier — and I'm sure motivating the Attorney General, this party and in due course, I am confident, this House — is a very radical notion and a very different notion in our Canadian history. The notion is: trust the people.

Trust the people. Here we have a scheme to draw lots; choose from the butchers, the bakers, the candlestick makers of our fine province; and let them decide what our future system of governance will be. The people who framed this radically democratic notion — from Gordon Gibson, the Premier, the Attorney General and the framers of the B.C. Liberal Party's set of election promises — I think deserve lasting praise. This will be this government's enduring legacy.

G. Trumper: I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion. Following on the comments of my esteemed colleague sitting behind me, I know that over the years that I've been involved in politics, on many occasions I have been the only woman amongst the group. On some occasions there may be a few more, but usually his statement is quite correct — that the balance sometimes seems to be very skewed.

This is a very special day, and it is a decision that I have looked at over the years. It's been one of my interests in my spare time to have looked at electoral reform. A few years ago I was very fortunate to be at a breakfast meeting with the ambassador from the United Kingdom, and we got discussing electoral reform. He very kindly sent me all the information on the electoral reform that took place in Scotland, which I do have. I found it fascinating, and I've had the opportunity to talk to people about what their feelings are when I've been back in the United Kingdom. As you all realize, that was the land of my birth. I was brought up on the British parliamentary system from which our system has evolved. As the system has evolved over the centuries, so the system has evolved in Canada. Today we are at another stage, where I believe we are evolving once again.

This democracy is something that we hold dear in this country. Sometimes I believe that we take it for granted, when we know that there are many countries, as has been said before, that do not have the democratic rights that we have. Too often it is true that elections — be they local, federal, provincial — take place with not even 50 percent of the electorate turning out. That is a very sad state of affairs, because if we were ever to lose that right, it would be a very, very sad day for Canada.

This is an opportunity for the people of British Columbia to have a say in how they want to see their government run and how they want to be represented. It isn't often that that can happen. I believe today is a day that will go down in history as taking the first step in letting the citizens of British Columbia choose how they want our elections to take place, how they want to be represented. If they see that changes are to be made, we have made the commitment that it will be on the ballot in 2005.

There isn't another jurisdiction in this country that has taken this step. The comment was made just recently, after the provincial election in Quebec, that the successful party is in with, I believe, 44 percent of the vote. That issue came up again about electoral reform there, and it's been brought up by some of the parties there.

We have no idea what discussion and recommendations are going to take place by the citizens assem-

bly. It is a very brave step, I believe, that we are taking. We have no idea what is going to come out at the end of the discussions, but the Premier, before we were elected in the election, made this promise. We were committed that we would bring this forth in this session, and I do want to thank both the Premier and the Attorney General for having the fortitude to go forward with this, to be able to put it in place, to have it today.

I know that as history goes down, in many years ahead many of the discussions that take place in this House…. We all know what some of them are like at times. Some of them are very serious. Some of them are not always of the highest calibre. Some of the decisions may sometimes be what one would like to look back on and maybe have made a different decision. That goes right through any government that is in power. But I do believe that today is a day that will go down in history and that I and people from future generations will be able to look back on and say this was the day we gave the citizens of British Columbia a chance and an opportunity to chart our future. I am very pleased to be able to speak to this.

Hon. G. Cheema: I would also like to say a few words about this motion. I had no plan, but since I heard my colleagues…. I think this is, again, a rare opportunity for me to stand in this House and support this motion.

I look at the democratic process from a different angle. I was brought up in another nation. I came to this country 23 years ago. I had the honour and privilege to serve in two provinces. I have seen the Meech Lake debate. I was in the Manitoba Legislature at the time when Meech Lake died. I was in the assembly when the Charlottetown accord died. I saw how the political process and the electoral process can be very misleading. I realized, as a student of politics, how all of a sudden, when you get elected, you become an expert on every issue under the sun. Then when we come to the institutions, we think we know better than everybody else. I think that kind of attitude does not help the public and does not create a level of trust.

People elect us on the basis of the system we have. If I look at myself, every time I got elected there was only one-third of the population supporting me. Basically, I was not working for the rest of the two-thirds of the population, considering only 68 to 70 percent of people vote in this country. If you get 25 to 30 percent of the real votes, you get in, and that's not the real democratic process. In my view, you need to have a different kind of democracy where people can have more say and where you should be able to come to this House with a majority vote. That's my personal opinion. I think we should explore all the possibilities.

When I ran in 1996 with this party and again in 2001, this is one of the things I really liked. As one of my colleagues was saying, people will not remember us for all the other things we do, but they will remember us for this very important step we have taken. I think it's about time that somebody in this country did that, and I think our province, our Premier, our Attorney General, our cabinet and our caucus have taken the most important step.

Now it's up to the public to decide how they want to govern themselves. I truly believe that we should trust them, because we are one of them, and if they trust us, we should do the same thing. I think, in the modern world, we have to move on and look at all the options possible, and let's see how the public will make their decision.

It's really strange that a group of people in this House…. Basically, we are phasing ourselves out of our jobs. This can happen. That's truly remarkable. I think that's a true democratic process, because we are only the temporary custodians of a great democratic process, and we should be respectful of that process. That's the one reason that I am involved in politics. I want to do my part, and part of my responsibility is to express my personal feelings about this motion and support this motion wholeheartedly.

When I came here this afternoon, I came here to listen. When I come into this room to listen, I usually learn, and I've learned a lot. It's been a great privilege in my life to have the opportunity to come here. Today I feel a certain sense of responsibility that we are doing something that is important. I have to say that it will be our successors that will judge the importance of what we do here today as much as any other day. But there is, I think, something special and pretty marvellous about this initiative.

I guess what I wanted to do to begin my remarks, while I'm thinking about whether there's anything I could possibly say to add to the marvellous things my colleagues have said on the floor of this assembly this afternoon, is to think a little bit about some of the people who have helped make possible the initiative that is presented here today and also a little bit about the people who will find their lives are going to change in ways they don't yet actually know about if the House decides to pass this motion.

I first of all want to say that as a member of cabinet, I am maybe a bit more than a foot soldier but not much more than a lieutenant in an infantry battalion that's led by the fellow who sits on my right, the Premier. I can remember and will always remember the day I first heard him give expression to the idea of a citizens assembly. I was struck then, as I am today, by what I believe is the fundamental brilliance of an idea that recognizes this is an issue we need to give up our control over as politicians and to give control to citizens themselves. I want to say a little bit more about some of the ideas that underlie that thought when I finish thinking about some of the people who have helped make this possible.

My own journey in the discovery of the questions about how we're governed is as long, I'm sure, as the journey of most folks here in this assembly, but in re-

cent years it's included some amazing experiences. I had lunch with Baroness Gould of Potternewton in the House of Lords dining room three years ago, and she told me with great excitement about the Jenkins commission, the work that had been done in the U.K. to explore whether or not even that institution could reinvent itself.

I remember meeting Nick Loenen — he'll forgive me if I say it may have been weekly — in my constituency office. It wasn't weekly, but it was on many occasions, as he made clear to me the need for us to take seriously this issue and over time infused me with just a small measure of his passion for this question.

I remember a marvellous conversation with Adriane Carr, sitting on a sofa in a hotel in Courtenay last year, meeting a member of the New Zealand Legislature, and getting some sense of Adriane's passion for this and learning a lot about what New Zealand has done.

I believe fundamentally that our institutions are sound. But I think this process that will ask us to stand back while ordinary British Columbians take charge of the question of whether there are changes that we can make to them is a hugely important step at this time in the political history of British Columbia.

I also have learned much, over more years than he would want me to remember, about lots of things about how we're governed from Gordon Gibson. I think, in particular, we've all learned a lot over the last year or so from Gordon Gibson about this particular issue. I really want to echo the words of my colleagues this afternoon by saying thank you to Gordon Gibson for his work in preparing a report that we have used as the blueprint for establishing the assembly in the way that this motion contemplates.

One of the things that I thought was useful and insightful about Mr. Gibson's report is the way in which it made clear that while the concept is a pretty easy one to wrap your head around, the idea of how you can create an assembly that respects the principle of randomness, that can work within reasonable financial limits according to a meaningful timetable, is actually a piece of work that requires a measure of pretty detailed policy analysis. I want to thank all of the people who took the time to offer their ideas, thoughts and suggestions to Gordon Gibson in the course of his work, and I want to congratulate him on the way he has managed to synthesize all of those ideas into a report that I think established a very useful blueprint.

It was the case that many of us who read the report, I think, had our awareness awakened into the details and the mechanics. The moment that happens, I think, is a moment where all of us as people of experience, if not also perhaps intelligence, start to rethink to some extent our own answers to some of those questions. I thought that the process government followed over the past number of months, which involved a couple of good conversations with Mr. Gibson and tried to probe him a little bit about what were the underlying principles behind some of the detailed recommendations, was a good one. It helped us, as a government, to shape our response to those recommendations in a way that stayed true to the main principles underlying the Premier's idea — the Premier's brilliant idea — which is to say we want to constitute, as randomly as possible, a group of citizens that is as representative as possible to come together to talk, to learn, to think, to listen and to travel the province and ask themselves whether the way we elect our members is the right system and, if they think there is a better alternative, then to offer that alternative. Then we would, in turn, offer it to the people of British Columbia in a provincewide referendum.

So, yes, we fine-tuned some of Mr. Gibson's recommendations, but I think we did so in a way that holds true to the spirit of the basic project and I think holds true to the basic principles that Mr. Gibson followed in doing his report. So, thanks to him. Thanks to all those who spoke with him and helped him do the work that he had to do, and thanks, frankly, to all of the members of the assembly who have offered me ideas and thoughts over the last couple of months as we have studied this report — and I mean all of the members of the assembly.

The Leader of the Opposition referred in her remarks to the fact that she had made a couple of suggestions about the way this process should work, and she did indeed. We have brought forward motions here that respond to her suggestions. The goal is to try to have this process set sail from this room in a way that is as broadly reflective of the interests of all of the parties represented here as we could make it — that is, in short, as non-partisan as we can make it. I know that when this little ship sets sail, we are going to start a conversation that will take on a shape and a dimension that we can barely discern at present but I suspect will grow and, like all conversations about important issues in British Columbia, will become a vigorous discussion.

I expect that over the months and years to come, we're going to hear strong ideas about how we should be governed, how we are governed and whether this assembly is the right tool for thinking about those questions. I, frankly, think that we need to be prepared for that. We need to welcome that when it happens, because the vigorousness of the discussion will help us all as citizens think more clearly about the issues that we're going to be confronted with as this assembly does its work.

Let me move from the business of thanking the people who have helped make this little exercise here today possible. That, I must say, includes all the folks in my ministry who both helped Mr. Gibson and have helped me do the policy work that's an important part of this stuff. I really want to thank those folks too.

Let me move from that for a minute or two to offer my expression of good wishes to those who will assume responsibilities as a result of this work. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we're going to be debating a motion after this one where we constitute a select committee of the Legislature. Assuming now that the committee is constituted, I want to wish all the members of

that committee Godspeed and good luck as they do their work. In particular, I want to express now my appreciation to Jack Blaney for having even agreed to consider doing this and to wish him well as he undertakes this serious responsibility.

There will be staff. There will be employees of this assembly. It will not be evanescent. It will not be a will-o'-the-wisp. It will be a significant institution — albeit a temporary one — but it will consume public resources, and so for all of the people who will help support that institution, I wish you well. Most of all, I want to think for a minute or two about the 158 British Columbians who will eventually become members of the assembly or maybe, for a minute or two, think of what could be a thousand or 2,000 British Columbians who over the course of the next few months — probably not until the fall, but sometime in the fall — are all going to be in their homes, sitting doing other things, when the phone will ring some day. Someone will say: "I'm so-and-so. I'm calling on behalf of the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform. If you don't know what the assembly is, here's what it is. Here's what it's about. Are you interested in participating?" Through a process established in the terms of reference before the House today that takes root in Mr. Gibson's recommendations and which will ultimately be shaped by the chair, we will end up with 158 ordinary British Columbians. Those people will have a very, very interesting job and some pretty darned important responsibilities indeed.

I was thinking, and have been thinking for a long time, about what this idea of electoral reform is all about. I've been thinking about it particularly from the perspective of what we're asking the members of this assembly to do and think about. Oftentimes I think — and perhaps those of us who are politicians, particularly, most often think — about the idea of electoral reform in terms of the basic mechanics of how votes are counted in constituencies to produce an elected member of this assembly. We know about the fact that there are different systems for electing members in other parts of the world. We know that there are different ways, therefore, of bringing people into this room.

We most often think, though, about this issue from the perspective of what electoral reform might mean to political parties. That is, we tend to see this issue through the lens of its impact on the distribution and representation of political parties in our system. That, I think, is a hugely important part of this exercise, but it seems to me that if that were the extent to which the assembly considered the issue of electoral reform, there would have been a lost opportunity. This is not just an opportunity to think about how we can count up ballots differently to produce different configurations of political parties in this chamber or, alternatively, choose to maintain a status quo which, after all, has served the public interest of the people of British Columbia pretty well for 145 years.

For me it also has to do with questions like: what is the role of a member of this assembly? What is it that we do when we come here? Obviously, we come here to debate, pass legislation, give the government permission to spend money, hold the government to account for its decisions. But there is this question of what our relationship is as members of this assembly to the people of the province and whether we see that in terms of a relationship that we have as constituency MLAs to the citizens in our constituencies or as government ministers with an interest in thinking about the larger public of British Columbia. Maybe it's a bit of both.

What is it that we think is our duty of service when we seek and, if we're successful, accept the opportunity of service provided by a successful election outcome? If we could sit down for a moment and think about that question, we might come up with different answers in this chamber. I suspect we would. I suspect right-thinking people in any democracy would come up with different answers to those questions. But what's interesting about this process is that it's going to give some citizens an opportunity to think about how that might change. That, to me, is when we start to get down to the level of the more fundamental issues that are going to be embraced by this citizens assembly.

If we just think in terms of electoral mechanics, I think we're missing something. There may be different ideas of representativeness. There may be different ideas of obligation, duty and service — different connections between those who sit in this chamber and the four million or more British Columbians that would be created over time, if we were to change the way in which people are elected.

I know that even if we don't change the way in which we elect our politicians, those relationships change over time anyway. The status quo is never more than yesterday's answer to a problem that someone thought about then. Everyday, in the way we do our business in this chamber, we redefine what it means to have a relationship with those we are elected to serve and what it means to be accountable.

Are we here as the mere delegates of the popular will of the majority of our constituents? Are we here as their representatives, free to make decisions according to our own best judgment? Are we here only because we are subscribers to a party platform that we are bound to implement? Are we here to exercise independent free will on these issues?

There are people who have, and text books that will give us, good answers to these questions. What the citizens assembly will do is give 158 people the opportunity to think about how to change that — to ask the question whether those relationships that exist now are the right ones, whether they are adequate to meet the task of governing British Columbia in the twenty-first century.

That, I guess, takes me to the second set of questions. What does it mean to govern British Columbia? What is it we want government to do for us when we say to 79 men and women: "Go to Victoria and be our members of the Legislature"? What is it we want them to do for us in terms of governing the province? It's not

just about our relationship as individuals. What are we here to do collectively? I think those questions are also engaged, in some way, by this project called the citizens assembly.

As you ask those questions, I suppose another way of asking similar questions is to say: what is it that a vote means? What is it that a vote means to me as a citizen of British Columbia? What should it mean to us as citizens of British Columbia? What should it translate into?

The people who understand the first-past-the-post system will talk about the challenge of determining what the effect is of a vote cast for the unsuccessful candidate in a constituency election. Some of my colleagues this afternoon have spoken about that question. It's an interesting question. There are different ways of deciding what a vote should count for and what it should not count for. That is, I suppose, ultimately the question that this assembly will be asked to determine.

I can't imagine more interesting questions. I can't think of more important questions. It is clearly past time to start working on the answers to those questions.

One of the things that's kind of interesting, as sort of a final comment…. Maybe it's not that interesting, but it was occurring to me as I sat and listened to my colleagues on both sides of the House this afternoon speak about the need for an assembly which takes this project of electoral reform out of the hands of politicians to give it to ordinary citizens. That is the brilliance of the idea. But surely there's something about what makes the idea brilliant that also speaks in some way to the extent that there is a problem, to the realization that there is a problem. At some level, in some way, we don't think that we in this assembly can be trusted to come up with the answers to those questions — or whether we think we deserve the trust and whether we believe the citizens would, in fact, trust us. That says something to me about the state of representative democracy in the first years of the twenty-first century.

The great virtue of this idea is that it transcends that problem and says that for this issue we can avoid the charge that the decision-makers are motivated by self-interest. We can avoid the allegation that those charged with charting, deciding upon what to recommend in terms of a new course…. Those charged with that task can be set up in a way in which they are independent of those partisan and political pressures that operate, and quite often operate perfectly legitimately, here. They could be set aside in a way that's independent from us and set up in a way that protects or does as good a job as you could possibly do, I think, within practical limits of establishing a body that's representative, that will be manageable, that will be affordable and that lets those folks have a go at this issue.

You know, these are tough issues. It may be that when the folks in the assembly, the citizens who comprise the assembly, answer whatever questions they decide are important to determine these issues, they will decide to adopt — a marvellously time-honoured phrase…. They will decide that for all of its flaws, the status quo is the least offensive of the options.

I think perhaps one of the other great virtues of this idea is that it preserves intact the possibility that ordinary citizens, properly instructed and reasonably motivated, may decide that the way we do things, the way we elect our MLAs, is the best possible way not just for yesterday and not just for today but also for tomorrow. This assembly will have the option of making and reaching that decision.

If they decide there is a model that the assembly believes would be a better way of reaching a result, a better way of answering their questions of what democracy should mean in British Columbia, then we'll all get a chance to vote, and we'll all be in for a heck of a ride come May 17, 2005, when we go into the ballot box and look at that referendum question.

I appreciate the opportunity to join in this debate, and I look forward to observing the will of the members of the assembly as we proceed to vote on the resolution.

Hon. G. Plant: I move Motion 100 standing in my name on the orders of the day, to constitute the Special Committee on the Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform according to the provisions of the motion.

Hon. G. Plant: Oh, I'm sorry. What I mean is that I'm about do that, Mr. Speaker, and I thought I'd give you advance notice.

Before I do that, I call the Committee of Supply in Committee A for the purpose of the estimates debate. For the information of members, the committee will be entertaining the debate of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

When that is done, then I will do the other thing that I was giving you advance notice that I was intending to do.

Hon. G. Plant: I call Committee of Supply in this House for the purpose of debating the estimates. We will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MINISTRY
RESPONSIBLE FOR TREATY NEGOTIATIONS
(continued)

T. Christensen: I've got a number of things I want to cover. I will at some point be going through the Attorney General's service plan, but I want to start with a few initiatives that I know the Attorney General's ministry is dealing with, which are at a relatively high level. I more or less want to get a bit of an update around some of those.

Actually, I had made my notes a couple of weeks ago, so the first was the citizens assembly. We've found out most of what we need to know about that during the course of this afternoon, so I won't ask any questions around that.

Second was the administrative justice project, and my understanding is that there's been a pretty comprehensive review of a good number of government agencies — somewhere around 60 or so — and that the Attorney General has embarked on an examination of our administrative justice system really from the ground up.

I guess perhaps what I'd like first is if the Attorney General could confirm that one of the principles being looked at in terms of the administrative justice project is to try and bring some consistency among the general processes being followed from one administrative tribunal to another, and then perhaps expand a bit on what the underlying reasoning and principles are in moving forward with the administrative justice project.

Hon. G. Plant: I thank the member for his question. Certainly, one of the underlying objectives of the administrative justice project is to try to see if we can examine our system of administrative justice as a system rather than as simply an ad hoc collection of different agencies. It was certainly constructed one agency at a time over most of a century in an ad hoc way, but in fact I think there are some basic principles that we ought to be able to identify and that are common to the way administrative tribunals work. The administrative justice project is about looking for those principles and trying to see what role we have in central government to implement them.

One of the things I think it is important for me to say as a kind of a qualification to that is that while I do believe there is a need to look at the system of administrative justice as a system, there's no public purpose to be served by imprinting a one-size-fits-all approach to administrative justice agencies. The patient review board that discharges functions under the Criminal Code does quite different work from the work of residential tenancy arbitrators. There are common themes to those things in their work, but I think we need to do the work of searching for common themes in a way that is respectful of the unique circumstances of individual tribunals, where that's relevant and important.

The first phase of the administrative justice project, as I'm sure the member knows, really was primarily concerned with assisting the core services review in examining the existing landscape of administrative tribunals to determine which ones of them were continuing to serve a viable public purpose in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, where appropriate, making some decisions that might and did result in streamlining, consolidating and eliminating some agencies. I don't have the exact number in front of me right now, but we've gone from something like 67 agencies down

to a number that's significantly smaller. Some of that work is still in train, in that some of the legislation that I expect will come forward from different ministries over the course of the balance of this session and perhaps even in the next year will reflect the acceptance of the recommendations of the core services project around redesigning, consolidating or eliminating some administrative justice agencies.

The basic principles we are trying to follow in reforming administrative justice are set out in the White Paper, which is called On Balance: Guiding Principles for Administrative Justice Reform in British Columbia. It's a pretty comprehensive overview of a pretty complex subject. At some level what we're trying to do is ensure that we strike the right balance between independence and accountability. The tribunals are not courts. They need a measure of institutional independence to ensure that their decisions are fair and impartial, but they also, in many cases, are there to implement government policy, so there is a need for accountability. There are, I think, basic issues of fairness, courtesy, affordability and efficiency.

The administrative justice community in British Columbia has been concerned with these issues for a long time, and there have been many good ideas in the community about ways to embrace reform. To a considerable extent, what we've been doing is listening to the administrative justice community. I think what we've been adding is sort of the political will, if you will, of government on a commitment to listen and undertake systemwide reform.

There are more issues and principles at play here, but maybe just to finish my comments in response to the question…. Having moved on from the first project, which was the participation in the core services review that I referred to, we have spent a fair bit of time over the last number of months examining the issues of independence and accountability. One of the ways the issue of independence raises itself is in the context of appointments — these questions: who appoints tribunal members? What are their terms? Do we appoint at pleasure? Do we appoint for terms of years?

We have been working on developing a legislative package that is getting close to being ready to come to the House, I hope, so there will be more on that particular subject in due course if we can get a bill ready in time for the spring session.

T. Christensen: Thank you to the Attorney General for giving me a pretty comprehensive idea of the direction of the administrative justice project. Certainly, it seems from his comments that it's something that's long overdue.

Just a couple of sort of minor points in terms of that review. In looking at how administrative tribunals operate in the province now, has the Attorney incorporated, in looking at how we would like them to operate, alternate dispute resolution mechanisms to try and encourage ADR as an option, given that I know in other areas of the ministry that's certainly somewhat of a priority?

Hon. G. Plant: The short answer to the question is yes. One of the things we have been doing in the administrative justice project is reviewing the statutes that create agencies to make sure that in the appropriate places and in the appropriate way, the tribunals themselves have the tools in the legislation to use and encourage the use of alternate dispute resolution.

There are some agencies that have not had the power in the statute and have felt that because of that, they don't have the power to do that — that they just have to operate as a relatively passive adjudicative agency. So we're going across the landscape, trying to make sure that we give tribunals the tools they need to undertake alternate dispute resolution and also continue to encourage a culture that embraces the use of ADR.

T. Christensen: As the Attorney moves forward with developing, perhaps, somewhat of a comprehensive legislative framework to apply to a number of tribunals, does he expect that would apply down to municipal tribunals — things like boards of variance and those other relatively municipal creatures?

Hon. G. Plant: Our field of view is, I would say, limited to provincially created agencies. I think that municipally created adjudicative bodies may be drawing on some of the work that has been done here, but we're concentrating on the agencies, the tribunals, that are created by this Legislature directly.

T. Christensen: Just in terms of the overall review as well, has there been any effort put into looking at how the various provincial tribunals might operate more efficiently in terms of shared support staff or shared services, and looking at it more from a dollars-and-cents perspective in terms of the resources required to support a number of these tribunals?

Hon. G. Plant: That work has been and continues to be undertaken. There are some places where there are economies of scale that can be achieved. There are some places where it's not possible. I don't have in front of me now any examples, although there are one or two that are coming to mind. But more broadly even than the administrative tribunals across government, within my ministry we're also looking at ways in which the different agencies that aren't necessarily tribunals can share some services, can co-share space and some of that stuff. There are some opportunities for that — not as many as I might like, but we're doing what we can.

T. Christensen: I'm going to switch now to the civil liability review. Certainly, it has the potential, I would expect, to be even a much bigger task than the administrative justice project, particularly given some of the history behind common-law principles and other statutory obligations that arise in our civil liability system. Perhaps I could ask the Attorney General to answer what is the most basic question around the civil liability review, and that is: why was it initiated?

Hon. G. Plant: From the outset of my time as an elected official, I've been interested in the extent to which we could reinvigorate private law reform in British Columbia. There is a great history of private law reform under the leadership of the Law Reform Commission, going back some number of years, and in the 1990s the Law Reform Commission was essentially allowed to wither and die. The Law Institute was created out of the ashes of the Law Reform Commission, but it seems to me that government has a role to play in ensuring that the kind of law reform that's necessary — if our system of laws is to keep up with modern circumstances — is undertaken even if, as is often the case, the individual initiatives are not terribly significant politically.

So you've got to look at the Warehouse Lien Act from time to time. That has, frankly, been part of what motivated me to undertake this civil liability review. I think the other thing was my sense, as an observer of the development of statutory and common law over time, that in some areas of the law the development of legal principles was tending to favour plaintiffs at the expense of defendants. In some ways the system was losing a basic sense of fairness, or to be more precise about it, at least there were some legitimate questions about whether that is so.

The review began, really, with an attempt to start a public discussion in which I asked people to think about whether the principles of joint and several liability — which are partly statutory, partly common law — are fair and whether the Limitation Act in the way it operates today is fair. It was a great law reform initiative in the early 1970s, but it's nearly three decades old. There have been significant changes to limitations legislation in some other provinces. Maybe it's time that we looked at ours and in particular we look at the ultimate limitation period, which is sort of the final backstop for most cases, and other issues.

I deliberately started a conversation on the basis of a suggestion that I thought there were some questions about whether the law was striking the right balance, and that's continued to motivate what this review has been about.

To anticipate the member's next question, perhaps…. As the member knows, we turned this public conversation into something more formal in April of last year. We started a public process involving the publication of a consultation paper. We invited responses from members of the public. We gave them a response date of October 1. Much of the fall and winter was taken up with collecting the responses we received, and most recently we put a summary of those responses on the Attorney General's webpage so people could see what views were expressed. We are continuing to consider that input and to decide what, if any, action government will take as a result of this work.

T. Christensen: You touched on it a bit in the last answer, but in terms of law reform initiatives that have been there in the past, whether it was the Law Reform Commission here in B.C. or otherwise…. Can you comment briefly on what is happening in other jurisdictions either in Canada or in the U.S.A. where there seems to be — or it's my impression, at least — a general concern about civil liability and on where we're at, at this point in time?

There's no question it has changed dramatically from where we were perhaps a century ago or even ten years ago. Do we see that a number of other jurisdictions are embarking on this same sort of public discussion? Is there an opportunity there to learn from one another in terms of what some of those challenges are and where we should be going?

Hon. G. Plant: Yes, there have been developments on this front in virtually every common-law jurisdiction. That includes Australia; it includes New Zealand. I believe it certainly includes many in the United States, and it also includes Canada. For example, in the area of joint and several liability, the federal government has responded to concerns that existed in the banking industry, I believe, with respect to the liabilities that can flow from reliance upon financial statements. The federal government has enacted some legislative changes in that area.

The American jurisdictions have gone through a period of what is often called tort reform for the last number of years. If we look at the American landscape, many jurisdictions have wrestled with these issues in different ways and have reached different solutions.

The civil liability review from the outset has looked to the experience in other jurisdictions as helping to at least lend some support to the idea that change may be necessary and also to provide examples of different kinds of reform that could be looked at. I will say this: this project is about basic and fundamental principles. It's a deeper project than simply particular questions that are arising in particular industries from time to time. I've always thought this review is about asking people to think of themselves potentially as individuals, both as prospective plaintiffs and prospective defendants, and to put forward questions about the way the law operates now and to ask them to think about whether a particular result is fair or would be fairer from your perspective as a plaintiff or, more importantly, as a defendant.

It's also the case, though, that there are factors at play out there in the larger world that are relevant. It appears to be the case that in an increasing way, contractors are having a hard time getting liability insurance for the work they do. Those are factors that are at play in the universe out there in terms of thinking about whether the law is fair.

We're trying to look for the right balance between the interests of victims, who clearly have the right to compensation for a wrong that's been done to them, and also the legitimate interests of defendants in knowing how long it is they have to wait to engage in a debate about whether they, in fact, were committing a

tort or some other wrong. There is evidence out there that's relevant, but it's not necessarily determinative of how this process will continue.

T. Christensen: Is there any joint work being done in terms of the Uniform Law Conference — I think it's called — or the uniform law commission that, as I understand it, deals with things across Canada? Is this tort reform or civil liability reform something that is being looked at, at that level?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't believe that the issues that were expressly raised in the civil liability review have been examined or are being examined by the Uniform Law Conference. There are some issues that have been examined by the Uniform Law Conference, which have been brought into this Legislature in the form of a couple of bills we have introduced in this session around court jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments.

We try to be active participants in the Uniform Law Conference work. There are certainly some pretty dedicated folks in my ministry who are leaders in the Uniform Law Conference work, but I don't think the specific issues engaged in the discussion about the civil liability review are the subject of review at the Uniform Law Conference level.

Another example of an issue that came from the ULC and made its way onto the floor of the Legislature last year was a change to the law with respect to trustee investment powers. That's another example of the kind of law reform that I think we have a duty to try to help with here.

T. Christensen: Earlier the Attorney mentioned the summary of responses that have come in to the civil liability review and the fact that that's available. I've had a bit of a chance to look at those. What concerned me most, in reviewing the responses, was the apparent position taken by much of the legal profession that they weren't going to get integrally involved in the discussion at this point. The Summary of Responses document itself notes that the Law Society of B.C., the Trial Lawyers Association of B.C. and the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association, among others, had taken the position that their objection to the launching of the civil liability review was so fundamental as to preclude their responding to the individual issues.

The reason I'm concerned is that notwithstanding that there's a good deal of perhaps concern among a good number of lawyers in the province, the reality is that they're the folks who have to deal with this stuff on a day-to-day basis. They're in a position to see the impact of what potential changes might be on their clients, whether they be plaintiffs or defendants, and that if we don't have them engaged in the conversation, that's to the detriment of the process certainly. I've been heartened a little bit that I've seen in a couple of recent issues of The Verdict, which is the Trial Lawyers Association's journal, that they're at least putting forward certain positions, and obviously those positions may be debated.

What I'm trying to get around to is: could the Attorney comment on what efforts are ongoing or what successes you may be having in better engaging some of the folks in the legal profession in this province, whether in practice or at the academic level, in consideration of the issues raised within the civil liability review?

Hon. G. Plant: The member has pretty accurately characterized what we might call the institutional response of the legal profession. But in fact, at the individual level many lawyers provided responses, and their input was received and has been taken into account. It's also fair to say that a number of the larger institutions or organizations that provided submissions on behalf of their members probably did so with a bit of help from the lawyers who work for the members of those associations. So at least at that level, we've got the beginnings of input from the legal profession.

I certainly recognize that to the extent that there are going to be different opinions about some of these issues among lawyers, it's going to be harder for the Bar Association or the Law Society to come up with a settled position, and it may probably be better for those institutions that they don't try that. I mean, far be it from me to tell those institutions what to do.

The trial lawyers, I think, would agree with me that it would be wrong to characterize their position as ambivalent. But you know, it is interesting that I saw, for example, in the most recent edition of The Verdict that came my way, a pretty principled discussion of some of these issues. So I guess I could say that while the deadline for submissions has passed, we're still paying attention to what people are saying about these issues. I'll forbear from any other comment on the general approach taken by my friends in the Trial Lawyers Association.

T. Christensen: Actually, that is a helpful lead-in to my next question, which is: where do we go now? We've identified six main areas of discussion in the liability review document, and we've got some responses from those. Certainly, what seems to be consistent from folks like the Law Society and others that weren't taking a particular position is that these are important issues, that they deserve very thorough consideration — given the impacts that they have on people, whether plaintiff or defendant — and that, if anything, one of the complaints seemed to be that we need to do much more. There should have been a lot more background information thrown out to the public before we asked for a response. That may be true if we were only asking for responses from the legal community. Can the Attorney comment on how we take these six different issues and move ahead from here — what he anticipates doing?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, first, if I can be just ever so slightly more direct, it's hard to take seriously the contention by the legal profession that they needed more background information. The areas of law that we're talking about here are areas of law that many lawyers

are engaged in every day of their lives. They are the subject of extensive academic and jurisprudential discussion. There are many views expressed on all sides of every question about whether the state of the law today is correct or right or fair. On a number of these issues, in fact, those arguments are taking place, more or less as we speak, in the Supreme Court of Canada, where lawyers are arguing about the scope of non-delegable duty, for example, and not telling the Supreme Court of Canada that they don't have enough information about whether or not there are issues here.

The second point — a small point, but important — is that although the civil liability review formal discussion paper organized thinking and asked questions about six issues, we never have closed the door to other issues. We received some input that has allowed us to think about some other generally smaller issues, and that work continues.

To the main question, we've had a public conversation about these issues for a year and a half. As we identified in the last exchange, the conversation hasn't continued. Even though the formal deadline for responses to the discussion paper has ended, there are still people out there writing about these things, and we're still reading. It's now time for government to decide what, if anything, to do about these issues — whether to make changes in the law or not.

I always ask myself the question whether there is a need for more process. I can say, in this case, that 18 months' worth of public discussion, I think, represents a pretty reasonable attempt at engaging the public in the issue. I don't have a firm answer yet to whether or not we may need some more work on some issues, and I don't have a firm answer to what, if anything, government will do about these things. I believe the questions were real and legitimate and important. The discussion has been useful and insightful and, I think, necessary, and now government is going to have to decide what, if anything, it wants to do about that. We will move forward in the months to come towards making that decision.

Noting the hour, Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could ask the committee to recess until 6:35.

T. Christensen: Before the 30-minute dinner break, we were talking about a few of the initiatives the Attorney General has undertaken with respect to law reform. A further one we hadn't gotten to yet was the B.C. Justice Review Task Force. I understand that's a relatively recent group in terms of being organized. They propose to look at a broad range of things to see how we can make the justice system more effective, affordable, responsive, accessible and cost-effective — all of which I think we would all agree are laudable goals.

One of the documents the B.C. Justice Review Task Force has concluded is a background and discussion paper in terms of the unified family court. That concluded back in October. One of the issues raised there, which perhaps the Attorney General can comment on, firstly is that apparently at one point there was some federal money available to assist in expanding the availability of unified family courts. Is that sort of funding still available?

One of the ways in which the unified family court model has been implemented in some other provinces involves a commitment of federal funding that supports, in most cases, the appointment of some additional judges to the superior court. Then the fact that there is no longer a need for as many Provincial Court judges tends to free up some resources typically used to provide some of the support services important to a family court reform initiative.

Traditionally, the federal government has supported the provinces that have adopted this approach in a way that it appears they are not, at the moment, prepared to do in British Columbia. We've been doing a fair bit of work with the federal government since the last federal budget to try to determine just what their commitment is to family justice and family court reform in British Columbia, and it appears that there has been a new attitude. It may be just a new fiscal attitude. Whatever it is, it appears as though the fiscal support we had thought would be there when we began exploring this idea in the Justice Review Task Force may not be there.

I have not given up trying, and I am on the verge of maybe writing a letter to the federal minister. But we haven't been given much lately from the Department of Justice in Ottawa that gives us much hope, which I think is very disappointing because there is an opportunity here to do something that would help improve the quality of family justice services for people in British Columbia.

I do think the federal government has a role here. They can help, and they have helped in other provinces. What appears to be a change of approach is what we're faced with, and we're still doing what we can to see if we can roll away the obstacles. But I'm a little less optimistic right now than I would like to be about whether or not we're going to be able to move forward with the unified family court reform.

T. Christensen: In the absence of the federal government providing the funding…. I take it that having the ability to appoint additional Supreme Court judges is critical to the whole process moving forward so that in the absence of that additional federal funding, there's really no opportunity to move in the direction of a unified family court.

Hon. G. Plant: I think it's fair to say that the federal funding is important and very significantly important, but I'm not prepared to close the door right now, partly

because our discussions continue. So I don't know that I'm in a position now where I could state with confidence what the outcome of this process will be. We are committed to the idea of reform, and I think that reform is necessary, and if the federal government is not willing to treat British Columbia the way it has treated other provinces in the past, then there is no doubt that that creates serious obstacles. We're going to continue to work on that.

T. Christensen: Certainly from my perspective, I would encourage the Attorney General to write the letter, and a strongly worded one, in terms of the interests of British Columbians.

Given my own limited experience certainly in family law, it would be very helpful to try and bring some better integration between the Provincial Court and the Supreme Court. I think it would better serve, certainly, families who find themselves in the difficult situation of a family law situation to be dealing with one level of court.

Keeping on this general theme of law reform, I note, as well, that in a relatively recent issue of the Advocate the Attorney General raised the issue of criminal justice reform. We don't want to leave any part of the law out, I take it. But could the Attorney General please comment on what, if anything, has been initiated in respect of criminal justice reform at the provincial level?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm delighted to know that somebody reads that column in the Advocate.

There are some important initiatives that have been underway and some that continue, which probably represent part of an answer to the member's question. If you examine the criminal justice system broadly, we are continuing to work to expand — in some ways, this is culture change — the possibility of the use of video conferencing, for example, to reduce unnecessary appearances and travel time. That has a big impact on appearances by people in custody who are waiting trial on criminal matters.

We are still working on the implementation of traffic dispute reform, which was a legislative initiative that was passed here last year. We're still working on municipal bylaw forums. That is an initiative we talked about that has not yet, I believe, made its way here in terms of legislative changes. There are changes to the young offenders legislation that the member knows about, which mean that we are going to have to change some of the ways we do things here in British Columbia. I think it's right to describe the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the federal act, as a reform act. To the extent that we are active participants and doing our part in implementing that act, I think that can fairly be described as a reform initiative. That list of those sorts of initiatives is incomplete, and I could probably add quite a few other items to it.

The point of the Advocate article was to ask a deeper question, which is whether there are ways in which the criminal justice system works now that create inefficiencies, that compromise our ability to deliver justice and that, frankly, may result in innocent people being convicted and guilty people being acquitted because it takes so long to get cases to trial. We spend so much money and time now on the complex cases. The institutions of the criminal law that have been in place for decades — or centuries, in some cases — and were created for a time and a place where you could do a pretty serious criminal case in a couple of days come under stress when you take very minor criminal cases and stretch them out over two weeks. What I was trying to do in the Advocate article was to stimulate a bit of a public discussion, at least within the profession, about whether it's time we start asking bigger questions.

The challenge I have faced is thinking about what it is we could do as a provincial government, as one actor in this complex thing we call a system, to actually effect change. The Criminal Code and criminal procedure are established by the federal government. The courts are staffed by an independent judiciary. The criminal defence bar considers itself to be pretty vigorously independent, and prosecutors themselves exercise independent judgment in relation to the discharge of their duties — and there's more. The landscape is filled with sets of actors that operate occasionally in a way that's interconnected but sometimes in a way that's not.

It's hard to know where to start in terms of figuring out what it is that we could do to initiate a conversation about these changes. We have, however, initiated the conversation. I have spent some time talking with some of my provincial colleagues. These issues are percolating under the surface at the federal-provincial-territorial level — maybe a little bit further under the surface than I'd like. I'm going to continue to try and raise awareness, and we'll see where it goes.

I do think that gradually, the public is becoming disconnected from this thing that is our criminal justice system and that it's not working for them. It has to work for the public, broadly speaking. I mean, it has to meet the public interest eventually, or the public will write it off, and it will become irrelevant. That's not right; it's not good for us.

The need is there. Unfortunately, I think sometimes the conversation about how the system works is a conversation that the system actors have amongst themselves as an internal dialogue, and that internal dialogue tends to become a self-sustaining conversation looking for the good things in what is happening as opposed to a full and frank exchange of views, recognizing the ways in which the system needs some pretty important change. That article in the Advocate represents one part of an attempt I'm making to at least raise public awareness and awareness in the profession about the concerns I have about these things.

T. Christensen: I appreciate that the Attorney General is looking at these issues in the context of that difficult federal-provincial relationship in many cases, particularly around criminal law matters, and that

other provinces are being engaged in this discussion, notwithstanding that it may be well under the surface. Does there appear to be much interest from the federal front, given that they are going to have to drive a good deal of reform if, in fact, we're going to have effective reform?

Hon. G. Plant: There has been and continues to be some federal interest, and there has been some federal legislative reform. I think it's Bill C-15A. Anyway, there have been some recent federal changes that have affected issues like the availability of preliminary hearings, which strikes me as being one of those things that was good at a time and a place when it was invented and no longer serves a necessary purpose, at least for the vast, vast majority of cases. So there has been federal engagement.

I think it's also fair to say that there are different degrees of concern and shared concern around the federal-provincial-territorial table but as yet no real consensus around these issues. That's fine. It takes time to build the awareness. Sometimes the most effective way of dealing with these things is to settle on two or three particular initiatives and see if you can make those work. There's been a lot of effort directed at the issue of preliminary hearings, for example. That work will continue, I'm sure.

T. Christensen: I thank the Attorney General for giving some information on those broad areas of law reform.

I'm going to switch now to going through the service plan a little more specifically. I'll try to basically follow the route the plan takes. I'm going to start in respect to court services. The first question there is: do the expenditures in '02-03 reflect any savings from courthouse closures that occurred during the course of last year?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm told the '02-03 numbers do reflect some of the savings that we anticipate will be realized as a result of the courthouse closures, but that in all likelihood the full savings won't be manifested until the '03-04 year that we're embarked upon.

T. Christensen: That leads nicely to the next question. There's a little under a $7 million reduction in '03-04, and the natural question is whether you contemplate more courthouse closures to try to meet those targets.

Hon. G. Plant: Let me first explain or provide a summary of the reason for the decrease in the operating budget figure for the court services branch from '02-03 to '03-04. The decrease in the operating budget is primarily due to the removal of Air India funding. That's $4 million. Now, what's meant by that is that Air India funding has basically been pulled out of the operations funding of the different branches of the ministry and has essentially moved into contingency funding, so it's not reflected anymore. You could say that's really an accounting entry in terms of looking at the overall expenditures of government.

Then courthouse closure adjustments represent $2.23 million. A decrease in building occupancy costs produces a saving of $0.4 million and some general budget reductions of just under $2 million. Those decreases probably add up to more than the number the member sees. That's because there are some budget increases, due largely to a COLA lift for staff in the branch.

T. Christensen: I appreciate the Attorney General clarifying that, because I think what tends to happen is that people pick up these documents, see a quick number and then wonder what on earth that means when the rubber hits the road. It's helpful to know that there are numbers going in each direction.

Certainly, it's been no secret that over the course of the last year one of the progressive means of ensuring that the court services needs of various communities that perhaps saw courthouse closure has been the introduction of circuit courts. Perhaps the Attorney General could comment briefly on the ongoing costs of those circuit courts, whether that introduces additional costs back into the Attorney General's budget and whether there are cost-sharing arrangements around those circuit courts with municipalities who may be using the building for another purpose — or other agencies, for that matter.

Hon. G. Plant: In general terms, the answer is that there are cost-sharing arrangements. There are different arrangements in some different places. For the most part, if not in terms of all of them, the circuit court locations that we have established over the last year have all involved some measure of municipal contribution.

In terms of the cost to the Ministry of Attorney General which is involved in our commitment to providing those court services, we've sort of elbowed and scratched the room necessary to achieve this purpose from within this overall budget envelope. I think we have about $700,000 in our expenditures, offset by $550,000. We have a net cost of about a quarter of a million dollars in order to sustain the circuit courts that have been established over the last year, although I think that's probably a court services budget cost. There are also, in some locations, some criminal justice costs associated with maintaining Crown counsel or getting Crown counsel to some of those locations.

T. Christensen: How many circuit courts have now been established? I tried to keep track, but I lost track of the number because there were a few recent announcements. Are you anticipating any more?

Perhaps you could also comment on, from a practical standpoint as a member of the public, what the difference is between a regular court registry and a circuit

Hon. G. Plant: The status now is that we have put in place 15 circuit court operations since the service reductions and courthouse closures were announced in January of last year. Just to put that number in context…. I'm sure I'll get corrected if I get these numbers wrong. When we came into government, there were 99 court locations in British Columbia. Sixty-eight were served by a full-service courthouse, and 31 were circuit court locations. The reduction in the number of full-time courts from the 24 that were closed was a reduction from the 68 number. The addition of the 15, I guess, is in addition to the 31.

We always had a big part of the judicial system in British Columbia being delivered in smaller communities through the use of circuit courts, and we expanded that to help 15 of the communities that were otherwise affected by the courthouse closures. There is a possibility of another circuit court being opened. We have had some productive discussions over the last while with the people in Merritt, but I can't necessarily predict or commit to an outcome.

Unfortunately, I also have to say that we are having some difficulty in the district of Hope. I think it's fair to say that the district of Hope was expecting to get more service for less money than we understood that they had agreed to when the arrangement was made, and so things don't look very positive right now in terms of the district of Hope.

What the public sees, by and large, in terms of the difference between a circuit court and a full-time court depends a lot on what they come to do in a courthouse. If they come to a courthouse on a day when court is sitting to attend a trial as a witness or as a party or as a member of the public, they don't see much that's different. There's a judge, there's counsel, there are parties, and things are pretty much as you'd expect. However, if they come to court to file documents in a registry, that's what's different.

The main difference between a full-time court service and a circuit court is that the circuit courts do not have full-time court registries. That's why, in addition to things like the circuit court initiative that I talked about, we have worked hard to expand the use of fax-filing, for example, so that people don't necessarily have to get in their car and drive five miles or 50 miles to file a document. They can go find a fax machine and just fax it in to the courthouse that has the registry. That's the main difference, though, between the two arrangements.

T. Christensen: In respect to the operation of the circuit courts, both the new ones and the ones that have been there for a good deal of time, does the ministry keep statistics separately in terms of the number of cases heard in those and the time it takes to either get to trial or get through a trial in the event that perhaps it's prolonged a bit if the court is not sitting five days a week?

T. Christensen: Does it show any sort of marked difference between the service you would receive from a circuit court in terms of the timeliness of adjudication as opposed to a community that has a full-time courthouse?

Hon. G. Plant: I think it may be that circuit courts are a little bit less efficient. There is, I suppose, a higher risk in a circuit court town that if the matter doesn't finish within the more limited time allotted, then you may get bumped to a longer time down the road. I think it would be fair to say that's a general observation. I am certain that the actual experience differs from court location to court location.

This issue presents at least one challenging tension — on the one hand the desire to make justice accessible in smaller communities. By that I mean physically accessible so that there is a courtroom with a judge presiding over matters in the community so that citizens in the community can have a feeling that they are connected to a justice system. All of that operates in favour of having a wide-ranging system of circuit courts. The countervailing tension is that it's not the world's most efficient way to use scarce and valuable judicial and legal resources.

If you happen to be in a small town where court is set for one day every two weeks, yeah, there are some of the problems I talked about earlier. But if what happens in the court on the day when court is sitting is that the four matters collapse and one is dealt with in an hour, then everybody could be standing around by 10:30 or 11 o'clock and there's no other business to be done. Now, if you're 222 Main Street, leaving aside what the lawyers may have planned, the judge will get a call saying: "Here's some more work coming your way." But if you are in some small town where you've gone just for the day, it may be nice to feel that in some way there's no pressing business to occupy you for the balance of the day. That isn't to say that judges won't have lots of work to do to keep up with reserves and all of that stuff, but it's not really always the most efficient use of our judicial resources and other resources, which are awfully expensive.

T. Christensen: I take it that in establishing a circuit court in any particular location, there's some reference to historical caseloads so that there's a relative degree of confidence that we're going to be able to keep the people we're putting there busy for the day or two they are there. Is that something that's monitored on an ongoing basis so we can assess whether we're getting good value for the dollars being spent in terms of those courthouses?

Equally importantly, is there any work or consultation with the legal profession in a particular area that has a circuit court to try and ensure that you don't have the scenario you talked about where you have a good number of cases collapsing on the courthouse steps? That's a problem at all court registries, but it seems it's

perhaps a bit more worrisome at a circuit court, where you don't have something then to fill the docket.

Hon. G. Plant: Well, we're on the verge of having a conversation about the difficult challenge of introducing the concept of management into the judicial system. I'm being partly facetious. There is a tremendous amount of work done by court services staff and by the judiciary to make the most efficient use of their resources. Nonetheless, the structure, as it is, creates the issues I've talked about.

To illustrate the range, I've got in front of me a number of circuit court locations where, in some cases — for a town or village like Klemtu or Tahsis — we're talking about two sittings a year. That ranges all the way up to some towns, like Vanderhoof or 100 Mile House, where we've got two days a week. In all of those towns I think it's fair to say that the ministry tries to monitor what the demands are and to manage them.

The judiciary are also very actively paying attention to the need for their services. At some level you could say there is kind of a dialogue that over time, hopefully, results in the right decisions being made about allocating resources to different places. It's a very sensitive issue, obviously, in the towns where these services are being provided. I obviously can attest to the sensitivity of it from having been a participant in the experience over the last year and a half.

I think what we need to do is continue to think hard about what is meant by that idea of access, what is meant by the idea of the presence of justice in a community. How much of that is composed of bricks and mortars or needs to be, if at all, and how much of it can be achieved through other means? What are the cases that go into court in these towns, and do they need to be in courthouses? Could we be resolving some of these issues in other ways?

You know, I'm always mindful of the fact that most of my practice as a lawyer was in the Supreme Court of British Columbia. If you practise in the Supreme Court of British Columbia…. For most of the time when I was a lawyer, if you had a matter that went on for more than three or four days, there was a pretty good chance that — it didn't matter where you were in British Columbia — you were going to have a trial in downtown Vancouver or maybe Victoria. You might be lucky to get a week trial in Prince George or Kamloops or Kelowna, but if you were in Smithers, you weren't going to get a long trial heard in Smithers. I don't remember litigants beside themselves with anxiety over whether or not they were having adequate access to justice in that respect.

The world has always been composed of a whole bunch of different approaches to these things, and we're continuing to monitor them.

T. Christensen: Just referring back specifically to the service plan, the Attorney General alluded to it earlier in terms of the increased use of video conferencing. The service plan indicates that one of the strategies to better support the level of court and processing cases in a timely, efficient manner is to use more video conferencing. Certainly, I'm aware that even since five years ago, there's been a dramatic increase and a good deal of efficiency from having introduced video conferencing. Could the Attorney General comment firstly on whether the bar in general and, equally importantly, the judiciary have essentially embraced the use of video conferencing and whether there's been any significant assessment of the effectiveness of video conferencing — where it works well, where it doesn't work well and perhaps where it may be expanded?

Hon. G. Plant: I think that much of this initiative was led by the judiciary. I know that in some of the time I've spent in different courthouses in British Columbia, the local administrative judges have been very keen to explain the extent to which they're using the technology and the extent to which they are, over time, trying to expand the range of matters where the technology is available. I think it's fair to say that, generally speaking, the bar has also been receptive. There are obviously going to be some individual cases where lawyers are going to disagree about whether a particular witness really ought to be there in person as opposed to by video conferencing.

This has been a hugely valuable tool to the sheriffs and the corrections folks in terms of transporting people in custody, and I think it reduces the number of unnecessary in-person appearances in lots of places. But we're still learning how to use it, broadly speaking, in the actual trial, where we're talking about perhaps a critically important witness who may be 5,000 miles away. I think there's probably still some growing and adjusting and thinking that have to happen. We monitor it, and we monitor its use and its impact. I also know that its use and impact have been the subject of study by criminologists generally, and I think there's probably a bit of academic literature on this out there that I, frankly, don't know enough about.

T. Christensen: Is it accurate to say that the ministry, in looking at the expansion of video conferencing, is looking at the academic research that's out there so that we're moving ahead in accordance with the best science?

Hon. G. Plant: We are moving ahead, and we are expanding. The service plan says that the number of video conferencing units in use is expected to increase over the next few years.

A distinction has to be drawn between the work that we can do as a ministry to make the technology available and to help people understand what it might be used for…. Then the bar and the judiciary have to set their own limits in terms of what happens in a courtroom. I think it's fair to say that B.C. is a leader in Canada in the use of video conferencing, and I hope that we will continue to be.

T. Christensen: Shifting to municipal bylaw disputes — again, you referred to that briefly earlier —

there's been a stated intent to work with municipalities to look at a new process to resolve minor bylaw disputes more efficiently. Can you give a bit of an update as to where that's at, at this point? It obviously has some pretty significant implications in terms of some of the performance measures set out in the service plan under court services, as well as probably the overall impact on this particular branch.

Hon. G. Plant: Consultation has been continuing for the last while. We've moved, to some extent, beyond the kind of basic concept of what a bylaw forum might look like and started to focus on what might be called the business plan side of it. That is, how much will it cost, and where will the money come from to support that? What does that mean in terms of the difference between, say, large communities on the North Shore in Vancouver versus some smaller communities? That work continues. I think we may have, in fact, some pilot sites up and running perhaps as soon as this fall.

We have also been working on the legislation that is needed to create the framework for this. It's getting risky to say this when we're almost on May 1, but I still am hopeful we'll have some legislation at least introduced for exposure purposes during the current sitting.

T. Christensen: We can look forward to the legislation perhaps in the next month or maybe a little bit longer than that.

What financial implication or potential financial implication is there to the court services branch in terms of perhaps moving municipal bylaw actions outside of the Provincial Court? I note that in the supplemental estimates it looks like there are total external recoveries for court services of, I think, $1.2 million. The note, at least, suggests that some of that comes from municipal bylaw–type actions. Can you comment on that generally? I may have the number wrong.

Hon. G. Plant: I believe I'm right in saying the recovery relates to an agreement the government has had with the city of Vancouver for a number of years. I'm advised that we anticipate that the gross savings to the Ministry of Attorney General from the implementation of the bylaw reform initiative could amount to a million dollars annually, but we've already spent some of that money.

The savings were kind of planned and anticipated when we were asking ourselves where we could get the money to pay for circuit courts, for example. I'm told that the net savings to the ministry are $50,000 a year when all these other costs are taken into account.

It clearly should reduce some of the pressures on the court system, generally speaking, and that's a good thing. It's a good thing from an expenditure point of view, but I hope also, fundamentally, it's a good thing from the point of view of providing a more accessible, affordable service to municipal governments and the citizens who receive tickets from them from time to time.

T. Christensen: Just flipping over to the performance measures that are set out in the service plan for court services. I note there's a goal, at least, to lower the average number of appearances per completed case in Provincial Court. What sort of strategies are being pursued to try to reduce the number of appearances that counsel, with or without their client, need to be there?

Hon. G. Plant: The criminal case-flow management rules are one of the tools we rely upon in planning for a modest reduction in the number of appearances per matter. The use of video conferencing is part of the picture here — that's a bad use of term. Anyway, generally trying to manage the system more efficiently…. The judiciary, as I say, are working hard on some of the problem areas, if I could call them that. Our ministry is trying to support that work and help in that work.

One of the major contributors to the numbers the member is looking at is the number of appearances in cases that are heard at 222 Main Street. I think it's fair to say that the 5.2, 5.4, 5.6 numbers in the service plan would probably be lower if we could find a way to achieve a miracle transformation of the process at 222 Main Street. If the member has any ideas about how to make a miracle happen, I'd be happy to hear them.

T. Christensen: Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure of practising at 222 Main Street, so I wouldn't know the problems and certainly don't have any ideas off the top of my head in terms of solutions, but I'm sure there are a number of good minds working on it.

In terms of some of the performance measures around criminal cases, has there been any thought of incorporating, as a performance measure, the number of successful Askov applications where cases are being dismissed because they've taken too long? Presumably we keep track of that, and it would seem to me a pretty relevant measure of the efficiency of the criminal court system.

Hon. G. Plant: In the case of an Askov-related performance measure, I assume what the member means is that we would establish a baseline — the number of successful Askov applications made now — and then commit to try to reduce them over time. I don't have the exact numbers in front of me. I think there are very, very few successful Askov applications made in any given year in British Columbia, and it is certainly in our interests to keep that number to a very, very small number — if not eliminate it altogether.

We do monitor the time it takes to get to trial in adult and youth criminal cases at every courthouse around the province. When I speak about managing to achieve greater efficiencies and the work that the judiciary do and that my ministry does, it is work that is responsive to the numbers we see at particular court locations around the province. We are constantly

mindful of the issue and doing what we can to make sure it doesn't become a problem. I do think it would be interesting to sort of take a step outside the status quo and all of its pressures to see if we could find places and ways in which we could achieve, much more ambitiously, a shorter time to trial in some court locations than we seem to be able to achieve.

The member practised in one community where there was probably one set of expectations and experiences. The province is filled with a whole bunch of different stories in that regard. I think Askov cases, by and large, are the products of specific circumstances — in fact, even specific dynamics and tensions between the prosecutors, the defendants and their counsel in a particular case — much more than they are a result of the systemic issue. The systemic issue is the big-picture numbers about how long it takes to get a criminal case to trial in Chilliwack, Surrey, Vancouver, Hope or Vernon and managing to get those numbers to a level that is reasonable.

T. Christensen: I saw in the notes here the comments that approximately 85 percent of the criminal cases are initiated and prosecuted by provincial Crown counsel and the remaining 15 percent are initiated by federal Crown counsel. Does the federal portion of that…? How is there cost-sharing for that in terms of who's footing the bill for the part that is related to federally prosecuted offences?

Hon. G. Plant: It isn't cost-shared. The feds pay their prosecutors, we pay our prosecutors, and we pay the rent on the courthouses and turn on the lights. If it's a Provincial Court matter, it is heard by judges that are paid by the province. If it is a superior court matter, it's heard by judges that are paid by Ottawa.

T. Christensen: In terms of keeping statistics about the efficiency of our court services, do we keep similar statistics in terms of those federal cases? Are we tracking the number of appearances that may be on a narcotics offence versus an assault? I guess what I'm getting at is: are the federal either efficiencies or inefficiencies perhaps skewing some of the statistics that we have around our own prosecutorial abilities?

Hon. G. Plant: I am advised that we don't see much difference in the statistics that we keep. As the member knows, the two main categories of cases that federal prosecutors handle in British Columbia are drug cases including conspiracy-to-traffic cases, which are often quite long and very resource-intensive, and the federal fish prosecutions. Many of those are also quite long because they involve constitutional issues.

T. Christensen: Given that there's ongoing discussion at the federal level in terms of some of their potential legislative change around drug laws in particular, I take it that it's too early to assess what, if any, impact that would have on court time in the province.

Hon. G. Plant: We don't know much about the details of what the federal government is thinking about. To be fair, I'm not even sure yet that the federal government knows much about the details of what it's thinking about, and so it's too soon to say.

I know the answer to this, but just on the record, can the minister confirm that when he talks about "client" under the legal services branch, the client for the most part is other ministries of government?

T. Christensen: The natural follow-up to that: are there any other clients beyond ministries of government?

Hon. G. Plant: I think the simple answer is: nothing outside government. The legal services branch, I think, does provide some support to some agencies, boards and commissions that aren't necessarily the ministries per se. I'll find out about whether there is any support provided to Crown corporations. I know all the larger Crown corporations provide themselves with their own counsel. I don't know about smaller Crowns. I am advised there are some smaller Crowns that get their legal services from the legal services branch.

T. Christensen: The estimates indicate recoveries of about, I think, $661,000 external recoveries. Would that be money coming from Crowns, or where are those dollars coming from?

Hon. G. Plant: If the member is looking at STOB 89, I'm told that what appears there is a number representing recoveries from agencies outside of government. I don't think I was wrong in what I said earlier, because here are some of the agencies we're talking about: the B.C. Pension Corporation, B.C. Securities, the B.C. Investment Management Corporation, the liquor distribution branch, Land and Water B.C., PSERC, Forest Renewal B.C. and the Columbia Power Corporation. The numbers that we're talking about there range from — oh, I don't know — $100,000, $200,000 in a couple of cases and all the way down to about $400 in one case.

T. Christensen: I'm glad they've got that billing efficiency to pick up the $400 one. That explains it well in terms of those simply being agencies within government but outside of a particular ministry's budget.

There's a little over a $15 million net operating expense that's not billed to other ministries. Does that simply account for general operating expenses of the legal services branch in terms of offices and support staff and that type of thing, which don't get billed to another ministry?

Hon. G. Plant: Not all of the legal services that are provided by the legal services branch are billed to other ministries. For example, the constitutional and administrative section is supported internally within my ministry. We have expanded the extent to which there is cost recovery from other ministries of government, but there are still portions of what we do that are not cost-recovered.

T. Christensen: In terms of some of the overall savings or reduction in the budget for the legal services branch over this next year, is part of that an accounting for better recoveries from within government?

Hon. G. Plant: Is the member looking at the reduction in the operating budget from $23 million to $15.5 million? The member nods yes. I think the answer is that that reduction is primarily due to the implementation of the charge-back recovery model.

T. Christensen: I see that in terms of FTEs over the next few years, there's an increase from 257 to 291. Is that primarily lawyers, or is it a broad range of staff members within legal services branch?

Hon. G. Plant: It's about half and half: lawyers and non-lawyers. The increase results from the fact that there is an increased level of service requested of the legal services branch by the other ministries. Interestingly enough, although they are starting to pay more for it, they appear to want more of it.

In terms of the number of articling students, is that increasing as well, or is that pretty static? How are we doing in terms of building our future staff resources on that end?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm advised that we have reduced our articling program from seven students to four students as part of the challenge of achieving some budget reductions.

T. Christensen: Has there been any human resource assessment? We hear about looming skills shortages in a number of areas right across society in terms of the pool of talent that I feel we certainly need within the legal services branches. Are we keeping track of that in terms of age cohorts and the need to be bringing in younger lawyers — younger both by age and by call — to ensure we have those resources in the future?

Hon. G. Plant: The answer is yes. Some of the best lawyers in British Columbia work for the legal services branch. Some want to. We just hired one of the best lawyers in British Columbia as the Deputy Attorney General.

In terms of the performance measures listed in the service plan, can you comment briefly on the legal risk management plan? Firstly, what is it? And secondly, where are we at in terms of reaching some of the goals of that plan?

Hon. G. Plant: Broadly speaking, we're talking about trying to help the client ministries do a better job of identifying risks and of managing them, of looking for opportunities to resolve pending disputes before they become real disputes, of expanding the use of alternate dispute resolution. We're trying to get ministries to think more like actual clients of legal services.

One of the things that is still expected to happen over time is that we're looking at the fact that the Crown Proceeding Act dollars, which are essentially the resting place for all of the damage claims and settlements against the Crown and currently rest in the Ministry of Attorney General…. We're looking for some way in which to increase the sense of accountability ministries have for the extent to which those dollars represent the consequences of their errors or omissions in doing their job over time. That's sort of a bigger objective.

We have done a fair amount of work to develop the structure for a risk management plan. I'm told it's not quite in place, but we are expecting to roll this out as pilot projects with some ministries during the current fiscal year. This, in part, was a result of the core services review and a budget exercise, where we kept looking at the fact that in the Ministry of Attorney General — with a budget, in broad figures, of $500 million or thereabouts — there is this $30 million whacking thing here called the Crown Proceeding Act. I think there are ways in which government can do a better job of trying to manage its liability exposure. This is what this initiative has been working towards.

T. Christensen: Is part of the strategy around a legal risk management plan sort of akin to a legal audit, where the legal services branch would be going in and working with the ministry to identify what they've been doing, how they're monitoring their activities in terms of the type of work a particular ministry does and potential liabilities and what they're doing to follow up on concerns?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, it may be work that will be done by the legal services branch working with the client ministries. One of the challenges here is to find different areas where the activity of the ministry creates these sorts of claims or leads to more of them — and perhaps being more focused in searching for those areas and working harder on those areas. We know, for example, that the government gets sued too often — perhaps because of accidents on highways. That's an area where there's just a lot of exposure year in, year out. What can we do to manage that exposure better? That's the kind of work we're going to do.

T. Christensen: I'm going to move ahead now to the prosecution services branch. One of the goals there in terms of the performance measure is to increase the total number of accused persons referred to alternative measures programs. What sort of strategies are being undertaken to increase those referrals?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the work here involves identifying success stories that exist on the ground in community accountability programs and try to see if there are ways in which we can expand the use of those. I think that over the next little while, there's going to be an emphasis on more work with the Solicitor General's ministry to see if we can collectively identify resources and opportunities to expand alternate measures programs. I recognize that's a challenge in the current fiscal climate. My ministry does not in fact program-fund any of those initiatives, so we're standing there firmly convinced that more of this is necessary to achieve better outcomes in the criminal justice system, but we're not going to get there without a certain amount of assistance from, well, the Solicitor General and to some extent perhaps also the ministry of state for women's equality and other ministries of Crown.

T. Christensen: If an accused is referred to an alternate measures program, how do we track them? Is that case entered in the JUSTIN system so that we are sort of keeping track of the person, what they've been accused of, what the outcome is and, I guess, the potential down the road — whether they're a repeat offender?

T. Christensen: And is JUSTIN then integrated, or is it going to be integrated with the Solicitor General's new PRIME police record system?

Victims of Crime Act. I see that one of the performance measures…. Actually, the performance there appears to be very good: 93 percent in terms of victims who are contacted and given an opportunity to provide a victim impact statement. The goal, obviously, is to increase that over time. There are certain funds that under the act — I believe it's under the Victims of Crime Act — are essentially allocated to a victims of crime fund. Where are those dollars spent?

In terms of the specific services required under the Victims of Crime Act in terms of contacting victims, trying to get victim impact statements and providing services to victims, I know that one of the difficult decisions the Attorney General needed to make was to reduce the specific victims workers that were employed by the ministry. Who's performing those services that are required by the act?

Hon. G. Plant: Some of the services may be provided by or picked up by the community- or police-based programs that the Solicitor General is responsible for and has been working on. But to the extent that we're talking about Crown responsibilities, they have been picked up in large measure by Crown staff.

T. Christensen: In terms of the performance measures and the number of total accused persons referred for alternative measures programs, do those numbers include young offenders, or are those recorded separately with the feds?

Hon. G. Plant: Actually, we're not sure if that particular number includes young offenders, so we'll look into the underlying work that supports the number that's in the service plan, and I'll get an answer back to the member.

T. Christensen: Regardless of whether the numbers in the current service plan include young offenders or not, do you anticipate…? I've heard conflicting views on what the impact of the new federal legislation around young offenders is going to be. One group seems to think it's going to mean a lot more kids going into alternative measures–type programs. The other is basically saying, well, probably not — more status quo.

Can the Attorney General comment on that and what you anticipate the…? Assuming that the young offender numbers are in here, I would expect the number of people referred to alternative measures, then, to increase. Or should the federal legislation have much of an impact?

Hon. G. Plant: It may be that the debate that the member may be seeing out there turns on this point. I think British Columbia is already a leading jurisdiction in terms of the use of alternate measures and diversion for young offenders. In many respects, I believe that the structures and the processes and the spirit and the intent, if you will, of this part of the YCJA, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, were inspired by work that's been done in British Columbia for a number of years.

The question is: as a result of the reforms, will there be an increase or not? To some extent, I think we don't know the answer to that question because some of the processes and tools — right now they exist in a statute — are going to have to be made real in courtrooms. Some of the new settlement conferences and those processes are similar to stuff that's been happening in British Columbia in the past, but if the judiciary refined them or developed them somewhat differently, there may be different outcomes.

I think one of the intentions of the YCJA is that those cases where the young offender does not belong

inside the traditional criminal justice system should not end up there, and we support that initiative. Also, I have to say there isn't quite as much money around to expand or, in some cases, even maintain all of the existing program options that I might like to see in place to make this real. We have our work cut out for us in terms of that.

I'm not certain I could stand here now and say or guarantee at least — I'm sure I can't guarantee; I'm not even sure I can safely predict — that the implementation of the YCJA in British Columbia will mean a significant change in the existing pattern of alternate measures. That's my view. Others may have a different view.

T. Christensen: Given that we're talking about prosecution services and budgets and things like that, I would be remiss if I didn't ask what the impact is in terms of two of the really big cases we all know about in this province — one being the Air India and then the other being the Pickton investigation and eventual prosecution. Could the Attorney General comment on those two?

Hon. G. Plant: Just to make sure the picture is expressed fully, in addition to some of the high-profile cases the member I am sure is referring to like Air India and Pickton — or rather, including those cases — I think there are something like 119 murder cases underway in the criminal justice system in British Columbia right now. What that means is that the criminal justice branch administrators are working hard to make the most efficient use of a very valuable group of Crown counsel and to make sure we can do the job that is expected of us.

I think we are confident we can continue to maintain the existing level of service. There are quite a lot of lawyers for the Crown that are on the Air India file. There are not as many, I think, right now on the Pickton case, which is a resource-intensive case from the police perspective.

I think the question is a fair one. I'm sure there are some Crown counsel who feel they've been working awfully hard lately, and I suspect that will continue.

T. Christensen: Just in terms of some of the specific performance measures under prosecution services, I was curious more than anything, in terms of the performance measure, about the number of dangerous offender applications made. It's 18, and it's consistent. I guess my question is: why are we measuring performance there based on the number of applications made? Presumably, the number of applications made should be based solely on the need to make those applications. It may be that at some point in time we have 50 folks that we think are dangerous offenders, and we should be making applications in respect to all of them; another time we may only have ten. Is there some reason for that consistency?

Hon. G. Plant: I think that what this number represents is more an output measure than a particular performance goal. I think the member's question is a good one. I think the branch would agree that to the extent that there are offenders who present as people who should be subject to those applications, the branch will make those applications based on the situations that exist, not based on some number in the service plan. It's more just a figure to tell the public a little bit about what we do.

T. Christensen: In terms of the performance measures, the percentage of total accused persons referred to alternative measures programs, the percentage of total accused persons approved to court for trial — those don't add up to 100 percent. I take it that the other small percentage is the percentage of accused persons where the Crown doesn't feel there's sufficient…. What's an accused person? Is it somebody for whom the police have made a recommendation that there be a charge? Or is an accused person somebody for whom the Crown has approved the charge?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not certain that the two numbers added together should equal 100 percent. We don't have the exact figures here right now with us with respect to the number of stays of prosecution that may be entered. One number is intended to indicate one thing, and the other number is a different sort of indicator. The member's question is interesting. When we come to think about how to present this information next year, we'll keep that in mind. If the member was confused, then others may be, and I don't think that's a good confusion to create.

T. Christensen: I guess, just to follow up on that, ideally what we would have is something that explains the balance of percentage, whether that's a number of cases stayed, or if this in fact includes persons where the Crown chooses not to approve the charge. Ideally, in both those cases, over the course of time we would see fewer proceedings stayed and less, perhaps by virtue of the interaction between police and Crown…. Ideally, police wouldn't be putting forward reports to Crown where Crown ultimately is deciding not to approve the charge. Anyway, that's just sort of additional comment.

In terms of the further performance measure, the percentage of victim impact statements received and used at sentencing, the question that raised to me was the relationship between victim impact statements and the JUSTIN system. That's, I think, in the note here. I take it the goal here is to try and ensure that we're, number one, getting victim impact statements, presumably because they give us more information about the impact on the victim but also more information about the accused or, by the time they become really relevant, the convicted. We can then put that information in JUSTIN, which in turn is entered or transferred to PRIME so that when police are dealing with a particular offender or accused, they've got that additional background information in relation to where they

might find that person and whether they should or should not be in the vicinity of a particular potential victim.

Hon. G. Plant: I'm not sure if JUSTIN and PRIME and CORNET, which I think is the acronym for the corrections system, and CPIC, another acronym, which is the Canadian tool…. I'm not sure if all those tools working together are intended to permit someone outside the criminal justice court part of the system to have a look at a victim impact statement. It may be that that's digging a little deeper into the files, as it were, than would be contemplated by the use of PRIME in its most typical situation, which is going to be attending at a site or an incident and wanting something quickly — to know about what might be happening here. I also don't know specifically the extent to which the victim impact statement is an accessible, searchable document within JUSTIN. I'll go find that out, but my initial suspicion is that it's not.

T. Christensen: Thank you to the Attorney General for explaining that relationship a bit and raising a few more questions as well, I guess.

The last thing I want to canvass a little bit or speak about a little bit in terms of prosecution services…. I know the Attorney General is undergoing a review in terms of domestic assault policy, prosecution policy. Certainly, that's something of great interest, as the Attorney General knows, in my constituency, given that my understanding is that some of the current policy was based on the Josiah Wood report, which stemmed from a couple of tragic incidents in my constituency in particular.

I want to say a few things in respect of the spousal assault policy. I've spoken with a number of folks in my community about it, including members of the legal profession. What I was very pleased to hear was the absolute confidence in the abilities of Crown counsel to be making that determination of whether a particular accused should be prosecuted in respect of a domestic assault or whether they should be referred to an alternative measure. Firstly, that was comforting to hear, and I'm sure that's the type of information the Attorney General hears on a consistent basis.

But there are a couple of things that, firstly, I'd like clarified. There seems to be some confusion around them — the relationship between the prosecution policy and any policy that the police may have in respect of how they deal with a situation where somebody is alleged to have assaulted their partner and their charging policy. Can you comment on that briefly, in terms of whether it has any influence on the police?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the two sets of policies are distinct. What we've been looking at is the prosecution policy. Police policy is not within the scope of the review we've been undertaking. I think that's the answer.

T. Christensen: I know one of the concerns under the current policy has been that in some cases, the Crown is essentially obligated to proceed with the prosecution of a case that perhaps has very, very little chance of resulting in a conviction. Could the Attorney General comment briefly on the percentage of these types of cases that are being stayed relative to the overall percentage of cases that are being stayed, relative to the overall percentage of cases we find end up being stayed?

Hon. G. Plant: The last number I saw was about 40 percent. That is to say, there is about a 40 percent stay rate in domestic violence, spousal assault cases. I don't want to necessarily lead the member to conclude that the reasons for all of those stays are those that he gave in his question. Clearly, there are many cases where that's the result; that's why there is a stay. That may be the vast majority of cases. I want to give that number as an order-of-magnitude number rather than necessarily a scientifically precise number at this point.

T. Christensen: I want to comment on a couple of things that I'm pretty confident are part of the Attorney General's review of the spousal assault prosecution policy, but I want to put them on the record in terms of my own views of what the Attorney General should be looking at. Perhaps he can then confirm that, in fact, he is looking at that.

To me, there's a twofold impact of whatever policy is adopted in the application of the law. The law is obviously clear that you shall not assault your partner and that it's wrong to do so and it's criminal to do so. But there are two things that occur in respect of a particular policy. One is the general deterrent effect on the community. It seems to be the emphasis under the current policy that provides that there's going to be a prosecution in all cases. It sends a message of zero tolerance for spousal assault, and it doesn't allow the accused to try and coerce the victim into trying to get the charge dismissed, because there's no opportunity for the victim to do that because it's a zero tolerance type of policy. "Zero tolerance" is the wrong term. It's a "prosecute regardless of the circumstances and regardless of the likelihood of conviction" type of policy.

The second issue in terms of the policy is, rather than general deterrence, the specific deterrence and consequence to the perpetrator. There it gets a little more difficult, in that if you're charged but there's little likelihood of conviction, at the end of the day there's very little deterrence to the alleged offender. There's no effective way to then deal with that perpetrator, which, I expect, is the primary intent of the alternative measures. Where you're a little uncertain about the likelihood of a conviction or the circumstances of the case, you may look at alternative measures programs.

Really, I guess the challenge for the Attorney General is to try and balance those two. The concern I'm certainly hearing is that the potential impact or the potential change may undermine that general deterrent

impact on the community at large — that somehow by changing the policy, the Crown is no longer taking spousal assault to be the very serious offence that it is. Perhaps the Attorney General could comment on that.

Hon. G. Plant: I think the member has identified some of the important issues in the discussion that has taken place. Really, overall the goal here is to try to make sure that we make the criminal justice system a better tool for dealing with spousal assault and therefore send a broader, better message that's more effective and perhaps more effectively heard — that the criminal justice system does take spousal assault seriously. It doesn't treat all cases of spousal assault as though they were exactly the same when that is manifestly not the case.

We need to recognize that an arbitrary policy produces arbitrary results, and although the existing policy is not really written as an arbitrary policy, in practice it's been implemented in a way that's pretty close to arbitrary. It's so inflexibly applied that it has had some of the impacts that the member has talked about.

What we're really trying to do is just reintroduce a reasonable level of the discretion that I believe is fundamentally necessary in all charging situations. Prosecutors who do this work are generally very well trained. We have an ongoing commitment to ensure that the prosecutors who do this work get the training they need to be able to distinguish among the kinds of cases where the witness may be reluctant for the wrong reasons as opposed to reluctant for reasons that, really, we better acknowledge and take into account. It's going to be up to prosecutors to make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, and I'm glad to hear the member hears confidence in the community in the ability of prosecutors to make those decisions.

At the end of the day I think that we're actually going to see not as much change here as some of the opponents of this initiative have claimed — that on a case-by-case basis, much of what has been happening is going to continue to happen. I just think that we're going to have the tools now to do a better job in more cases to protect the victim, to protect society at large and to prevent revictimizing victims where that's a real risk.

I mean it's easy, frankly, to overstate these things. I guess the way the public debate often takes place is that unless the voice of concern has a bunch of pretty colourful adjectives included in it, there's a fear that they won't be heard. Well, I think this is not one of those cases.

This is a situation where we've done some pretty careful and thoughtful work for over a year now. We did undertake a public conversation about this issue. We heard from people. I think the prosecutors and the criminal justice folks responsible for this have done the best they can to respond to what they heard. We're very close to actually moving forward on this initiative. I think we're ready to go — just about. I think that fair-minded people will see that we've struck a fair and reasonable course through the minefield of some of the issues the member rightly identifies that will lead to a better implementation of our general objective, which is to protect the victims of assault and abuse.

T. Christensen: Just to add on to that point. The one other comment I did hear, particularly from members of the bar, in terms of those spousal assault prosecutions and what they thought would assist in dealing with those — and I'm sure it would assist in dealing with any specific type of prosecution — was the desire to have some sort of fast-track of those cases so that the offence and the consequence are closely linked. Certainly, we hear that all the time as a complaint around young offenders cases and the need to link the two, and perhaps there's a similar, I guess, exaggerated concern when we're dealing with relationship-based cases too. I simply add that comment.

I've got a number of other questions. I know there are other members that have questions tonight as well, so I'm going to yield the floor for a moment. I suspect we'll be back another day, or I know we will. But I thank the Attorney General for certainly shedding light on a number of issues I was concerned about and the general direction of the ministry.

R. Lee: I would like to ask a few questions of the Attorney General. One question is about court services. We know that one of the strategies to better utilize the Provincial Court resources is to remove the municipal bylaw disputes from the Provincial Court hearing process. There are proposals to let the municipalities handle their own bylaw disputes. What is the status of this proposal?

Hon. G. Plant: We are making good progress. We may be in a position to introduce some legislation later this year that will create the legislative framework for this. We are looking at the possibility of some pilot projects in one or two locations over the next little while to see if we can establish a business case for this proposal that makes good sense for the citizens in a particular community, so we are making progress.

R. Lee: How many municipalities are planned to be in this pilot project? In the final stage, are all municipalities getting the authority to have their bylaws resolved in their local courts?

Hon. G. Plant: We have had discussions, I guess, with the three municipalities on the North Shore in Vancouver. That's West Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver and the district of North Vancouver. They have expressed interest in working together to create sort of a joint initiative, and that's an idea that we have been discussing with them.

I think in all likelihood this is an initiative that will be of more interest in larger urban centres than in smaller rural communities. I also think the legislative

framework is likely to be a framework that, at least in theory, would be available everywhere.

R. Lee: Do you anticipate this pilot project will be happening this financial year?

Hon. G. Plant: We had planned and hope that if this initiative is rolled out completely, it may produce a savings of a million dollars a year to the Ministry of Attorney General budget. As I said earlier, we've pretty well spent all that money already.

It was in anticipation of that savings that we decided we could make the commitments with respect to circuit courts. That's already used up a portion of the anticipated saving. I would have to say at this point that we don't anticipate much additional saving that will make a huge difference in the bottom line for the ministry.

R. Lee: I would like to move to justice services. One of the goals of justice services is that the law and justice services are administered effectively and efficiently. I understand that an objective of the Ministry of Attorney General is to encourage greater public use of the out-of-court dispute resolution options. Are there any increases in the number of disputes settled through the court mediation program last year? Are there any increases in settlements over the years?

Hon. G. Plant: If the member is talking about, for example, mandatory mediation in small claims court, I'm advised that the numbers in terms of settlements produced are roughly about the same. In part, that's because the resources dedicated to this particular initiative are holding about the same. That's an example of a program that's been up and running for a little while, and I think it's proven its success. I don't think the picture is changing much. I think our goal and our challenge are to expand the kinds of situations where people use mediation and other forms of alternate dispute resolution so that we expand the range of cases where people look at mediation as an alternative.

R. Lee: I understand that the province has, right now, 120 qualified mediators. What's the number of qualified mediators next year? The plan is that we have 190 by the end of the next year. Are there any supporting programs to increase the number of mediators? They need some kind of training. Are there any resources to train additional numbers of mediators?

Hon. G. Plant: There are resources. We do assist in providing training. These people are not employees of the Ministry of Attorney General. The number at present is 175, and it's climbing.

R. Lee: My last question here is about human rights education. I understand that the Ministry of Attorney General has the responsibility to implement a human rights education program to promote an understanding of the Human Rights Code. How many resources are located in this budget? What is the plan to do that?

Hon. G. Plant: I do apologize to the member. This is an issue that we canvassed at least once already in this debate. My recollection is that…. As the member knows, there is a clinic model that has been established, and that has resulted in contracts being entered into or about to be entered into with service providers who will have responsibility for, among other things, education. The range of the contract price associated with the relevant service provider is upwards of $1.3 million. There are also some dedicated staff in the ministry that are responsible for overseeing some of that work and will also be responsible for assisting in whatever other initiatives may be undertaken in relation to education.

That is a partial answer to the question. I think there may have been other parts of the debate of these estimates where there may be more information than I can get my fingers on right now.

J. MacPhail: I have five very brief areas. Two of them are new, and three are just follow-up to our estimates. The first area is the citizens assembly questions, and then child and youth officer. Those are the two new items that have occurred since the estimates.

We had a good debate this afternoon, but I have some questions just on the actual list of recommendations from Mr. Gibson's proposal and the government's response, mainly relating to budget. On page 2 the summary makes it clear that the overall budget responsibility for the citizens assembly resides with the Ministry of Attorney General. On page 5 of the summary — I'm talking about the summary of Mr. Gibson's report — it states that the budget will be set at $5.5 million. Can the Attorney General explain how that $5.5 million gets broken down over the next two fiscal years? Under what budget line is it or will it be located?

Hon. G. Plant: I don't have the breakdown with me. Mr. Gibson's report, I think, had an appendix which showed a breakdown of how he expected — what I believe his view was — that about $4.5 million would be spent. I'm sure that's at least a starting point or a guide in terms of figuring out what the $5.5 million is likely to consist of, recognizing, I suppose, the

major adjustment in terms of what we have decided to do compared to what Mr. Gibson recommended. We've increased the size of the assembly, so we have increased the amount that is anticipated to be spent for per diems for the members of the assembly.

Vote 45, in the estimates for '03-04, has a $1.5 million allocation for the assembly. I think we have, in the service plan for '04-05, $1.7 million. At this point, there's a total recognized commitment of $3.2 million. Based on the anticipated budget of $5.5 million, we will continue to have our work cut out for us in my ministry to find the dollars that are needed if, in fact, the assembly costs the full $5.5 million.

J. MacPhail: Who monitors the budget and is responsible for the budget? Is that the chair or the Attorney General?

Hon. G. Plant: Both. I mean, the chair is going to manage the expenditures, but ultimately, it's a matter that is my ministerial responsibility.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I understand that. Let me ask this of the Attorney General: will the chair be required to make regular reports, quarterly reports, on the cost of the assembly?

Hon. G. Plant: We don't have a fixed answer to that question, but I think regular reporting is a good thing. When we have a chair in place, we'll have to sit down and work out an arrangement that the chair thinks is reasonable and that also satisfies my obligation to ensure we are accountable to the public for the expenditure of this money.

J. MacPhail: One of the recommendations Mr. Gibson made was that he suggested the hearings of the citizens assembly might be televised. What's the Attorney General's view on that?

Hon. G. Plant: For the most part, I think those are matters that the member should take up in her discussion with the nominee, Dr. Blaney. I think it's important that the citizens assembly does some part of its work in public, that it spends some time listening to British Columbians and that it travels. There are some pretty fundamental commitments around what I would expect the assembly to do.

The issue of televising its proceedings may be an issue on which the chair himself has a view. I don't know what that view is right now, so I don't have an absolutely hard-and-fast answer to that question.

This is my last question on the area of the citizens assembly. Regardless of outcome, has the government made a commitment, or is it implicit that the government will support the one option being put forward by the citizens assembly in the subsequent referendum?

Hon. G. Plant: One possible outcome is that the assembly will determine that the existing system is the best option. That will bring an end to the work of the assembly and, I think, from the government's perspective, an end to the issue. The other possibility is that the assembly will make a recommendation that satisfies the obligations of its terms of reference, which is sufficiently detailed to be put on the ballot in the general election in 2005 as a referendum question. At this point government has no position, necessarily, on whether it will or will not support that second option. I don't think we will have a position until such time as the assembly does its work and decides what it wants to recommend.

J. MacPhail: Just one question that arises out of that. My reading of the government's citizens assembly is that there will be one option, not two — the status quo and an alternative. Or is it possible to have two options?

Hon. G. Plant: If the assembly decides that the status quo is their view, then that's the end of it. If the assembly decides that they have an option they want to put forward, there will be a referendum question asking the people of British Columbia if they want to accept that one option.

Hon. G. Plant: That's right. If the assembly decides that they believe that first past the post is the best system for British Columbia, they will report that, and that will be the end of the matter. Only if the assembly decides that there is another system which they believe would be better than the current system will there be a question on the referendum ballot. Now, that question, of course, will provide the voters of British Columbia with an opportunity to vote either for it or against it. I would say a vote against it would be, in effect, a vote for the status quo then. I think we've been pretty clear on that throughout — that if the assembly decides that the status quo is what they believe is the best system, then that's the end of the matter.

J. MacPhail: Well, perhaps it's just a matter of me being too busy to thoroughly read everything the government has put out, but I would have assumed that British Columbians would get a vote no matter what, even on the status quo, because acceptance or rejection of that is the final participation of the public. If the government has been clear on that, I missed that.

The child and youth officer. We did not have a chance to discuss this because, of course, the new child and youth officer had not been appointed until this week. There are some issues in the transition that I would like to explore with the Attorney General. The children's commissioner reported that the

now defunct Children's Commission oversaw some 800 fatality reviews and has established a database that has achieved international recognition. Who will now take responsible for reviewing youth fatalities?

Hon. G. Plant: As the member knows, because we discussed this at some length when we discussed the legislation, the answer is the coroner's office.

J. MacPhail: I'll just finish. Much has changed. The size of the coroner's office budget has been changed. It's been reduced, so I'm wondering how…. It will be interesting to see how a reduced coroner can investigate 800 fatalities that were previously reviewed by the children's commissioner.

Is the Attorney General giving direction to the coroner in terms of priority of reviewing all youth fatalities?

Hon. G. Plant: As the member knows, the coroner's office does not report to the Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm not quite sure why the minister is treating me that way. I don't have all of this at my disposal in my memory bank.

In terms of the office of children and youth, the minister has just appointed Jane Morley, and what is now…. Has the Attorney General established a reporting relationship between the child and youth officer and the Attorney General — frequency, public reporting, matters such as that?

Hon. G. Plant: Those are issues that we are working on. I apologize if the member misapprehended the way I answered the last couple of questions, because I do know the member has a real and enduring interest in this issue. As we get established in terms of the details of those particular questions of the reporting relationship, I will certainly do my best to offer an opportunity to the member to get a briefing or get some information about it so she can continue to monitor that.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that. The budget for the child and youth officer for '03-04 is…?

J. MacPhail: Has the Attorney General established the location of the office and the head office yet? Or is there to be one office and, if so, where?

Hon. G. Plant: We're pretty sure it's going to be one office in Victoria, but those are also issues that are being worked on.

J. MacPhail: I apologize if I've missed this public reporting. Has the Attorney General removed Ms. Morley as the trustee of the Legal Services Society?

J. MacPhail: So what's the overlap period? Is Ms. Morley doing both jobs now?

Hon. G. Plant: The appointment of Ms. Morley as child and youth officer takes effect tomorrow, and we are very, very close to being in a position to appoint a new board of the Legal Services Society. So the overlap that may exist will certainly not exist for very many days.

J. MacPhail: I will await the briefing from the Attorney General as the office gets set up. My particular interest is accountability to the public to ensure that children remain protected.

I've got three short areas left, three brief areas. The first one arises out of the estimates, the discussion between the Attorney General and me prior to our going on a break from the Legislature — not from our work, but a break from this Legislature.

Earlier this month I asked the Attorney General certain questions regarding the treaty negotiations office. One of the issues we discussed pertained to the Carrier-Sekani tribe, and the Attorney General described the Carrier-Sekani table as one that was "not particularly productive." I have since received a fax from Harold Prince, who is the vice–tribal chief of the Carrier-Sekani tribal council. I'll just tell the Attorney General the date of it: this week, April 28. He was asking if I could raise some of the council's concerns in regard to the Attorney General's comments.

I'm summarizing what they sent to me. I'm sorry. The fax is so long because they put in the transcript of the Hansard. They are concerned that the Attorney General has categorized their table as one that is not productive. They actually come at it from this perspective. They believe that they signed a bridging agreement in good faith. It was done under the previous administration, the former government. There's no question about that, but the bridging agreement was signed in good faith and was to lead to an interim measures agreement.

According to their fax, they had asked the government for the comanagement of forest resources, forest tenures as follows: (a) 100,000 cubic metres of long-term, area-based tenure, (b) 400,000 cubic metres of long-term, area-based tenure from major licensees, (c) 1.3 million cubic metres of short-term, volume-based tenures, and then funding in the amount of an initial $6.8 million and then $8.2 million for each year thereafter.

They assumed, given the legal nature of negotiations, that good-faith negotiations meant that things aren't removed from the table but they continue to be negotiated. According to the Carrier-Sekani, the Liberal

government offered them 100,000 cubic metres of a community forest pilot agreement of area-based tenure and then 400,000 cubic metres of short-term tenure and no additional funding beyond the $500,000 initially in the bridging agreement. This occurred with the new government, and that led to the Carrier-Sekani's decision to terminate the forestry bridging agreement as well as to take the position that the government has negotiated in bad faith.

The Carrier-Sekani wanted me to put that to the Attorney General as clarification of their position and to ask for his response to that.

Hon. G. Plant: The member tells me that she has summarized from a document I haven't read, and as it happens — having participated in the Attorney General ministry estimates this evening — I don't have treaty negotiations office staff with me.

I am certainly interested in pursuing any and all opportunities to find ways to make progress at a treaty negotiations table with the Carrier-Sekani, but having heard what the member said, that sounds to me like the description of a treaty table that's not making very much progress. So I think my original characterization was probably not inaccurate. It's certainly not intended to be critical. It was merely intended to be an observation that at this particular table, there seem to be some difficulties that impede progress. I'm grateful that the member has put those concerns on the table, as it were, and I'll certainly go back and have a look at where things are from our perspective. That summary didn't sound completely different from what I understand is the situation.

There appears to be a significant gap between what the Carrier-Sekani had in terms of expectations and what government may have been able to think about offering. Those are often good reasons why it's not possible to make the kind of progress that both parties or all three parties might like to make at a particular table.

J. MacPhail: I was summarizing the document in as balanced a way as I could, but I will read very briefly, and I will then give this to the Attorney General.

At the time, the Carrier-Sekani was seeking three major commitments for an interim measures agreement dealing with forestry: "One, comanagement of forest resources through a protocol. We are not solely seeking a mechanism to allow the province to move forward with legislative policy or operational decisions. We want an equal voice in all of the above."

Forest tenure I've already described to the minister, and funding I've already described to the minister. This then goes on to say:

"Here is what the B.C. Liberal government did to facilitate the accusations by the Carrier-Sekani, as they acted in bad faith."

That is what I had summarized as what the Liberal government offered that led to the Carrier-Sekani's position. I assume and I believe this to be the Carrier-Sekani's position. It being labelled as a particularly unproductive table, the Carrier-Sekani would say that the responsibility for that lies at the feet of this government.

I merely say that the Carrier-Sekani thought that the comments of the Attorney General didn't fairly reflect how the negotiations broke down and perhaps the responsibility that this government could assume for re-engaging in productive negotiations, so I'll give this to the Attorney General.

My last two areas are…. I'll just give that to the Attorney General, but I'm going to move on, if that's…. Or did you want to…? Sorry.

J. MacPhail: I hope and pray, because of the importance of that treaty, that negotiations can resume in good faith and with vigour.

On Thursday, April 10 during question period I rose in the House to ask the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services a question regarding the appeal of a monetary award to the Woodwards protesters. At that time the minister stated that it was a matter of principle, that his ministry was attempting to recoup the costs awarded to the protesters, costs awarded by the judge. It was a total of $3,900. The Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services

has reported publicly that there has been a little less than $30,000 spent on an appeal.

Was the Attorney General consulted by the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services regarding the decision to recoup the costs awarded to the protesters in the Woodwards decision?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I believe I can recall something of the circumstances here. As I recall, the issue is whether there should be an appeal from an order made with respect to costs. I believe the decision that was made was that there should be an appeal. That being the case, I don't know that there is much else I could say about it, because the matter, I think, is before the courts.

J. MacPhail: Yes, it is before the courts. I'm merely asking the Attorney General whether he was consulted. Was that an answer? He recalls it, and he recalls that the appeal is going forward. Was he involved in the decision to pursue? Was his ministry involved in making that decision?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, the best of my recollection is that I was involved in the matter. But the challenge is, frankly, that I'm the government's lawyer, and the question is almost completely, I think, caught by solicitor-client privilege. I've pretty well given the member all the information I can in relation to that issue.

J. MacPhail: Okay. In order for the public to understand the matter of principle, they would have to follow the appeal. Is that it?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I don't mean to be difficult, but the member is cross-examining me on a statement somebody else made. Why doesn't she ask the question of the person who made the statement?

J. MacPhail: No, no, I'm just going by memory of the role the Attorney General plays in government decisions around courts. That's all. I mean, as far as I know, the Attorney General's ministry decides these matters. I'm not asking the nature of the decision. I'm just asking if this is a case where it is the standard practice that the Attorney General is involved in making the decision to appeal. Then the last question wasn't cross-examination. The Attorney General has said he's kind of invoking solicitor-client privilege. I'm asking him for direction on where the public gets the information about the appeal. Are they required to follow the actual court case to determine the matter of principle that is at stake?

Hon. G. Plant: Well, I thought originally that the member was asking me to comment on a statement that the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services had made with respect to something he had done. The fact is that, so far as I can recall, there is an appeal underway. The member will have to follow the progress of the appeal to determine what the issues are that are put before the court and what the court decides as a way of resolving those issues.

J. MacPhail: That will be done with interest — I can guarantee you. I'll have to re-examine, as I read Hansard, to determine what role the Attorney General actually did play in deciding the appeal.

My last question concerns a piece of correspondence that the Attorney General received from the Burrardview Neighbourhood Association on April 8. The Burrardview Neighbourhood Association is in my riding. It is to the office of the Attorney General. I will read it into the record because there has been no follow-up to this letter, and it's quite crucial — no follow-up to date.

Mr. Barber has not received…. That was sent April 8 to the Attorney General, and this is an ongoing case, as we speak. I also understand that Mr. Barber has written a second letter seeking an answer and has not received the reply. When can he anticipate an answer?

My final question is: what steps does the Attorney General propose to take to assure that Mr. Seckel will not either be or appear to be in the position to influence these matters?

Hon. G. Plant: I'm informed that a reply has been prepared for my consideration. I can only say to Mr. Barber that he's going to get an answer from me a lot faster than most people who write to me, which is a subject of continuing concern but not material to the issue the member raises. I believe, though, that there

In general terms, the answer is that the Deputy Attorney General has nothing to do with this file. Arrangements have been made to ensure that is the case. There has been communication with the appropriate regulatory authorities to talk about those arrangements, which appears to have resulted in a measure of satisfaction. I am told that if those arrangements — and they'll be discussed in the letter that will be sent to Mr. Barber — are not satisfactory to Mr. Barber, then I will be inviting him to contact my ministry to determine what else, if anything, needs to be done.

J. MacPhail: A very final question: has Mr. Seckel started, and is in he in the room? I missed the introductions. Sorry.

Hon. G. Plant: There were no introductions, because this was the continuation of the estimates. Mr. Seckel is in the room and has been sitting beside me this evening.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much — and welcome to the new Deputy Attorney General.

Mr. Chair, noting the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. S. Bond: I would like to reintroduce the staff that are with me at this particular session. I have Jim Soles, assistant deputy minister, post-secondary division; Tom Vincent, assistant deputy minister, management services division; and Arlene Paton, director, public institutions branch.

J. MacPhail: As I said off the record, I'm going to be discussing Vancouver Community College. Just a bit of background of where I'm coming from. Earlier this year Vancouver Community College — I'm going to refer to it as VCC, if that's acceptable to everyone — announced a projected shortfall of $5.8 million for '03-04. Of course, we did have a discussion earlier about the new moneys that are going to Vancouver Community College, but the projected shortfall was the reason behind VCC raising their tuition this year from $210 a month to $275 a month. At least seven programs were considered for closure, and close to some 70 faculty and staff members were laid off.

Now, most people here know that VCC is a unique part of B.C.'s post-secondary system — very unique, I would say. Many of its programs require specialized equipment and small class sizes, and that makes delivering services more expensive, perhaps, than some other forms of education. As VCC people would put it, they're being treated as the one-size-fits-all funding approach from the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Now, having said that, I do acknowledge that of the allocation of the $12 million, OUC got a marginal rate of about $300 per student and VCC, I think, got a marginal rate of about $8,000. Maybe I'm wrong on that, but they got a marginal rate that was at the higher end.

But some of these concerns still remain. Has the minister or her staff met with VCC directly on concerns raised?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, I did meet directly with the president and the board chair of the college more than once, I believe, but one time most recently related to this. At that time I arranged with them to have my staff meet with them on subsequent occasions. Two of my staff people have met with different groups of people, including the president, board chair, staff at the institution and the faculty as well.

J. MacPhail: I've received information from VCC students, faculty and staff. I guess the most current information would have been about two weeks ago.

Has the minister met subsequent to that? Otherwise, I'll just make my information known.

Hon. S. Bond: Neither I or my staff has met with VCC staff, faculty or students in the last two weeks.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So my information has not changed as a result of a meeting with the ministry or minister.

If I could just give a backgrounder — this was, as I said, received two weeks ago — on student access and faculty layoffs. This is an analysis that was done after the board tabled its budget, and I assume it was passed, that the college plans to not deliver its full quota of 7,900 full-time student spaces by not delivering at least 700 FTEs. This will affect at least 1,200 students, and almost 500 of those FTEs that are not going to be filled are being taken from ESL programs.

Hon. S. Bond: Just to comment. The anticipated cuts, as we understand them, in January were 776 FTEs. Since that time, and with the work we have done, there has been an increase in a number of areas, but 140 seats specifically have been restored to ABE and ESL. That number is no longer 776. We've actually worked with them, and they're restoring 140 of those seats to ABE and ESL.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and thank you for that information. It's my understanding, as of April 3 when the board passed its budget, that this is the current information: VCC is going to underdeliver by approximately 10 percent across, and 500 of the 700 underdelivered FTEs will come from ESL. That's why I was asking yesterday about what happens to colleges that don't meet their quotas.

Hon. S. Bond: The encouraging news is that my staff is continuing to work with Vancouver Community College. We recognize the challenges they have expressed to us. I think we've demonstrated that by meeting with them and restoring funding where appropriate. We continue to work on a plan with them. We're simply going to continue to work with them to say: "Here are the targets that we think are reasonable, and we're going to have you work with us to create a plan to bring them to as close to 100 percent as possible."

The other thing I've said as I've met with institutions and presidents from every institution is that each year we're going to look at their capacity and their targets to make sure they're actually deliverable. As we continue to look at VCC's case, we're doing a number of things. We're going to look at how we're counting FTEs, because we want to make sure there are no disincentives. We want to make sure we're counting them accurately and appropriately and if there's something in the system that is causing an issue.

We're also looking at the issue of ESL across the system, to say: "How are we delivering it? Is it the most efficient way? Are there other ways to deliver ESL?" We recognize the challenges there. In short, we're going to continue to work with VCC to create a plan to bring them as close to their target as absolutely possible. Then we'll be looking at each institution's targets for next year, to make sure they're reasonable and as reasonable as possible.

J. MacPhail: I appreciate that, but there is some urgency to this matter. Let me just put that urgency on the record. The VCC board at the beginning of this month, on April 3, imposed its second tuition increase within the last 12 months. The second increase in tuition was at least 30 percent. The cumulative tuition increase since 2002 is now 82 percent in tuition, but the ESL tuition increase is a cumulative 98 percent. ESL fees are now $412.50 for three months at half-time. That's about 12 hours per week. Some fees are actually going to rise by over 300 percent.

Of course, the minister knows that many of my constituents attend Vancouver Community College because of its excellent record in English-language training. I'm proud to say that now over 40 percent of my constituents in Vancouver-Hastings have Chinese as a first language and English as a second language.

Let me read you this letter from one my constituents. It's a young woman whose name is Cindy Lho. She sent this letter to me earlier this year.

Hon. S. Bond: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition's sharing that letter.

Certainly, one of the things that motivated us as we looked at the unique nature of Vancouver Community College, and certainly, letters like that which we have received from students…. We have worked very hard to restore additional funding. We are continuing to work with Vancouver Community College on a plan that would see them not simply deliver on their targets

The board had very difficult choices to make, and the issue of tuition is never an easy one. I can simply say that we recognize the nature of VCC. I've been very pleased with the work my staff has done with the institution to try to find as many areas of support and resources as we can, and I can simply say on the record that we will continue to work with Vancouver Community College. We recognize the nature of the institution. The board does have difficult choices to make.

We do care about English as a second language. In fact, my ministry, along with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, has launched an English-language training services review to look at the development of our plan to ensure that we have a long-term and effective delivery of English-language training programs. It is a priority, and we will continue to work with Vancouver Community College.

J. MacPhail: Well, I expect that's probably the maximum of what the minister can say.

Let me offer other statistics from what's happening at VCC. It will take me a few minutes to do this, because it is quite important. In addition to the statistics I've already given the minister…. And I do want to say, Mr. Chair, that all of these statistics have been updated since the minister's March 18 announcement of additional money being given to VCC.

Student-assistance money for the Adult Basic Education Student Assistance Program goes half as far and therefore runs out twice as fast, and that is slowing enrolment. Forty-five instructors and a half-dozen staff got a layoff notice or a reduction that will take effect this summer. Subsequent to this, my information is that there also are no administrative layoffs, so the minister and her staff could certainly look into that.

This is the curious aspect of the budget that I want to point out to the minister. It's something that I'm going to be discussing as a general premise. Perhaps we won't get to it before our break. VCC's budget, which they passed April 3, has a surplus of about $1.5 million built into it. The surplus is made up of the projected cumulative excess of $1.07 million, which they're putting in their own budget. Then they've budgeted $400,000 for new initiatives, which are not, upon questioning, being spent. Another $376,000 is for new severance costs.

Of course, it was curious about that, because certainly the layoff notices and the calculation of those layoff costs had already been incorporated in another line. That's just an aside. That makes us very curious.

Here are the programs with severe reductions. Adult basic education. There's a reduction of one-third of the seats for adult basic education over the course of '02-03 and '03-04. A one-third reduction in the programs delivering ESL over the years '02-03 and '03-04. As of September 2003, just as a note, the levels will be 1,000 FTEs lower than the March '02 levels.

Of course, adult basic education and ESL are two programs that are taken up greatly by youth and women in the area of high school completion and then access-to-work and post-secondary training. But there are particular programs: education and employment access for women — that's EEAW, and basic employment skills training — BEST. Those are going to be combined into a new program that is less than half as large as the current two programs. They will provide 11.7 FTEs as opposed to the former 30 FTEs.

I've given the minister the information about the '03-04 budget and the surplus. There's also information here — now, this is also interesting — that the minister may want to look into. It's the issue around FTEs. When you're talking about post-secondary education, just for the record, FTEs means student FTEs. In other public service discussions we have, that means the workers providing the services. This package shows the total number of student full-time equivalents that the college is planning on delivering in each of its programs.

This is page 15 of the budget that was presented and passed on April 3 at the college. The total VCC line, on page 15 of their budget, shows a planned delivery of 7,182.36 FTE student spaces for '03-04. The production targets below it are what the ministry expects and are taken from the funding letter that they received in March of '03. They total 7,903. The difference of 720.64 FTEs or student spaces means a loss of access to well over 1,000 individuals or potential students, since in the programming areas that they're cutting, most students come half-time.

Mr. Chair, if I may indulge, I'm going to put this information on the record. Then we have to rise at that point anyway, and then we can carry on. Is that okay?

March 25, in a letter to the minister from the Faculty Association of Vancouver Community College, it says, halfway down:

J. MacPhail: I'm just wondering — I put that information on record — whether there's a reply.

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the reply is simply this one. We have recognized the circumstances of VCC. We have worked incredibly hard to help mitigate the circumstances as best we can. We have given them the maximum amount of resources this year. As the Leader of the Opposition points out, they are carrying a surplus.

One of the things that institutions have said to us over time is they want the ability to look at a three-year budget envelope. That's exactly what this institution has decided to do. We are going to continue to work with VCC to urge them and to work with them to meet their targets. Ultimately, the board of this institution will make these decisions. They will look at the evolution of their institution. We will continue to work with them, but at the end of the day these are board decisions. They are making strategic decisions about how to budget and what courses are appropriate and important for their institution. We will simply continue to work with them.

J. MacPhail: How much money does the province get from the federal government for English-language training?

Hon. S. Bond: We receive $45 million. Not all of that comes to Advanced Education. We get $20 million of that, which is used throughout the system. The Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services receives $25 million.

J. MacPhail: Is there a way of tracking to make sure that all of the federal funding in the post-secondary system for English-language training goes to English-language training?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, indeed. We do track those dollars. We report back to the federal government. In fact, we spend $20 million, if not more than that, and we are accountable to the federal government for those dollars.

J. MacPhail: The last question around VCC has to do with adult basic education. Adult basic education used to be free. The tuition for it was free.

Does the minister have any tracking of how many FTEs there are for adult basic education in the colleges and universities system, and does she have any information about how many are now in the K-to-12 system as well?

Hon. S. Bond: We will be happy to provide that information to you. The staff don't have it with them tonight.

J. MacPhail: I'm wondering if the minister has had a chance to get the cost pressures for '03-04 on the institutions. I asked for that yesterday.

Hon. S. Bond: We do have some information. Hopefully, this is what the Leader of the Opposition would like. We were a bit surprised to be up so quickly again today.

Universities, colleges and institutes face wage pressures across the sector of $31.45 million and CPP rate increases totalling $3.36 million.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that information. The institutions are actually in a deficit situation, even with the $12 million. There are almost $35 million of pressures that aren't inflation pressures, that are pressures created by governments. I use the term "governments." CPP pressures are from the federal government, and wage pressures are from the provincial government. They've got $35 million of pressures and $12 million of actual increased money over last year. I note that for the record. All of the institutions are still in a situation where they can't even stay even with the funding in terms of the pressures they face.

Hon. S. Bond: We said we'd get the numbers back to you. We'll get them to you.

I say this to the minister: the questions I had prepared on industry training and apprenticeship I will save for the debate of the legislation. If I could just get the agreement of the minister, I will be asking details-of-funding questions in the debate of the Legislature.

Hon. S. Bond: That would be fine. I think there is a section in the bill that speaks to appropriation. If we could handle it all there, that would be excellent. I appreciate that.

J. MacPhail: That's what I noted too. Just for the record, Mr. Chair, that's where I'll be doing the discussion. I'm going to go in order. I'll try to get the fewer-questions sections finished.

BCcampus and Open Learning. The minister had a brief discussion with the member for Prince George–Omineca, but if I could have a status of BCcampus…. From the discussions we had last year till now, what has occurred?

We have the implementation steering committee up and running. It has met three times. We have allocated $2.8 million. We are working on and very shortly we'll be pleased to open — I can't do it tonight — the project office. The location of it will be announced very shortly. We have the implementation steering committee. We are looking at advertising for an executive director. We are developing the on-line registration program, which will be piloted in the fall. All the institu-

tions are at the table and are feeling very positive about the progress to date. That does, as you know, include students as well. So three times, in terms of the whole group — a very positive beginning, with people feeling that this has been a worthwhile effort to date. We're making several announcements in the short term.

J. MacPhail: So what's the status of Open Learning Agency and Knowledge Network?

Hon. S. Bond: As we indicated, I would be asking the board of the Open Learning Agency for a transition plan. I did receive that plan, and most of that has been made public. The important pieces are that Open University and Open College will be maintained.

We are currently looking at using an expression of interest for the public institutions to ask them to express to us how they might manage Open University and Open College. We recognize the importance of those particular programs, and they will be maintained. We're looking forward to actually enhancing those services, working with a public institution that is successful through an expression of interest.

In terms of the Knowledge Network, to answer the Leader of the Opposition's question, the Minister of Finance actually has the lead now. We are working with Partnerships B.C. to look at all the options and potential that remain with the Knowledge Network — how best to make sure we maximize the resources that have been invested in the Knowledge Network. That is under the leadership of Minister Collins.

J. MacPhail: What is the enrolment for Open Learning Agency this year through the various programs?

Hon. S. Bond: The enrolment at the Open Learning Agency is 2,654 students this year.

I should've added in the BCcampus question — if I could just go back to that for a minute — that we have added 230 additional seats in on-line learning, and those are spread across the institutions that are participating in BCcampus. So we have added 230 seats there and 2,654 in the Open Learning Agency.

J. MacPhail: That actually leads me to a question I have about accessing on-line learning. In order to be a student of the Justice Institute, even as an on-line student, is one restricted to having a residence in the lower mainland? I got an e-mail from someone today — well, she sent it yesterday; she was watching the estimates — who is from Prince George and wanted to access distance courses for youth probation officer through the Justice Institute. But she can't, because apparently it's delivered only through the Justice Institute, and no courses are on line.

Hon. S. Bond: The youth probation course is only offered face to face, so the student would actually have to attend the Justice Institute, although they do certain courses around the province — that is, they take courses outside. That one is not one of them. But the whole point and, we hope, opportunity through BCcampus is for courses like that to be developed so that they can be offered on line.

If it would be helpful to the Leader of the Opposition, my staff would be happy to contact the student that's concerned, and we could see if there are any other options available to them. We'd happy to do that. If she wouldn't mind sharing the information, we'd be happy to follow up.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'd be happy to do that. I'm just going to get permission from the person who e-mailed me first, but I'd be happy to do that.

The $2.8 million. Can the minister give me a breakdown on how that's going to be spent in this fiscal?

Hon. S. Bond: The budget is being refined by the implementation steering committee, but $1.5 million will be used for program and course development. That's the actual placing of courses and preparation of them. Approximately $400,000 — and I say that carefully, that it's approximately — is for the on-line registration system as we develop that. We also are working, obviously, to staff the office and hire a CEO. In addition, we're doing some developmental things around student services, including advising and library services for students. That would represent the investment that we've made.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have that number with us, but we're happy to find it and get that information for the Leader of the Opposition.

Hon. S. Bond: The Sea to Sky University Act was passed in May of 2002. That legislation enables the creation of Sea to Sky University. At this point in time there has been no formal process in place for Sea to Sky. In fact, they are waiting, I'm sure, for the completion of the degree of the quality assessment process, because, as was made clear, it will need to undergo a quality assessment process before it can begin to grant degrees or offer programs in British Colombia.

J. MacPhail: Are there any tax dollars that are flowing now to the Sea to Sky University?

Hon. S. Bond: No, there are not, and there will not be. It will be a private institution, and there will not be public dollars going to Sea to Sky University.

J. MacPhail: I'm doing my smaller-area questions before we finish on tuition.

I had a question from yesterday sent in as they were watching the debate, but also it relates to a question of funding of organizations, sort of advocacy organizations or service delivery organizations. How much funding does the…? Or is the government still funding…?

The minister will know this better than me, so I'll just put the question out. The relationship of the CFS — Canadian Federation of Students — to the collection of fees. Has anything changed around that?

Hon. S. Bond: There has been no change in the way the Canadian Federation of Students — the relationship with the collection of fees…. There has been no change, and there's no formal process underway in my ministry dealing with that.

In terms of the funding of groups like the University Presidents Council, institutions contribute to the funding for those groups to exist. I guess, from our perspective, I simply point out that for the University of British Columbia, for example, only 39 percent of their funds come from public dollars. Institutions have a variety of sources of funding. Out of their total revenue they fund those particular organizations.

Hon. S. Bond: No, we don't. They are not required to file budgets with government because they are funded through the institutions, so we do not have their budgets.

J. MacPhail: Does the minister or her staff know whether they're subject to FOI?

Hon. S. Bond: We would actually have to speculate to answer that. We don't know the answer to that. But institutions, of course, are subject to FOI, so it may be that through an institution, you may be able to access that. We don't actually know the exact answer to that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm just wondering how we could get that information, so I'll just investigate that myself.

All right. I'm moving to tuition increases now. I just want to outline for the minister what I have gleaned so far on tuition increases for the '03-04 academic year. This is the second year of tuition increases under this government's mandate. All B.C. universities and colleges increased tuition fees last year — every single one of them last year.

This is a list of the increases for this year. The increases last year were an average of 30 percent to 40 percent. Then, this year, what I have gleaned so far is that Northern Lights College has increased tuition an additional 25 percent. University of Northern British Columbia had an additional 33 percent increase in tuition. Malaspina University College, in the second year, increased tuition an additional 29 percent. Northwest Community College: the second year of increases in itself is a 40 percent increase.

B.C. Institute of Technology, in its second year of increases, raised fees between 10 percent and 27 percent. University College of the Fraser Valley's second round of increases in the one year alone was 47 percent. University of British Columbia: second year of increases in a row of 30 percent. University of Victoria's second round of increases was 30 percent, and at North Island College, the second round was 36 percent.

Many institutions are suggesting that they will be carrying on these increases right through to '05-06. It has been estimated by the predictions of the institutions that tuition fees may rise by as much as another 45 percent by '05-06. That basically means that post-secondary education costs during this government's mandate will have risen for the individual…. With the compounding factor and the rollup costs as a result of inflation, it could be as high as 140 percent — 140 percent under these Liberals' mandate. What is the minister's tracking of tuition fee increases for '03-04?

Hon. S. Bond: To be candid, our tracking at this point very much reflects what the Leader of the Opposition has just listed.

J. MacPhail: Last year we had a discussion that the institutions were going to be encouraged to expand the bursary system. What has been the success of that? I'd like to start with the five universities on that, please.

Hon. S. Bond: We don't have the breakdown institution by institution, but we can tell you this. There was $70 million generated across the system in tuition last year, and $14 million of that went to student financial assistance in one form or another.

J. MacPhail: Seventy million additional dollars in tuition fee hikes, and $14 million of that went to student financial assistance. Was it income-based student financial…? Or was it scholarships?

Hon. S. Bond: There was a combination of support, both bursary and scholarship. Most institutions chose the path of assigning a percentage of tuition revenue to student financial assistance. We assume at this point — we could name some specifics, but to be safe — that between 15 percent and 25 percent of tuition revenue at most institutions would be assigned to student finan-

cial assistance — bursaries and scholarships. That was the number that was chosen.

J. MacPhail: One would have to remove "scholarships" from that accounting if one is actually trying to accommodate students who can't afford the tuition increases. I would appreciate a breakdown of what exactly the funding is that is going toward income-based bursaries to accommodate students who can't afford the tuition fee increases.

Hon. S. Bond: Institutions are expected to report out to the standing committee on the use of their tuition revenue. They've actually been excellent in demonstrating the usages, and UBC was basically a template for how the description was done. It was literally line-by-line, dollar-by-dollar on where the tuition revenue went and how it benefited students.

At this point we can attempt to break down for the Leader of the Opposition the scholarships and the bursary portion, and we will attempt to do that. I guess from my perspective, while I understand the bursary side of things, I also believe that scholarships are a very important part of helping students finance their educations. I get the difference, but I also think it's important that both of them assist students as they move forward.

J. MacPhail: Just a couple of things. The purpose of scholarships is to reward those who have high marks, regardless of income. The children of wealthy families apply for scholarships as well. If $14 million of $70 million — 20 percent of the tuition hikes — went toward scholarships and bursaries, I can pretty much predict that it's substantially less…. Let's just be conservative and say that less than 20 percent of the hike went to accommodate income-challenged students. Of course, the fee hikes were 30 to 40 percent, so there are people falling through the cracks. There's no other way of interpreting that except that there are people falling through the cracks. I would very much appreciate that information.

Has the minister had a federal-provincial-territorial meeting with her colleagues since the federal Finance budget has been brought down?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I have. As a matter of fact I met with other ministers and my territorial colleagues, we believe, in April. It has been really busy. I'm quite certain it was April that we met in London, Ontario.

J. MacPhail: Was the federal government there — the federal representative?

Hon. S. Bond: There was a representative that met with deputies, but certainly no one was there to meet with us as ministers.

J. MacPhail: I was very interested in comments that federal Finance minister John Manley made about access to university. I wondered whether his cabinet colleague had raised it at a federal-provincial-territorial meeting.

I want to quote from an article what Finance minister John Manley said. This article is from January 26 of this year, so it's before the federal budget. The minister may have some comment on that. I'll just read quotes from it:

Just as an aside, what Mr. Manley is referring to there is that companies invested in Ireland because of the skilled workforce, and therefore the government itself was allowed to give corporate tax breaks on the basis of that investment. I'll carry on quoting from the article. This is another quote from Mr. Manley:

I actually wasn't going to make this partisan political point, but what the hell — I'm here.

So it's the people who suffered. It was the government of the nineties that suffered from the cuts of the transfer payments, and that government here kept tuition fees frozen. Now we have a restoration of transfer payments, and this government is raising tuition fees. I'm wondering whether there is a federal-provincial-territorial meeting where this item is on the agenda.

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, from our perspective it is not on a joint minister's agenda. Provinces very much

believe in provincial jurisdiction of educational matters. While we may discuss tuition sort of peripherally, it is not a matter of discussion at our table. While I'm interested in John Manley's comments, I guess, ultimately, he could simply send a cheque.

J. MacPhail: But his point is that he did in '01-02. And they continue to do this year, after cutting at least the last seven years — well, from '95-96 through to '01. They do continue to increase transfer payments to the provinces.

During the tuition freeze, British Columbia universities continued to rank close to the top. I'm thinking of the Maclean's annual universities surveys. I also understand that Maclean's annual universities surveys have flaws in them. However, they are regarded by parents and students, and institutions never challenge the rankings. They express either pleasure or disappointment, but they do not challenge the rankings.

SFU, UBC and UVic were all consistently rated in the top five in their respective categories. Now, I am not standing here yet and making the link between higher tuition rates and quality of education, either positively or negatively. But it is intuitive — and I will challenge anyone to tell me I'm not right, given the information around bursaries — that higher tuition rates do limit students from low- and middle-income families from accessing post-secondary education.

It's also interesting to note that in the Maclean's university rankings this year, in '03, UBC has dropped to No. 5 from No. 2 in the medical doctoral area. That was where they were: No. 2 ranking. SFU has dropped to No. 3 from No. 2 in the comprehensive rankings, and UVic remains at No. 4. UNBC is rising from position 14 to position 8 in their undergraduate area, but it is interesting to note that UNBC's undergraduate tuition fees are now at the top. Has the minister had a chance to look at this?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, I do read the Maclean's rankings, as I'm sure other parents do. I am a parent of post-secondary students.

Having that said that, while we look at the rankings, one thing is that very often between second and third place, it's a tenth of a percent. Oftentimes, it's a very small difference. The fact of the matter is, from my perspective — and, yes, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, there may have been changes in ranking — our institutions continue to be excellent. They are extraordinary in the country. We're proud of them, and we need to continue to support them.

In terms of the issue of whether tuition hinders access, we've looked at studies, and there are studies that reflect both points of view. But it was very interesting to note that an Acumen study in Ontario around tuition found that when tuition went up, there was a higher percentage of lower-income students who actually applied to attend university, because as tuition went up, student financial assistance also went up. That's an important principle to remember.

As we looked at our budget, one of the things we did was increase our student financial assistance budget by $8.7 million. The studies are mixed; the reviews are mixed. But from our perspective, certainly, we're concerned about access. We believe that those students will still have opportunities. And I must say I'm always impressed by institutions that have created policies that ensure no student who qualifies to attend an institution — UBC, for example — will be turned away because of financial need.

J. MacPhail: However, the distribution of bursaries was a much higher percentage in Ontario. I'm going to get to that in a minute.

Secondly, the student financial assistance program in British Columbia is a $165 million program, so an $8 million increase is about a 5 percent increase. We also know that the reallocation of tuition fee hikes to bursaries is nowhere near proportionate to what the fee hikes are. On top of that, I will just reiterate that the institutions across the board have cost pressures imposed on them from the two levels of government far exceeding — over triple — the amount of money they're getting as a budget lift this year.

Hon. S. Bond: At this point we don't have specific outcome data on whether or not there have been faster completion rates, because we just did that last year. Having said that, we have heard anecdotally from students that they are able to get into more sections. There are opportunities for them to take classes they didn't have previously.

Also, institutions have been asked to document what they did with tuition dollars. What they did was hire more teachers, add more sections, add things to the library, get better equipment. They are very much focusing on the issue of getting students through the system at a more appropriate speed. We knew that students were taking sometimes five years to complete — often not by choice, sometimes by choice.

I just want to go back to one question and get it off our long list of things we have to get back to the Leader of the Opposition. The University Presidents Council and the other organizations the Leader of the Opposition asked about are not covered by freedom-of-information legislation, so if they have records, I guess, with a particular institution, you may be able to access it that way.

I did just want to comment, also, that as we talk about the issue of tuition and tuition increases and the fact that there are, as the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, a number of challenges, from our perspective we have increased student financial assistance by $8.7 million, recognizing the need for additional resources.

Institutions have been very responsible about returning $14 million of revenue to students in this prov-

ince, either through bursaries or scholarships, and we'll check the breakdown. We have continued to try to add as many dollars to institutions as we possibly can. We're working hard to focus on student needs, and we will continue to do that throughout this budget year.

Hon. S. Bond: Student outcome surveys are done annually, and this does include information about how fast a student would complete an entire program and also whether they face any challenges getting into any particular sections or courses.

Hon. S. Bond: We do the tracking yearly. Having said that, the students who began in the first year of deregulated tuition won't graduate for four years, so in fact, we will be assessing graduates that have started in the middle of that. Students that started at the beginning of the deregulated tuition process won't graduate for four years or less. Hopefully, they get in quicker. In fact, it will be a number of years that we will have to evaluate the impact of their completion rates.

J. MacPhail: Actually, you can do yearly completion rates. There are so many courses you need to complete a year, so it will be easy to calculate.

I'll tell you, the minister has anecdotal evidence that is directly contradictory to the anecdotal evidence that I get. It's probably due to the roles that we play in life. Students are telling me, and I am doing a tour of campuses, that they have to work part-time jobs more in order to pay for the increased costs associated with the higher costs of going to school. It will be interesting to see the yearly completion rates.

Again, I refer back to work done by Robert Clift, who is the executive director of the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of B.C. I did use some of his work yesterday. He is saying that, as we said yesterday…. He's referring to the fact that there will be an increase in the age group of 18-to-29-year-olds. He got this information from the minister's own service plan, that states: "Between 2002 and 2006, B.C. will experience a net increase in traditional post-secondary age group." That's at the minister's own service plan on page 5.

In addition to that, we have the phenomenon of the double cohort coming out of Ontario. This is the last year for grade 13 in Ontario, and so the students graduating from grade 13 and the new grade 12 end-year are now entering their first year of university. It seems amazing. I graduated from grade 13 in 1970 in Ontario, and they were talking about phasing it out then.

What is going to be the consequence of these two factors — a larger age cohort here in British Columbia and the double cohort from Ontario? The net effect of the funding is actually a decrease, given the cost pressures of universities, starting this year and definitely continuing in the decline next year, '04-05.

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, the number of seats we have planned for in our budget — and we are pushing institutions to deliver in a variety of ways and making sure they are at maximum capacity — is actually 2 percent. It is double the growth rate. The growth rate in that cohort is expected to be 1 percent. We're growing the seats by 2 percent because we recognize the need to increase access.

In terms of the double cohort in Ontario, we understand that as recently as yesterday, the Ontario government said they are going to make sure they can accommodate the double cohort. One of the interesting things I've learned as minister is that we are actually a net exporter of students. More of our students choose institutions that better serve their needs in terms of choice or geography or whatever it happens to be than students that actually come to British Columbia. We're a net exporter of students.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting. My statistic is that that age cohort here is going to increase from '03 to '06 by 4.8 percent. No? Perhaps the minister could break it out for me, and I can correct people.

Maybe I could just read from the minister's own demographics on page 5 of her service plan. "Between 2002 and 2006, B.C. will experience a net increase in the traditional post-secondary age group" of 4.8 percent.

Hon. S. Bond: The number the Leader of the Opposition was quoting was accurate. It's over five years. Let me give you the growth rate according to B.C. Stats. In 2003-04, the anticipated growth in the 18-to-29-year-old population will be 1 percent. In 2004-05, 1.3 percent. In 2005-06, 1.2 percent. The new student spaces that we have built into our budget reflect a 2 percent growth rate, significantly higher than the anticipated growth rate. I should have made that much clearer. The seats that we have provided reflect a 2 percent growth in the number of new student spaces provided each year.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could give me the absolute numbers. I'm wondering if she could explain how that increases overall participation. Isn't it just holding steady?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it isn't a steady state. We're actually increasing the cohort. In the case of '03-04, the cohort is growing by 1 percent. We're increasing it by 2 percent.

I'll give you the number of seats. If it was a one percent increase, we'd require 1,577. We are providing 3,154. In 2004-05, in order to meet the cohort growth

rate, it would be 2,082. We're providing 3,217. It's slightly lower. It's actually a 1.3 percent expected growth, and we're growing it 2 percent. In 2005-06 we would require 1,972 seats, and we're increasing it by 3,281 seats, and that's in the traditional 18-to-29-year-old population cohort.

J. MacPhail: I'm sure the University Presidents Council will correct me if I'm wrong on this, but they said — it was this year that they said it; it was Charles Jago: "At a time when the age cohort for post-secondary education is growing rapidly, it is disappointing to see the lack of an overall plan, let alone adequate funding to address the already critical shortage of capacity in the university system."

There have also been comments from the Select Standing Committee on Education report that said: "There is not a single official mandate to guide the post-secondary system. For example, more than a dozen statutes concern the affairs of the post-secondary system." Is there a plan? This was said. I mean, I know the University Presidents Council likes to correct me, and I'm happy to have that happen. Is this outdated — what the University Presidents Council is saying?

Hon. S. Bond: I think we've articulated the plan incredibly well, and we have more than one plan. We have incredible, exciting plans. We have the plan to double the number of computer science–electrical engineering students over five years. Actually, that was developed and certainly encouraged and supported by the University Presidents Council. We have a growth rate in general access to the institutions that reflects a 2 percent growth rate when the cohort is growing this year at 1 percent.

We're looking at a plan to develop medical school graduates in this province. We have a dynamic and exciting plan that focuses not just on access but on specific needs. We recognize the challenges around continuing to provide access. That's why we're pushing the envelope so hard, and that's why we expect institutions to deliver as many seats as possible for students in this province.

J. MacPhail: Yes, well, just for the record, that statement was made after this budget was tabled — the budget that we're discussing — so where do we go from here in terms of reconciling those different opinions?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, we're being very aggressive about addressing the access challenge. We're trying very hard to…. As a matter of fact, we're trying at 2 to 1. We're trying at a rate of 2 to 1 to increase the seats for the number of students that we anticipate needing them. We certainly are working very hard to increase access.

I think on reflection, the University Presidents Council would realize that there certainly is a plan in place. We are working on that. As a matter of fact, we have been challenged today by the Leader of the Opposition for how aggressively we are pushing institutions to meet the access requirements of the province. We're working hard. There's a plan in place, and we're going to continue to look at growth rates that exceed the cohort growth quite significantly.

J. MacPhail: Let me put this, because this is a rumour circulating around. It's a rumour circulating around that post-secondary institutions are being pressured to meet these demands, to raise tuition costs, and that they will, in return, receive more money from the ministry — i.e., their base budget will go up proportionately to how they raise tuition increases. Is that just a vicious rumour?

Hon. S. Bond: We would absolutely never make a connection like that. The reason we made the public policy decision we made about tuition is that we actually believe the people who govern and run institutions in this province are in the best position to make decisions about tuition. We also believe that students should invest in their education, and we made a decision that institutions are in the best place to determine the rates that are appropriate for their institutions. That is absolutely a rumour, and we would certainly never make that connection.

J. MacPhail: Let me ask if this data is available from the minister, then. Does the minister have data on funding received from all sources from post-secondary institutions?

Hon. S. Bond: A couple of answers to those questions. First of all, institutions. The public investment in institutions is different in terms of the percentage that reflects. I can give you an example. We don't have the charts in front of us, but off the top of my head, the University of British Columbia, for example, gets 39 percent of their funding from we the people, or the government of the province. They have an incredible ability to raise revenue from external sources. A small rural college, on the other hand, or a small college might receive 80 percent of its funding from the government, so it varies.

In terms of the percentage of tuition revenue that is a percentage of total revenue, I can give you the British Columbia average compared to the rest of Canada. In 2001-02 the tuition revenue as the percentage of total revenue reflected was 20.1 percent. We are still slightly below the Canadian average, with Alberta and Ontario being significantly higher than we were in 2001-02.

J. MacPhail: Yes, but my premise is a different premise that I'm putting forward to the minister. I did say it's a rumour, but it would be interesting to see what the trends are. It's on an individual institution-by-institution that the rumour is: "You raise your tuitions; we'll raise the base."

I would appreciate having the data on funding received, across funding. I guess I can go to each institu-

tion and get their financial statements. The total funding received per institution and the increases in tuition raised '02-03 and '03-04 — not the increases, the total amount of tuition raised per institution…. Can the minister provide the opposition with that data?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the institutions have all of their budgets on their websites, but we'll be happy to try to put together that information for the Leader of the Opposition. I simply am very disappointed with rumours such as that.

I can say to you this. Institutions are autonomous institutions in British Columbia. The discussions they have about the tuition decisions they make are by a board of governors with other stakeholders present. The Ministry of Advanced Education has nothing to do with the decisions and certainly no correlation with the decisions around tuition with any of the institutions in this province.

J. MacPhail: It will be interesting to see…. I find it difficult to believe that there's such a hands-off approach to it — but whatever. I put forward the rumour, and the minister says such, and we'll just look at the data.

My last area of exploration, whoever's doing the managing of these estimates, will take about 20 minutes. I'm going to the service plan now. I'm looking at debt service, the debt service costs and amortization of prepaid capital advances on page 13. Can the minister suggest…? There's an outline here saying that approximately $99 million of capital will be spent to address new-era commitments. Is that for this fiscal year, '03-04?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. Major capital projects that will be in design or construction in 2003-04 include these: approximately $99 million to address new-era commitments; $72 million for medical training facilities at UBC, UNBC and UVic; and $27 million for facilities to double the number of graduates in computer science and electrical engineering. So our Doubling the Opportunity initiative capital expenses this year are $27 million and $72 million for the medical facilities.

J. MacPhail: How much has already been committed to these initiatives in previous budgets?

Hon. S. Bond: The total amount set aside for Doubling the Opportunity is $95 million, so that would include the $27 million that's noted here. And $135 million for the medical school components. That includes the $72 million. So the totals are $95 million for Doubling the Opportunity and $135 million for the medical program.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could give me more detail about how it's on target. Like, is this a year of construction? If you're making that kind of investment, it seems like a year of construction.

Hon. S. Bond: In the medical program, UBC is already in construction phase. UNBC is starting shortly, and we actually have a letter and a commitment from those institutions that student intake must take place in 2004. We have strict guidelines around that. Both of those pieces are underway.

Doubling the Opportunity is also on schedule but slightly behind in terms of its evolution, because it is a five-year program. We are in a series of phases there, but certainly on target in all of those areas.

J. MacPhail: How was it determined that in terms of critical skill shortages, these were the areas that needed to be expanded?

Hon. S. Bond: There was a great deal of analysis done. We certainly looked very carefully at why those particular areas were important. In fact, we were graduating 48 percent less than the national average in terms of engineers and computer science students. In the case of doctors, we were graduating 120, and we needed 300, so we addressed the numbers that were the lowest, actually, in terms of professions in the province. We identified and addressed very specific needs, and I think that's a great-news story for the province as we try to catch up in those areas.

J. MacPhail: But was that what the analysis was — to meet the national averages? Shouldn't it depend on what workforce is required by your economy? For instance — and I know we're finally getting around to addressing the apprenticeship shortage, and that doesn't overlap here — are the targets for RNs, LPNs and other health care professionals on track? Were they determined just by meeting national averages?

Hon. S. Bond: No, it was a combination of things, obviously, in looking at labour and market needs in British Columbia. In fact, these were both areas of critical shortages. We're also dealing with health care professionals, as you know, in terms of nurses and licensed practical nurses. In fact, there's a lot of need. We needed to start somewhere.

We picked the most critical needs that we assessed for the province. We're starting and will continue to assess the labour market needs in the province. The Leader of the Opposition is absolutely correct. As we look at the new model for apprenticeship, one of the things we're looking at is what the critical areas of need are and how we produce the workers required to do that. That's why we announced the new legislation today.

J. MacPhail: I know the member for Prince George–Omineca asked this — well, maybe not directly this question. But if so, I apologize for repeating it. The minister has a target, and I just want to talk about a

couple of enrolment targets. The target of 134 on-line spaces for '02-03: was that met? That is also the same number for '03-04. Will that be met?

Hon. S. Bond: The targets have been met, and in fact, we've adjusted them. In the service plan in '03-04 we initially had 130 spaces for on-line learning. We've actually increased that to 230, and we anticipate 230 in '04-05 and 230 in '05-06. Currently, we have about 700 on-line courses in the province, so we're very confident that those targets are easily manageable.

Hon. S. Bond: As I think I mentioned to the member for Prince George–Omineca, we obviously don't have final data until the end of June. It will be released then. But I'm confident those targets will be met.

If the Leader of the Opposition will permit me, I'll just include…. We've got care aides, licensed practical nurses and registered nurses in one category. I'll give you what that is. In 2002 the FTE target there was 981. In '03-04, an additional 693. In '04-05, 431. In '05-06, 578 seats. That's the combined care aides, LPNs and registered nurses, for a total of 2,683 spaces over those years. We are on target, and certainly, at the end of June we'll be able to confirm that.

J. MacPhail: That concludes my questions. There may be some follow-up questions that we can do by correspondence with the information the minister has given. Thank you to the minister and her staff.

L. Mayencourt: Yesterday, when we were talking about loan forgiveness, the minister had mentioned that a number of opportunities for loan forgiveness were available for students studying in the medical profession. I understand that there's also a group getting loan forgiveness because of financial hardship. Can you give some sort of indication of how that breaks down, please?

Hon. S. Bond: One of the reasons it's taking us a bit of time here is that there is a variety of ways we help students with their loans, and that's really good news. It does make for a complicated answer. In terms of loan forgiveness for nurses, physicians, midwives and pharmacists, we have a budget of $1.32 million. As you know, that is done on a 33 percent…. If you spend three years in an underserved community, your loan will be forgiven 33 percent each year. We've been able to actually reduce that from five years initially, so it's 33 percent per year. Our budget is $1.32 million dollars in '03-04.

We then have a program that is called debt reduction. The debt reduction program helps former students who have exhausted all other options for repayment, including loan remission, revision of terms and interest relief, but are simply unable to repay their debt due to low income. So we do have a debt reduction program. The projection for '02-03 was $200,000. The budget for that in '03-04 is $1 million. We look at options for helping students who simply are unable to pay us back because of their low income.

I also want to highlight the loan forgiveness program for disabled students, should they be unable to repay their loans. Our budget estimates amount is $800,000.

L. Mayencourt: Thank you, minister. That's very, very useful. I'm particularly glad we're doing that for the medical students. I think that is a great way of getting medical students into the heartlands of British Columbia and encouraging them to stay and practice in British Columbia. That's great.

The next questions I have revolve around the Degree Authorization Act. What it comes down to is…. I think the Leader of the Opposition referenced the Sea to Sky University, which is going to be a private university not receiving public funds but nonetheless being able to grant degrees in British Columbia. Where are we in terms of the Degree Authorization Act? I know that in Alberta and Ontario, for instance, both of those provinces went through a process of developing criteria for acceptance or authorization to grant those degrees. How are we approaching that? How is our approach in comparison to Alberta and Ontario?

Hon. S. Bond: We did, obviously, examine the systems in particular in Alberta and Ontario, and our goal was to create a degree authorization process that was less costly and more streamlined. We have been able to do that. We are currently finalizing the regulations and also the board appointments — the group of people that will deal with the approval of degrees in British Columbia. I'm pleased to tell you that we hope to be able to put that in place by late spring or early summer.

L. Mayencourt: That's good news, because I understand that there are a number of private universities looking at our jurisdiction and saying: "Hey, this would be a good thing for us in terms of business." Also, it provides the minister with another alternative for providing post-secondary education for a lot of students that would like to get into schools.

When we look at public and private institutions, there is going to be a need for some form of consistency. I wonder if the minister has looked at the way the programs are articulated and how a student might transfer from one sector to another. Are those issues being considered as well?

Hon. S. Bond: That's a great question. One of the reasons we want a degree quality assessment process in the province is to ensure that very kind of compatibility between the programs. In fact, B.C. does. Despite our challenges with articulation, B.C. actually leads the country in articulation between institutions. In British

Columbia now we have three private institutions that are included in the B.C. Transfer Guide.

It's absolutely the practice of the province. I would like to see that expanded, and in fact, we've included the increase in articulation agreements in our accountability framework to institutions to say that we expect to see these increased. But we already include three private institutions in our Transfer Guide, and we would hope to see that expanded significantly.

L. Mayencourt: Perhaps we could go now to the degree quality assessment board. Obviously, that's going to be an integrated system. When is that board going to be appointed? Will that board replace the degree program review committee?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. It absolutely will replace the other process. That's how we decided to streamline it: to bring it under one umbrella. We had a lot of discussion about how to do that. We've gone back and forth, but we have a streamlined process that will then take the place of the degree-approval process.

The board itself will be appointed shortly. It will include members from public and private institutions, and it will also include some external experts. We're hoping to include people from the high-tech sector, perhaps, or from small business or from business, because as we move to applied degrees, we obviously need to have the expertise there to look at the applied side of the degree program as well — so a streamlined process with a board that has a very broad representation. We hope to appoint that, probably, very shortly — late spring or, at the very latest, early summer.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if you could tell me about that board. Is it going to have its own staff? Where would they be located? The other question I had was on the issue of transparency and openness. That's been a very important theme for this minister. I'm just wondering, in the interests of openness and transparency: are the board's minutes going to be available to ordinary British Columbians? Will we be able to see what kind of decisions they're making in an open way?

Hon. S. Bond: My ministry will be providing support to the board. It will come from the private institutions branch of my ministry. We will be providing support to the board. In terms of the accessibility of minutes, that's an issue we will present to the board. It's not something we've made a determination about, but we will certainly present that to the board as one of the discussion items for their consideration.

L. Mayencourt: So if a private university applies and wants to come to British Columbia, how are we going to be informed? Is the public going to be informed of the fact that this particular university has applied? Is there going to be a way for people to know, as that application goes forward, what qualifications that particular university has, their record in other jurisdictions, those sorts of things?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes. We do intend for that to be public and transparent. Well, there's some information in the proposal, obviously, that we may not be able to make public, but there will be a website. We're actually going to use an on-line process, so we do intend to make British Columbians aware of the kinds of opportunities that are possible within the province.

L. Mayencourt: I would assume that the board is going to be looking at some of the administrative capacity and financial stability of the institutions. That would be the kind of information that would allow British Columbians to be informed about these things. What other factors might be considered in terms of what that board would want to be reporting to the public?

Hon. S. Bond: The board will be providing me with advice in three areas in particular, and you've sort of reflected one of them, generally. The three areas are educational capacity — obviously, educational resources and capacity; it doesn't necessarily mean that they need a library, but they need to have those kinds of resources for students, so we'll examine them; organizational capacity, which would include such things as finances and those things; and the third thing would be advice around whether or not the institution should have the right to use the word "university." There is a set of criteria around that. Basically, the board will look at three areas for each application.

L. Mayencourt: I want to ask a question about degree assessment. I would assume that the board is going to need to assess the academic qualifications and the viability of the proposed programs that the university is offering. Would that be correct? Is that part of what they're doing? I would imagine that matters such as curriculum and program content are going to be important. What other criteria might be considered?

Hon. S. Bond: Certainly, the member has highlighted two of the most important, but two others that we can identify are transferability — whether or not they have the ability to transfer those courses — and also faculty expertise, another very important part of what we're going to do. I think what's important to point out is that we will be making public the criteria against which those proposals would be judged. Be very clear: here is the set of criteria that the proposals will be judged against. Those will be public. You've articulated two of the criteria, and we've given you two others.

L. Mayencourt: The next area I want to bring to the minister's attention is that I have a lot of English-language schools in my riding, and there's been a lot of discussion around PPSEC and whether or not ELS schools belong in some government-mandated regulatory body. Many of the schools have spoken to me and written to me — I've shared some of those letters with

you — advocating that they'd like to be in a self-regulating body. Do you have any updates on the status of that particular decision? Have you made a decision on the English-language schools? If you haven't made a decision, are you leaning in a particular way?

Hon. S. Bond: That is a discussion of future policy. I hope to be able to actually clarify those questions with the introduction of legislation very shortly.

L. Mayencourt: The other questions I have relates to ITAC. As the Leader of the Opposition suggested in her questions, it's probably more appropriate to do that with the legislation you brought in this morning.

J. Les: I want to take just a very few minutes this evening to talk about post-secondary education.

First of all, I want to thank the minister and her staff on the record for the interest they've shown in post-secondary education issues in the Fraser Valley. The Fraser Valley, as we all know, is a very fast-growing area of the province, and there's tremendous upward pressure in terms of spaces for students. We also have an area in the Fraser Valley where, historically, post-secondary education participation rates have been at provincial lows. That is being addressed, and I think that's one of the keys to diversifying the economy in the Fraser Valley.

It has been at least twice or probably three times that the minister has been in my riding in the last year or so, and for that we are very grateful. The plans we are currently working on with respect to an alternative location for the University College of the Fraser Valley are very exciting, though maybe not moving along quite as quickly as I would've hoped. But I hasten to assure everyone here that it certainly is not the fault of this minister or her ministry, and I can assure the minister I will be working with her on that in the months to come.

In an area that is perhaps not as clearly within the purview of the Ministry of Advanced Education — that is, secondary school apprenticeship training — the minister has, to her credit, shown great interest in the program. She came to Chilliwack last year to the graduation exercises where about 150 students graduated from the apprenticeship program. I know the minister has taken a great interest in this program, and I wondered whether she could advise the House as to the long-term plans for this program and where it fits into the education scenario for students.

This is a very important program. At the risk of sounding a little trite, we all know that 80 percent of students do not go to university. They access other forms of post-secondary training, and a lot of kids derive a lot of benefit from getting some direction at the secondary school level. We've seen tremendous benefit in the Chilliwack area with the availability of this program. I would hasten to point out, as well, that we are very fortunate to have people like Gary Wall and Aiden Mackaleer, who have almost made it their life's work to make sure students in the Sardis and Chilliwack Secondary schools have this opportunity available to them.

I would ask the minister if she could give us a bit of a road map for the future in terms of that program, which has, obviously, been so beneficial to students in the Fraser Valley.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm glad I get the chance to talk about secondary school apprenticeship, because I think it is an excellent program. I have seen the benefits. I can't remember what day it was, but I know that last week, I was in another school district that had just demonstrated the importance of this program as an option for student learners in this province. I think your particular secondary school apprenticeship program under the leadership of Gary Wall is also an extraordinary example in this province.

I'm pleased to say that one of the working groups that we set apart when we did the industry training advisory committee was basically around student secondary school apprenticeship and where it is going to go in the future. I'm expecting a series of recommendations to come back to me within the next couple of weeks, and I'm anticipating a suggestion that the program be expanded.

We think, actually, that it's a template for how we should be doing training in British Columbia. I'm always amazed by the stories I hear from young men and women who are students, who literally would not be in school, and certainly not being trained, without the secondary school apprenticeship program.

I want to thank the member for his advocacy and support of students and that particular program and for bringing it to my attention every single opportunity he gets. I also want to reassure you that we have maintained the funding for the secondary school apprenticeship scholarships, and as you know, the awards they get are $1,000. I had the privilege of presenting, with the member from Mission the other day, 23 or 24 of them, I think it was, to students.

I should assure you that as the number of students in the secondary school apprenticeship program grows, so will the budget for those particular awards. They reflect the number of students, and we intend to see that continue to grow. We believe it's an important part of the present, and we hope it can be bigger and even better in the future.

J. Les: I really don't have any more questions to ask. I just want to say this: I find it extremely heartening that this very important program, as I see it, is being solidly supported by this ministry. It's so encouraging to see people like Gary Wall, for example, putting basically their heart and soul into this program and getting results that are commensurate, I think, with the effort they've put into it.

The encouragement that the minister has given this evening with respect to the expansion, possibly, of this

program and to the maintenance of the funding will be very good news to the people who are exporting this program at the community level. I want to thank the minister for her very important work in this area, and if ever I can do anything to help push it along further, don't hesitate to call on me.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to comment on that. Many members in caucus have been helpful in terms of supporting and advocating on behalf of the secondary school apprenticeship program and also for trades and skills training in the province. That is so important. I'm very proud of a government and a caucus that place such high priority on alternate training for students.

I would certainly be remiss if I didn't, on the record, give credit where credit is due. I know that with me tonight — and he hasn't been introduced on the record yet — is Stuart Clark, the director of our industry training branch. In fact, Stuart was responsible for the creation of the secondary school apprenticeship program a number of years ago.

I was really glad that Stuart was with me the other day when we presented scholarship cheques to a number of students. It must have been a very rewarding opportunity to see the fruits of your labour and to be very proud of that. I know Stuart has no intention of seeing that program get smaller. In fact, he was saying he had hoped it would be bigger by now, so I can assure you that emphasis will remain in our ministry. I wanted to recognize Stuart for a job very well done.

S. Brice: I just want to take a moment as these estimates wind down to put a couple of questions on the record about the college in my riding, Camosun College. Camosun College has many decades now, actually, of exemplary leadership, board and staff.

As I read through the service plan, I do have a couple of questions. I'd like some reaction, if I could, from the minister. I notice that in your service plan, there's a priority to encourage system integration, and it talks about legislation in '03-04 that's going to talk about reviewing systems mandates and roles. I just wondered what the implication for Camosun College would be for that.

Hon. S. Bond: The member is certainly correct about the excellent opportunities available to students through Camosun. I've always been impressed by their entrepreneurial thinking. They're looking outside the box as to how to address needs of students in the province.

The review across the sector in terms of mandates and roles is simply to look at the role each type of institution plays: colleges, institutes, university colleges and universities. In all likelihood it will simply endorse the role Camosun plays as a college within the region it serves, but I hope it would also allow us and Camosun to look at the opportunity to grant applied degrees. It is a new opportunity for colleges in the province and, really, an expansion of mandate, one that we think will provide new and exciting opportunities for students.

The review will look across the sector and simply try to look at how institutions relate to one another, how we better connect and what important roles colleges, for example, play. We think it will simply endorse the role Camosun is already playing.

S. Brice: I think that's certainly very encouraging and comforting. I know you work well with the management there.

There's also going to be a priority, I see in your service plan, to ensure that education costs are shared equitably. I wondered when I saw that: did it mean cost to the students? If it did, would it mean that a student that was, say, going in for early childhood education, where ultimately they're so poorly paid at the end, would be paying less for their courses than somebody taking another course, such as an RN?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the approach we took in sharing cost equitably, I think we took it at a much higher level than that. What we looked at was the principle of who should pay and who should invest in a person's education — and that it should be equitable. The people we looked at, in fact, were students and, in many cases, families, society. Obviously, government has a major role to play.

As we looked at that in terms of a public policy discussion — who should pay, how much they should pay and who should determine what that is — as we did that as a ministry, what ended up as a result of it was, obviously, the deregulation of tuition. We believe institutions are in the best place to determine what the appropriate rate of tuition should be. It also allows institutions to reflect the market and adjust tuition according to the market and the appropriate costs. We took a much higher level look at who should pay, how much they should pay and who should make the decisions about the degree of investment.

S. Brice: Just as a follow-up to that, it has distressed me over time to have young people come to me after they finish their course having a $20,000 or $25,000 student loan. I know they've chosen a career path that may be wonderful and good for humanity but probably doesn't have a big dollar attached to it, and they're left with a big, big bill to pay out over a long period of time.

I notice you're going to maximize graduate programs for identified skills shortages. I guess I would be interested in your understanding now of nursing students particularly. I'm most familiar with that because of a number of people in my own family who went through the nursing program at Camosun and then through the University of Victoria. They heard about skill shortages and then found out…. They came out into the workforce and couldn't get themselves any kind of full-time employment. Has that situation changed? What is the situation currently for graduates in the nursing program?

Hon. S. Bond: I think the answer to the question, if I heard it correctly…. We seem to have two different

versions here. I think my deputy's ears are plugged, but that may or may not be the case.

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, we will see, won't we? The answer to the question will determine whether or not his ears were plugged or I'm just numb at this point.

There is still a problem in getting full-time employment, but that continues to be an issue of contract, typically, between the employer and employees. There is an availability of part-time work much more frequently. Having said that, if the question is also about whether there are jobs available in Victoria or in the rest of the province, we still have a challenge filling positions in underserved communities in the province.

As we train people, we're hoping that one of the things we can do is incent them to go to parts of the province that actually can be very wonderful to live in. I happen to live in one of those areas. One of the things we've done is create the forgivable loan program that you're very familiar with, to try to encourage people who are looking for full-time work and looking for jobs to move to those communities where we really need their help.

S. Brice: I think you both heard different parts of the question. A very complete answer. Thank you.

My final question, I guess, relates to the interrelationship between the college and the university. We certainly hear about these gargantuan grad numbers that students purportedly need now to even get into university. I believe there is a mark inflation underway. That aside, when you hear about these huge numbers…. Camosun has always filled a good role for those who were looking to get into an academic transfer program. Could you give me some idea of someone graduating in, say, this part of the province — or any part of the province — and wanting ultimately to get into the university and seeking the Camosun or other college route as an opportunity?

Hon. S. Bond: That's a great question. In fact, I couldn't agree with you more. In the beginning, people choosing a college route is very important, and British Columbia has an outstanding college system. In fact, if you look at participation rates in Canada, the rate of participation in colleges in British Columbia is second only to the province of Quebec. We have extraordinary participation in colleges.

Because of the great articulation we have, agreements in British Columbia…. Again, we are a leader in articulation. While we have challenges, when I meet with my provincial and territorial colleagues, ours do not begin to compare to some of the challenges they have in other provinces. There is room for improvement, but we are a leader.

The University of Victoria, for example, accepts hundreds of Camosun students each year, probably, as they transfer in. I guess the bottom line is that there still is the need to compete for those seats — obviously, the best advice we give students is to do well, and ensure that your grades are high — but our articulation is excellent, particularly between Camosun and the University of Victoria. We think we have a superb college system in this province, which offers literally thousands of students a chance to start a post-secondary education in the province.

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

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

MacKay	Cobb	K. Stewart
Visser	Lekstrom	Brice
Sultan	Hamilton	Sahota
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas
	Hunter

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

	YEAS — 2

Nettleton		MacPhail

	NAYS — 64

Coell	Hogg	L. Reid
Halsey-Brandt	Hawkins	Whittred
Cheema	Hansen	J. Reid
Santori	Barisoff	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Hagen	Murray	Plant
Campbell	Collins	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Nebbeling
Stephens	Abbott	Coleman
Chong	Penner	Anderson
Orr	Nuraney	Bell
Long	Chutter	Trumper
Johnston	Bennett	R. Stewart
Hayer	Christensen	Krueger
McMahon	Bray	Les
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Bloy	Suffredine