Hansard -- Monday, March 22, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 22, No. 4 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		9481

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		9482
	Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 11)
	Hon. G. Collins

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		9482
	Journée de la Francophonie
	R. Stewart
	Role of social workers
	V. Anderson
	Resource industry workers
	R. Visser

Oral Questions		9483
	Freedom-of-information request and audit involving Doug Walls
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. C. Clark
	J. Kwan
	New universities in interior B.C.
	K. Krueger
	Hon. S. Bond
	Disciplinary matters involving Liberal MLAs
	E. Brenzinger
	Development of mining industry in B.C.
	D. MacKay
	Hon. P. Bell
	Physician supply in northern B.C.
	B. Belsey
	Hon. C. Hansen

Committee of the Whole House		9486
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman
	B. Lekstrom

Reporting of Bills		9491
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House		9491
	Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act (Bill 3)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman

Reporting of Bills		9497
	Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act (Bill 3)

Third Reading of Bills		9497
	Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act (Bill 3)

Committee of the Whole House		9497
	Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act (Bill 4)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. R. Coleman

Committee of Supply		9511
	Estimates: Ministry of Children and Family Development
	J. Bray
	Hon. C. Clark
	V. Anderson

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room


Committee of Supply		9517
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. M. Coell
	Estimates: Ministry of Skills Development and Labour
	Hon. G. Bruce
	B. Locke
	J. Kwan
	J. MacPhail

J. Bray: Joining us again in the gallery is somebody I introduce on a regular basis, who has become an excellent peer advocate for people with mental illness here in Victoria. On behalf of myself and the Minister of State for Mental Health and Addiction Services, I'd like to again introduce Terry Colburn, whose hereditary chief name from the Navajo nation is Iskaital. I'd ask the House to again please make Terry very welcome.

W. Cobb: From Houston, we have with us today Les Auston, who is the president and regional director, and from Kelowna, Pat Whiteway, who is the executive director of the Snowmobile Federation. I've gotten to know these two gentlemen fairly well over the last little while. They're working to promote and develop a huge economic and tourism opportunity to tie in our snowmobile trails with the rest of Canada and help us develop legislation accordingly. I ask the House to please make them welcome.

B. Locke: It is my pleasure to welcome Vince and Brenda Spilak to the chamber today. They are the parents of my very hard-working and dedicated LA, Ashley Spilak. Would the House please make them welcome.

J. MacPhail: It gives me great honour to suck up to the media once again. The parents of….

The parents of the Radio-Canada reporter Philippe are here today. Dr. Paul Murat and his wife Janine Renaud-Murat from Quebec City are here, and Philippe's cousin, Patrick Murat, and his wife Rhonda are also here from Oregon with their children Emilie and Nia. They were here to witness the commemoration of the Journée de la Francophonie. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Sultan: It gives me great pleasure to introduce three guests. Firstly, Colin Benner, who is the CEO of Breakwater Resources Ltd. of Toronto, a $250 million Canadian-managed base metals producer with operations in Tunisia, Honduras, Chile, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nunavut. He is here expecting to add British Columbia to his portfolio, and we hope that he will. Secondly, Jim Jack, who manages international operations for the Boliden company of Stockholm, Sweden. Boliden is a $2.5 billion Swedish mining company which trades places with Breakwater back and forth as to which will be No. 3 or No. 4 in the global zinc market and which recently merged with Outokumpu of Finland, a major smelting and refining organization.

Thirdly, Dave Bazowski, who is the general manager of Myra Falls, a subsidiary of Boliden in Campbell River and a mining company which pumps approximately $100 million a year into that community and which is exploring with the Minister of State for Mining ways and means, with these other gentlemen that I have just mentioned, the basis upon which the Myra Falls operation can continue successfully for another 40 years as a major economic contributor to the North Island. Would the House please make them welcome.

R. Stewart: It's my pleasure today to acknowledge a visiting dignitary, M. Jean-Yves Defay, the consul general for France, and his wife, Madame Defay. Would the House please make them welcome. Monsieur Defay and various other dignitaries were here today to celebrate Journée de la Francophonie.

I'd like to introduce some others. Representing Quebec, Mme. Josée Martel from the regional office of the government of Quebec in Vancouver. Representing the federal government, Dean Dring, who is from the office of western economic diversification. Mrs. Sherry Lampert, the manager for the Pacific council of senior federal officials; Janet Jones, the manager for multicultural programs with Canadian Heritage; and representing Victoria's francophone community, M. Paul Deroy of the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique, Mme. Diane Tremblay of the Société francophone de Victoria, Mme. Henriette Moreau from the Association historique de Victoria, Juge Gérald Moreau from the Celebrate Canada committee for B.C. and finally L'Abbé Benoit Laplante from the Victoria parish of St. Jean Baptiste. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

D. Jarvis: I'd like to recognize the North Vancouver high school team, the Argyle Pipers, under their coach Glen Chew, who — just prior to the spring break and after 22 years of allowing other teams to win the provincial high school boys championship — have decided they would take it back. The Chew-Chew train went into high speed, and the North Van Argyle Pipers won the provincial boys championship. I know time doesn't allow me to introduce all the boys, but I'd like the members here to give them a rousing "well done."

Hon. M. de Jong: I hope the House will welcome five students and their accompanying five adults, including their teacher, Miss Vicki Barkman from the Pacific Christian School in Abbotsford.

Also, I hope members will make two friends, Jack and Jean Robertson, welcome. They're here visiting in Victoria with some family friends.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am pleased to introduce in the House today a member of my staff, Lisa Grubesic. Lisa is enjoying a special day today because it's also her birthday. She's also brought along some guests from Iceland. I'm going to do my best to pronounce these names prop-

erly. I would like to welcome to the House today Mr. Hannes Alfonson and his wife, Halldora, and their son Mr. Alfonse Hannesson, who is acting as their translator today. They've had an opportunity to tour through the buildings and, no doubt, see just how beautiful these buildings are and what a great investment the leaders at that time made in our future. So please join with me in welcoming all of them here today.

Hon. I. Chong: I know they've already been introduced, but I would like to reintroduce and welcome two very special constituents of mine. They're here, as well, celebrating their Journée de la Francophonie. That is Ms. Henriette Moreau, who was my grade 11 French teacher, and her husband, Dr. Gérald Moreau, who is a former university professor and now a citizenship court presiding official. Would the House please make them welcome once again.

Hon. G. Collins presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004.

Hon. G. Collins: I am pleased to introduce the Financial Administration Amendment Act, 2004, which amends the Financial Administration Act. The purpose of the bill is to update the financial framework in government to support modern business processes and new technology. The amendment will improve accountability and financial control through an emphasis on expenditure initiation rather than only on payment requisition. This ensures that accountability starts at the beginning of the process, not just when payment comes due.

In support of the new processes and technology, public servants will be obliged to report to the comptroller general expenditures or payments that contravene established policies. The comptroller general will keep reported information confidential, and employees will not be subject to discipline or reprisal for reporting in good faith.

The amendment also permits reliance on a blend of people and systems controls versus purely people controls as in the past. It will also streamline administration and document handling.

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

Bill 11 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.

R. Stewart: Each year we recognize March 20 as Journée de la Francophonie in honour of an international agreement reached in Nigeria in 1970. This year marks also the 400th anniversary of the arrival of Acadians at Port Royal in Nova Scotia.

Few people recognize that francophones were among the first non-aboriginals to cross the Rockies into B.C., arriving in 1793, accompanying Alexander Mackenzie. I believe that even fewer are aware that by 1805, francophones made up 60 percent of the non-aboriginal population of this province.

Here in B.C. we marked Journée de la Francophonie with a ceremony over the noon hour today at the Royal B.C. Museum. I am delighted that many members of this Legislature were able to join in this celebration today. I also want to thank the representatives of B.C.'s francophone community, staff from relevant ministries at the federal and provincial level, and the talented dance group les Cornouillers, who performed traditional dances, and the many other francophones and francophiles who joined us in this celebration.

Il me fait grand plaisir d'annoncer, pour la troisième anneé consécutive, la proclamation du 20 mars comme Journée de la Francophonie pour la Colombie-Britannique.

For the past three years, a federal-provincial agreement has enabled our government to develop partnerships with B.C.'s francophone community with the goal of promoting our francophone heritage and improving access to government services in Canada's other official language. We have achieved much, including the translation of the B.C. HealthGuide, the development of francophone tourism and the creation of employment and immigration aids for francophone newcomers to this province.

Of course there's much more to be done. Our francophone community will continue to play a vital role in the province. During the 2010 Olympics, B.C.'s cultural diversity will be showcased to the world. This will be especially true for our francophone community since French is an official language of the Olympic Games.

I want to thank the francophone community, which is well represented today in the gallery, for their commitment to the French language and culture and for continuing to support this important part of B.C.'s heritage. Merci.

V. Anderson: I am very pleased and honoured to mark Social Work Week with a few comments about the important and demanding work that social workers

perform every day in our province. Social workers play a vital and often unrecognized role in helping make our communities stronger and healthier. While many of us talk about valuing children and supporting families, social workers make this task their life. They are front-line workers providing services 24 hours a day, sometimes under very difficult circumstances.

In many communities, social workers are also a key part of emergency planning teams, ready to assist with natural disasters, fires or other emergencies which have forced families from their homes. They are there to help calm a parent, soothe a child or find resources to help at a time of need.

There are several thousand social workers in this province, each one helping British Columbians to build a better life for themselves. They work wherever children and families are at risk or falling through the cracks. For some, they are the final lifeline in a daily struggle to survive. Often they are the difference between a family falling apart and staying together. For social workers, facing challenging situations and decisions is a daily activity — decisions that require a unique combination of professional ability and personal caring.

I'm overjoyed to say that more and more social workers reflect a great multicultural diversity that exists in this province and bring this specialized cultural sensitivity to their work. We all rejoice when a vulnerable child, adult or family is able to overcome the challenges that face them.

Please join me in honouring the social workers who work so hard to make sure our most vulnerable citizens get the best opportunities possible to succeed.

R. Visser: On March 21, 1994, more than 20,000 people gathered on the lawns of this Legislature to celebrate their way of life. They were regular folks from resource communities across British Columbia. They wanted to remind the government of the day just how much they contribute to the fabric of this province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you how powerful a message this is. These people are loggers; they're truck drivers, mechanics, fish plant workers, pulp mill workers, miners or destination lodge employees. They are the essence of what makes our province so great, and they are a backbone of this economy. These folks want all of British Columbia to embrace their hard work and their dedication. They want people to understand that they make the first dollar — the dollar that is generated when rocks from a kilometre below ground are milled into a pound of copper or zinc; trees are harvested and sawn into lumber or building materials; salmon that grows, is harvested and packaged and sold in the world; sawdust and chips are cooked into pulp and paper; or a cubic foot of gas is drilled, tapped and shipped.

When they sell these products to the world, they create wealth. From that wealth flow all of the other dollars that we as governments use to purchase the services that British Columbians speak so much of — health care, education and services that protect the most vulnerable.

It is a simple truth here in British Columbia that we are an exporting economy, one of the best in the world. Not only should we be proud of these people for the wealth that they create in the bush or in the gas fields or underground or on the range, but we should be proud of them because they're leaders in environmental sustainability and protection.

That's why we're wearing yellow ribbons here today: to commemorate the event ten years ago and to celebrate those people who work so hard every day to give us all that we have.

J. MacPhail: A few weeks ago the opposition requested records from the ministries of Finance and of Management Services and the Premier's office related to the establishment of CareNet and the role of Doug Walls in this endeavour. We were denied those records under section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act. Section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act allows the government to deny records only if the disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm a law enforcement matter. Can the Minister of Children and Family Development tell us if there is the potential for criminal charges to be laid related to the Doug Walls investigation?

Hon. C. Clark: All of those issues are being audited by an independent audit. All of those issues will be canvassed thoroughly by the auditor, and that report will be coming back, we hope, very shortly.

J. MacPhail: Well, that didn't answer my question. To date, all the government has said is that it's conducting an audit into the financial shenanigans carried out by Mr. Walls, a top Liberal insider. British Columbia will remember that the government wrote off big loans to Doug Walls, forcing the resignation of the Minister of Children and Family Development and triggering an internal ministry audit — not a legal audit, a law enforcement audit; an internal audit. Mr. Walls is also the principal in CareNet, a company with big government contracts. The Financial Administration Act has been clearly circumvented, and someone has benefited to the tune of $400,000.

Can the minister tell us…? Given the fact that she's refusing us information under section 15, can she tell

us if she has already predetermined that the whole scandal is merely a result of a clerical error in the bureaucracy? If not, why is she refusing us the information, and why should we have any faith in an audit when it's being carried out by a company that donated over $19,000 to this party?

Hon. C. Clark: The company that's carrying out the audit is PricewaterhouseCoopers. We will be waiting to see the results of that audit. I think some of the assumptions that the member has thrown out on the floor today in this House will certainly be tested and questioned by the auditors as they look at this. Our government acted very quickly in initiating this audit, making sure the scope of the audit was as broad as we could possibly make it, making sure we get to the bottom of those issues as soon as we possibly can.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister isn't aware of what section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act says. It's highly unusual for the government to deny records under freedom of information under section 15.

Let's be clear. The government denied the records to us because they said it was a law enforcement matter. The minister refuses to acknowledge what the nature of the law enforcement matter is that she denied us records on. Can she tell us, based on that denial, if the police have been consulted on this matter? If they haven't, why should British Columbians have any confidence that we will get to the bottom of the scandal involving the Premier's relative when the judge is a company that gave the Liberals more than $19,000? Why doesn't she now just put the whole mess to an impartial authority or tell us if the police are now involved?

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I don't know. It sounds to me like the member is alleging that PricewaterhouseCoopers is not an independent group. They certainly, I think, are well respected. They are certainly independent of government.

Hon. C. Clark: Our government certainly did act quickly in initiating this audit to make sure…

Hon. C. Clark: …we got to the bottom of these issues as quickly as we could. The audit has a broad scope. It will be looking at all of the issues, including, I'm sure, some of the issues the member has raised today in the House. When the results of that audit come in, she, like the rest of British Columbians, will understand how this issue arose and how it will be concluded.

J. Kwan: From the start the government has tried to downplay this scandal, pointing the finger first at the bureaucracy for failing to seek cabinet approval for a $400,000 loan write-off to Mr. Walls. Clearly, this matter is just a little bit more serious than that. The public is being denied information on the basis of the whole affair because the government says it's a law enforcement–related matter. If that's true, the government should then just admit it. Again to the minister: if this matter is serious enough that charges may be laid, why is the matter before a company that gave the Liberals a $19,000 donation and not before the police?

Hon. C. Clark: If that member has allegations to make about the integrity of PricewaterhouseCoopers, she should perhaps have the courage to raise some of those issues outside the House where she's not protected by parliamentary privilege.

As I said, the audit is looking at a broad scope of issues. Some of the issues the member has raised today will be considered by the audit in a complete, fulsome way, I'm quite convinced, and certainly in a broader way than would be canvassed today just here in question period. Like every other member of this Legislature, I very much look forward to the results of that audit coming as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a supplementary question.

J. Kwan: It's this minister who is trying to hide the information. It's this government that is denying the opposition access to information under section 15 of the Freedom of Information Act. It's this government that says it's a law enforcement issue. It's not the opposition who say that.

On the weekend we learned through the media that political appointees monitor FOI requests for political sensitivity and provide ministers with advice on how to dodge questions. They're doing a good job, because this minister is clearly hiding something.

Let me try again, and let me make it simple. We asked for information related to the Doug Walls audit. The government said: "No, you can't have it. It's a law enforcement matter." Well, that's news to the public.

Will the minister drop the spin and tell the truth and be open and accountable to British Columbians? Is this a law enforcement matter or not? And who has made that determination — the police, the minister, the auditor who gave the Liberals more than $19,000 through donations? Which is it?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, hon. members. The Minister of Children and Family Development has the floor.

Hon. C. Clark: Law enforcement under the act includes anything that could compromise an external investigation. There is an external investigation. Although I know the member questions whether or not PricewaterhouseCoopers is an external, independent body, I think that the vast majority of the public and the private sector would agree that they are a company of high standing and high reputation — certainly external to government.

Section 15 of the act also includes anything that could lead to an administrative penalty. That's the reference under the act, and that's also the reason this freedom-of-information request was denied. I will be looking forward, though, like everyone else in this House, to the results of that audit coming in as quickly as possible to make sure that we can get to the bottom of all matters related to this as soon as we possibly can.

K. Krueger: Mr. Speaker, as you know, your constituents and mine were elated last week with the announcement of a new university in Kamloops — as were people all down the sun-drenched Okanagan Valley south of us.

Last week Carole James and the NDP accused the government of having its priorities wrong by creating two new universities.

K. Krueger: Carole James seems to think that creating new student spaces is a waste of time. She would deny interior students the opportunity to study close to home and, in turn, to save money on their education.

I wanted to give the NDP the chance to hear from the Minister of Education, so my question is to the Minister of Advanced Education. Could you explain why it is going to improve students' access to post-secondary education by having opened two new universities in our area?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, I think it's a pretty surprising statement when someone stands up and says that it is not a priority to create new university seats in the province. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, let's look at who asked us for those seats. Actually, it was the people of the Thompson-Okanagan who said: "Let's work together and build a new university."

Hon. S. Bond: This project will create new seats so students can learn closer to home. It's going to provide new jobs, a revised amount of money into the economy. Which part of that good news does Carole James not want to see for the people of Thompson-Okanagan?

E. Brenzinger: Does the Deputy Premier approve of and encourage the abusive treatment this government uses in disciplining its members? I have personally experienced and recorded the bullying and arrogant tactics intended to intimidate members into silence. My question to the Deputy Premier is: will she, for the sake of the integrity of government in British Columbia and in the name of openness and transparency, call a halt to further intimidations and disciplinary actions? And will the government submit its caucus disciplinary process, including related activities of the party Whip, for a thorough review?

D. MacKay: My question is to the Minister of State for Mining. Our government has gone through some extensive changes to attract international investment for mineral exploration in British Columbia. Last year, in the year 2003, we saw 37,000 more claims filed in the province. That's a 30 percent increase from the year previous. What I'd like to ask the Minister of State for Mining is: what is he doing to make sure the invest-

ment climate turns into job creation for people in the riding that I represent and the rest of the province?

Hon. P. Bell: Apparently, Carole James doesn't approve of universities in the interior of the province. We note that she also doesn't approve of mining in the province. Just a few weeks ago she said mining shouldn't proceed in the province under any circumstances. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine has every reason to be excited, because with this government we're going to see projects like Red Chris, we're going to see projects like Galore Creek, and we're going to see projects like Tulsequah Chief — all located in his riding — moving forward and creating wealth in the province. We know that it requires an effective taxation regime, and we know that it requires an effective regulatory regime, and that's exactly what we're going to be delivering in our mining plan that we'll be presenting to this House this fall.

B. Belsey: My question is to the Minister of Health. It's no secret that northern B.C. is faced with problems of shortage of doctors. Last year this government invested $100 million in universities in B.C. to help alleviate this. Now, I know if Carole James were here, she would take the same position as those two members over there — that is, this is a bad, bad thing for British Columbia. The creation of positions in universities for doctors is very important to this province.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. member. Order, please. Order, please. We'll continue when we have order in the chamber.

B. Belsey: …how this funding is being used to encourage doctors to work in northern British Columbia?

Hon. C. Hansen: I had the pleasure of being in Prince George last Tuesday where I, along with the Minister of Advanced Education, announced some of the new initiatives towards establishing the northern medical program at the University of Northern British Columbia. We are almost doubling the number of physicians we are training in British Columbia as a result of the funding the member referred to.

As a direct result of the initiatives at UNBC, physicians will be trained and oriented towards practice in smaller communities, and we know this is going to provide more stability going forward. That's on top of the rural retention programs we have, the rural education action plan we have to support physicians, and the loan forgiveness programs for doctors, nurses, midwives and pharmacists. All of those programs that this government has put in place will help to make sure there is a stable supply of health care professionals to meet the needs of northerners in the years ahead.

Hon. G. Collins: I can only agree with the member opposite that she does require professional help.

In this House I call committee stage of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act. In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we'll be debating the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 2; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Just for the benefit of those in the Legislature and also those who may be watching or reading Hansard, Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, is a package of three. My initial questions around Bill 2, which is a 112-page bill that rewrites consumer protection legislation, are general in nature. I thought I'd dispose of them under Bill 2, Mr. Chair, and depending on the minister's answers, probably the debate around Bill 3 and Bill 4 will go more smoothly.

As the minister acknowledged in this act, Bill 2, this bill repeals and consolidates six acts, and I think I've got them right: the Consumer Protection Act, the Cost of Consumer Credit Disclosure Act, the Credit Reporting Act, the Debt Collection Act, the Trade Practice Act and the Travel Agents Act. Now, there's a difference between repeal and consolidate, so can the minister outline what the philosophy or the strategy was behind consolidation of parts and repealing of other parts of those six acts?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're repealing the acts because what this act does is it basically streamlines and brings similar provisions together with regard to things like licensing, enforcement and that sort of thing. There are a number of confusions in and around consumer laws that are in different acts with regard to what can be enforced and what can't be enforced. The enforcement provisions will be applied across the board, the same for all consumer transactions. By repealing and then consolidating into an act, we're getting rid of those dissimilar relationships, as I understand it. It should make it easier for us to do enforcement because we'll have one regime of enforcement.

J. MacPhail: Is there somewhere…? Well, let me ask this of the minister: what areas of practice or enforcement have been deleted throughout these six bills?

The reason why I'm asking these general questions — and the Solicitor General is accommodating them, so that's not an issue — is that this is the new consumer protection legislation. I have to tell you, I'm not necessarily saying the six previous bills were user-friendly, but I'm having a little bit of trouble with this being user-friendly. So the more explanation we can have of why some were repealed and others were consolidated would sure help.

Hon. R. Coleman: I will walk through this with the member, because I do realize that the three acts go together, and I will attempt to answer all her questions as we go through it. It's been a two-year body of work, as she can appreciate.

They're all being repealed and replaced with this act, and the reason for that is we're not actually, in this new act, losing any of the existing enforcement tools. What we're able to do is apply the enforcement tools across all consumer protection.

For instance, in the old Debt Collection Act, there used to be minimal enforcement tools that were there. Even though the Consumer Protection Act had enforcement tools, because they were minimal in the other act, it actually had a negative impact on the ability to enforce the Debt Collection Act.

Now we have all the tools in one place. We're not losing any of the enforcement tools that were there before. We're actually expanding the tools, particularly in a couple of areas. One of them is freezing and seizing.

Before, we used to be able to freeze assets with regard to people that were involved in fraudulent consumer transactions. We could freeze the assets, and then we would actually ask permission to dispose of the assets from the people we froze them from so we could pay money back to the people that were defrauded. This act goes further and allows for the freezing of the assets and the seizure and then the disposition.

J. MacPhail: The Solicitor General said it was a two-year process. What feedback has he had to Bills 2, 3 and 4 since they've been tabled?

Hon. R. Coleman: Since the act was introduced — and the member will see that I do have some amendments on the order paper — basically we've heard from three groups. The Canadian Bankers Association has asked us to correct something with regard to the cost of consumer credit. There is a body of work being done federally and provincially with regard to the cost of consumer credit. Frankly, it wouldn't appear that we're ever getting to a harmonized level between the chartered banks and the credit unions and that sort of thing. So there is something in language to clarify.

Also, the information and privacy commissioner had some issues with some of the language, and we've corrected that misunderstanding of the language in another two amendments that are in both acts. But since the act, basically those would be the three things we've heard about.

J. MacPhail: I have been following both the consultation and then the reaction, and here's the list of people that I have determined it covers: funeral service providers, travel planners, tour operators, motor vehicle dealers and debt collection agencies. Are there any other industries that are affected by this that I've missed?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try and give the answers that I can. There's some additional whispering going on here that may give me even more information.

What the member listed are people that are already licensed, but this generally applies to everyone who's involved in any consumer transaction in B.C. just because they're not necessarily listed by an act that is being repealed and brought into the authority as we move along. The actual Consumer Protection Act applies to anybody.

The motor dealers are not actually in this act. There's a body of work going on with regard to the motor dealers and an authority with regard to them. Our ability to enforce with regard to consumer transactions to the motor dealers, like any other consumer transaction, is here because any consumer transaction can be dealt with by the act. But the motor dealers themselves, as I understand it, have a different body of work in a different ministry that's taking place with regard to whether they're going to set up an authority and how they're going to set up that side of it from a regulatory process.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the Solicitor General could give me an example of who could be included that is not yet licensed.

Hon. R. Coleman: Telemarketers and tow truck drivers are actually listed in the act, but there is still a body of work to be done, particularly with regard to telemarketers and the tow truck industry, relative to licensing them. The concern with telemarketing is how you manage the telemarketing that might be done for charitable organizations versus that which is done commercially versus that which is actually fraudulent, and how you can license telemarketers. There is some work being done on it, and that's why they're not being brought forward at this time. It's the same thing with tow truck drivers.

We would anticipate other organizations that might, for example, want to come into being able to have a licensed body with some professional development tied to it — something similar to the Private Investigators Association of British Columbia, for instance, who would tie to post-secondary education like the Justice Institute for some level of basic training, like real estate people do. Because they're not large enough to be on their own as a regulatory body or self-managing body, they would come in and be part of the licensing scheme here, and we would enable them to do their education process and licensing structure so that we would get some standards in place.

It's anticipated that over the ensuing years, other organizations who want to move to licensing and what have you would be able to be dealt with in this act rather than by creating a new act for them.

J. MacPhail: At second reading the Solicitor General said this about consultation: "I asked a senior civil servant who had been working with consumer protection in this province for an extensive period of time what they would recommend to improve and enhance consumer protection in British Columbia." Did that senior civil servant, he or she, then set up the consultation? How extensive was the consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: Quite extensive, actually, with regard to a lot of the consultation. There were rep group people not in a licensing process that existed in the other acts that were also consulted with. As well, there were consultations with various industries that were affected by what we were doing.

Those consultations started as early as a review of the cemetery and crematorium issues back in September 2001 and went through a period right through to January 2004. With the travel industry the consultation started in July of 2001, which was shortly after I became minister. There had been some discussions prior to us becoming government with regard to an initiative like this, and also with a number of other agencies. There were a number of consultation processes that took place. Some of that resulted in the third act we're dealing with today, which deals with why we took out a piece of the cemetery and crematorium side with regard to that — because of those consultations.

J. MacPhail: Was the Consumers Association of Canada, the B.C. branch, consulted?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was a variety of ways that consultation was done. They were sent the material. General consultations were done to all groups. We actually had it up on the Web, as well, and advised people that they could give us feedback to it. From that particular group, my understanding is that there was a minimal response. It was sort of like it looked okay, and then we haven't heard from them since the legislation has been tabled. There wasn't any major response from that group.

J. MacPhail: Other than dealing with the people who were actually affected directly by the legislation and therefore have vested interests, was there any direct consultation with consumer groups that represent not one of the people delivering the service or the product but represent the consumer? Was their only way to be consulted through the Web?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and get a list for the member. I don't have it right here in front of me. My understanding is that the Public Interest Advocacy Centre and the Consumers Association of Canada, which both have provincial offices in British Columbia, and any consumer group we knew about that deals with consumer issues…. We sent material to them, and then they could respond back to us either through the Web base or directly to us.

My staff person has actually gone to see if we can get that list now for you so that we could clarify that for you.

I know Bill 4 sets up the new authority, so my questions around how that will operate will be under Bill 4. After this new authority is set up pursuant to Bill 4, what will the consumer services branch inside government now be responsible for?

Hon. R. Coleman: The function is transferred to the new authority, and so basically it would not exist. The

function gets transferred. There would be a small body within government to monitor the operation of the authority, but the authority…. Actually, we would be transferring the functions of the consumer services branch today to the authority.

J. MacPhail: What's that saving for the government, then? What's the budget reduction for the consumer services branch, then?

Hon. R. Coleman: If the member would just be patient for a minute. Because we're going to broadly deal with the three acts, I'm going to have the person responsible with regard to that third act come into the House so that I can ask…. That way, they can answer these questions as we go through or give me the information. We won't have to sort of dance around and go ask the question later when we get to Bill 4. He'll be here in a minute so if we could just….

Basically, my understanding is that there's not a substantial saving to government either way because the branch itself is actually quite well self-funding, and so the funding that would be in the branch would move over to the authority. It may not be substantial either way, but I'll get you the numbers.

In year one, there's a $500,000 grant to the authority; in year two, there's a $500,000 grant to the authority. Presently we bring about $800,000-plus in dues and what have you into government that go to general revenue, but they don't get applied to the budget of the branch. Right now the branch's total operations are around $2.5 million a year.

The authority would be receiving $1.3 million a year and will also go and borrow at market rates $1.5 million for their transition costs and for their operation costs going forward. Their business plan calls for their cash flow to handle all of that. Basically, government, at the end of the day, will save, we think, around $1.5 million but not until year three.

J. MacPhail: While government saves that, does the consumer pay double then — once for the fees that used to go and perhaps would still continue going to general revenue and then have to pay for the new authority? Or will the fees that were paid by consumers now be paid to the new authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the revenues that would have been paid to government for licensing fees will now go to the authority.

B. Lekstrom: A question on section 41, which is based on funds exempt from seizure. These are funds for people that have prepaid for a preneed cemetery or funeral services contract that aren't eligible to be, under the act, seized, garnisheed or so on. Is there a set amount or a limit on the amount that can be put into this fund on a prepaid funeral arrangement?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no limit on the amount you can put into a prepaid service under this act. To the first part of your question, whereby could those be attached if there were a fraudulent activity taking place with regard to consumer transactions by the host business, and would they have those moneys in trust: no. Those funds are available for the person that put them up. They wouldn't be something that we would go and seize to pay for other consumer fraud, but there is no limit on the amount that you can prepay.

B. Lekstrom: Just to delve into this a little further, the reason for my question is the fact that…. I will use a hypothetical situation. Somebody foresees financial trouble in their future. An individual prepays for a funeral to the tune of — you know, for the sake of numbers — $10,000 or $100,000, then ends up going bankrupt down the road and owes a bunch of money to different organizations. Those organizations come to either garnishee wages or go after assets, but this isn't accessible to them. Years down the road, if there is a limitation — ten, 15, 20 years — they go back to this prepaid fund, cancel it, change things and maybe go from a $100,000 funeral down to a $3,000 funeral. Who gets the $97,000? Is that refund paid back to the individual, or does it go to the people that were owed money in the original claim?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's an interesting question, but I guess I'll try and deal with it this way. The only thing I know that is creditor-proof is an RRSP that isn't self-directed and that's held by a Canadian life insurance company. It's creditor-proof — as I understand it, looking into this years ago — from Revenue Canada, from bankruptcy, etc. That's the only place it is actually creditor-proof. I remember that when we changed the RRSP in government, somebody actually challenged me on that, and the people who were putting together the plan for government said we were correct on it. This is not.

My understanding is that you would have to declare it as something that you've prepaid and that you own. When you make your list of assets, if you are having a bankruptcy issue, you would have to list those assets. I think the courts would determine how those assets had to be disposed of with regard to the discharge of your bankruptcy, as it would any other asset. That would be my understanding.

They can't be accessed by the authority. If there is an investigation on a fraud that relates to other issues, those trust funds can't be issued and be taken away from somebody to pay somebody else's bills, because they prepaid for a service.

B. Lekstrom: I guess maybe a follow-up so that I'm clear on this. As a creditor who is owed money, part of the money that's not accessible would be through a

prepaid funeral service, for instance. The way I read the act, you can't access that money. Is there a statute of limitations on that so that ten years down the road, after bankruptcy has been dealt with, an individual could go back and withdraw some of this from the prepaid funds…? As I understand it, under section 43 as we go further on — the contract issue — it has to be written that way.

It just seems confusing. It seems like there may be people out there that may utilize something like this to shelter money in financially troubled times. I want to make sure that people or creditors that are due money won't go without while somebody's trying to shelter some money under an act. That, I know, isn't the intention of this act.

Hon. R. Coleman: This act doesn't trump the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, the federal act. You couldn't do that and not declare it as an asset. What would probably happen is…. Having never gone through the bankruptcy experience but knowing some people that were in business when I was a consultant, you have to list all your assets, and this is an asset. Then the courts, through the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, can decide how those assets are disposed of, so I don't think you would be able to shelter the money in the cases which you're describing.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 52 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment corrects the reference in subsection (3) from a reference to subsection (1) to a reference to subsection (2). The errors in the draft occurred when we determined, for greater clarity, to insert the definitional provisions that are now found in subsection (1).

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 62 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment to section 62 corrects an error in the draft, the application of the references to — I have an acronym here — APR. The annual interest rate in this section must match with comparable applications in sections 60 and 61. The amended wording accomplishes this. Basically, we're striking out the words "fixed credit," and adding "fixed credit or open credit that is not associated with a credit card" to this section to clarify it.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 108 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment to section 108 clearly focuses the application of this bill to credit reports. The amended wording of this section better differentiates between the scope of this bill and the scope of the Personal Information Protection Act in the protection of an individual's privacy. Any use of personal information by a reporting agent other than within the context of a credit card is now governed by the Personal Information Protection Act.

J. MacPhail: Part 11, Administration, talks about an administrative agreement. I'm particularly interested in appointment of director, section 175. Section 175(1) says: "The minister may designate as a director either or both of the following: (a) an individual appointed under the Public Service Act"— that's pretty straightforward — or "(b) the administrative authority, if the Lieutenant Governor in Council has approved the administrative agreement." Does that mean the director would be the entire authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: At the beginning we would delegate the authority to the director, who would be selected as the interim CEO or director of the authority as we built the board. When the ministry authority is up and running, we will delegate the director's powers to the authority, which is the board. They then can do what government does similarly with a statutory authority. You give the director, as we do today…. We delegate the powers to the director, to our director of consumer protection today, who then also has the ability to give other powers out to people like registrars with regard to how they can operate and have the authority to do their jobs.

J. MacPhail: The answer is that it is the entire administrative authority that could be the director. If the government, by legislation, is delegating to the administrative authority…. Isn't there some rule that you can't delegate a second time? Isn't there some legal principle of that nature attached to that?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'll try this again, because I may have misspoken this. We would designate the authority as the director. The authority can then delegate powers down to the CEO of the authority, who then has staff that he or she would hire to carry out certain obligations and has the ability to delegate certain powers to do their job.

J. MacPhail: My question was: what legal principle permits this? I mean, I could be wrong in my recollection that you cannot delegate more than once when it's legal authority. Maybe I'm wrong.

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member for her questions. I'm told that during drafting, this came through as the legal language with regard to this section, but I'm going to try basically to deal with the member's issues if I can.

Basically, this section allows a minister to designate a public servant as a director. If cabinet has approved the administrative agreement, the minister then may designate the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority as a director. If the minister designates both as directors, each designation must specify the powers, functions and duties that they can exercise as director as well as any restrictions. The director may delegate any of his or her powers, functions or duties under the act to a person or group of people.

My understanding is that we would designate the director until the administrative authority was up and running. Then we would take away that designation and give the designation of director to the authority, who would then have the ability to delegate any of their powers, functions or duties under the act to persons or groups of people working within the authority.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 185 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The amendment to section 185 is a clarification that the confidentiality provisions of the act apply only to those who administer the act and not to businesses that may be in possession of personal information of their customers. We're making this amendment to ensure there is no confusion about the application of the province's new private sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection Act, in force since January of this year.

In short, this latter legislation applies to personal information held by businesses. Those who administer the act will also be subject to freedom-of-information and protection-of-privacy legislation. This confidentiality provision is consistent with those found in a number of B.C. statutes and is also consistent with section 64 of the proposed Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 2, Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, reported complete with amendments, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 3; H. Long in the chair.

Now, the 1996 Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, which is repealed by this piece of legislation, used to give second priority to either the spouse or the common-law partner. I'll just read it into the record. This is the act, the section being repealed, 51(1)(b): "…if living with the deceased at the time of death, a person who (i) was married to the deceased, or (ii) was living and cohabiting with the deceased in a marriage-like relationship, including a marriage-like relationship between persons of the same gender." That isn't spelled out in this piece of legislation. Why not?

Hon. R. Coleman: The definition of spouse will be added by definition, and we will add that through regulation for common-law spouses and others. The reason we're doing it by regulation, as I understand it, is so we would have the ability to adjust it as society needed us to adjust.

J. MacPhail: It already was legislation from 1996, so society didn't have any problem with it for the last eight years. What's up?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the bill came through the processes, it was decided that we would do this by regulation, and that's how it was decided to do it. That's the best explanation I can give the member.

J. MacPhail: Okay, then the issue here is that the government is deliberately denying a group rights that they've had for eight years now. Same-sex relationships have to rely on regulation that can be changed behind closed doors. The government is deliberately weakening legislation for same-sex relationships in terms of what happens when a person dies. I think that's shameful, and I think it's deliberate.

We went through a huge amount of debate in this Legislature — I can't remember whether the minister was part of that or not — with both the then opposition and the then government supporting family benefits flowing to people who were in a common-law relationship, a married relationship. Whether they were in a married relationship or common-law relationship of the same sex, the benefits flowed regardless. They flowed equally. Now this is a step back.

I must say, Mr. Chair, that I'll have to watch every other piece of legislation now to see what rights this government is removing from gay and lesbian families. I find it shameful, and on the basis of this change — on this removal of a right that people have had for eight years — I will be calling a vote on this section and voting against this section.

J. MacPhail: Section 6 is part of part 3, which is "Disposition of Human Remains and Cremated Remains." We just voted on section 5, but I notice the entire part, sections 4 through 13, makes no mention of the requirements for the interment or scattering of cremated remains. Are there any restrictions as to where cremated remains — what are commonly called ashes —can be scattered?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is none now. There are no restrictions now, and there's no change here. Where you put them could be affected by some local municipal bylaws or the permission of a private land owner, but there's none now and none put in this act either.

J. MacPhail: Section 55 comes under part 11, "Application of Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act," which is the upcoming debate — the act that is now Bill 4, which we will be debating in a moment. Section 55 is called "Application of Part 9 — licences."

Section 55(2) states: "A director may issue a licence to an applicant and impose conditions on the licence." The definition of director this bill uses comes from section 175 of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, and I had questions about the appointment of a director. I was trying to find out exactly what the delegation is. Under section 175 of Bill 2 that we just passed, the minister has the option of designating two directors — one under the Public Service Act and/or one being the administrative authority.

None of the aforementioned section says anything about the required qualifications for directors, so what are the specific qualifications required for directors charged with authority to oversee death care service providers?

Hon. R. Coleman: The qualifications would be the same as currently, which is basically the application of specific knowledge, skills and abilities with regard to regulatory processes and the management of an authority or the managing of a branch and general licensing and regulatory experience. In the interim, whoever we put in there would have to go through the normal internal merit hiring process with regard to government as we did the transition. Then the authority itself would look for somebody that could obviously run this thing and implement it properly.

J. MacPhail: How will directors, pursuant to this legislation, have adequate knowledge of the unique facets of the death care profession? I've had a bit of feedback on this, and there is concern in this area.

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is that the staff — presently the registrar and staff — would be given the opportunity to move over to the authority so that we would have consistency or no loss of corporate memory. If someone chose to retire in transition or what have you, it would be the same thing as we would do now in government — look for somebody that could meet the qualifications and that could do the job.

J. MacPhail: What sort of criteria are going to be followed in the issuing of licences?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's the same as it is now. Basically, it's professional, educational and financial standing with regard to the ability to have a licence to conduct this function. That will remain the same.

J. MacPhail: When the minister says, "remain the same," are those criteria set out by regulation, and the regulations won't be changed?

Hon. R. Coleman: Essentially, the qualifications and the regulation will be the same as they move over, with some changes. The regulations will obviously have to fit in with this act, so that will be a little different than the previous act. The qualifications are basically the same. However, prior to even this government becoming government, there were some consultations where the industry asked government — the previous government and this government — to look at licence classes and how they could be simplified. There was some agreement with the industry prior to that. We've incorporated that so that the new regulations would reflect those discussions. Those discussions have continued on, even in the last few weeks since the bill has been introduced.

Some of those descriptions will alter slightly. Overall, looking at the regulations for the licensing and classifications and qualifications and the description of facilities, there will be some alteration, but those alterations are being done in consultation with the industry.

J. MacPhail: And is the industry the Solicitor General refers to the death care industry? Is that the industry he's talking about?

J. MacPhail: What steps are being discussed or taken so that the directors must ensure that health standards are adequately addressed when licences are issued?

Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, they have education standards they have to meet as professionals with regard to embalmers or people operating a facility or whatever the case may be. They have to achieve those in order to actually be in the position to do the job. Then how to handle and carry forward, we're carrying forward all the minimal standards actually with more detail and cooperation with industry to even clarify a bit more for people what their responsibilities are.

They also have to meet the regulations under the Workers Compensation Board with regard to the handling of hazardous materials — embalming liquids, that sort of thing —with regard to venting and what have you. They're also governed with regard to those standards.

J. MacPhail: Section 58 is entitled "Application of Part 10 — administrative penalties and court proceedings." Section 58(1) states: "After giving a person an opportunity to be heard, a director may impose, in accordance with the regulations, an administrative penalty on the person if the person contravenes one of the following: (a) a prescribed provision of this Act or the regulations; (b) a condition of a licence; (c) a condition of a certificate of public interest; (d) a compliance

In this section, what does "after giving a person an opportunity to be heard" mean?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, the principles of administrative law would apply here. They have a right to hear from someone that is impartial as a principle of administrative law. There could be a situation where it can be clarified by letter and there's no suspension of licence at all — or a conversation with the director. Or, if it goes further, there is a principle of administrative law that is applied to it with regard to that. I've just asked if we can further clarify that in regulation, and I'm advised that I can clarify that further for the member. I can actually lay out the process in regulation if the member thinks that's important.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's just go through what principles of administrative law apply. What avenues exist for appeal for decisions handed down by the authority right now?

Hon. R. Coleman: If it's an error in law, it can go to judicial review today or, if it's a question of process, to the ombudsman. This act actually does, though, in section 60, anticipate a reconsideration process that would be set up by regulation through the authority, which does not exist today.

J. MacPhail: Does that apply to appeals that may want to be had against actions undertaken by the authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I understand it, the first level of appeal would be to the decision-makers. Second would be to the internal process that is to be set up by the authority to be able to handle reconsiderations and appeals. From there, the error in law would go to the next step, which would be to the courts — to a judicial review if there's an error in law — or, on a question of process, to the ombudsman.

Having an understanding of how it works with regard to some of the other statutory authorities within my ministry, that seems to be basically the standard four-step process that we have in other areas — for instance, with liquor licensing or whatever the case may be.

J. MacPhail: Well, except that it's…. I mean, liquor licensing is within the parameter of the government. It's not a special authority that has any independence. This is a very different model, where there is an authority being set up that is theoretically independent of government. That's the way the minister sold it. So who does the authority answer to?

Hon. R. Coleman: Ultimately, the act and the regulations are the responsibility of government. The minister ultimately has responsibility for the administrative agreement; so therefore the authority has an ultimate responsibility back to the minister. The statutory decision-maker, though, is no different, frankly, whether it be in or out — whether it be at the authority or whether it be at, for instance, liquor.

They have an unfettered decision-making process on licensing, for instance, with regard to the statutory authority at liquor, where they're unfettered as far as any influence from the minister's office with regard to issuing a licence to a specific licensee or whatever the case may be. I think it's really important, no matter where this is, that these people that are given the statutory authority to do their job are, frankly, at arm's length with the unfettered responsibility to make their decisions. I think that's an important aspect of any statutory authority. But ultimately, the act and regulations and any difficulties with the administrative agreement and its performance come back to government and to the ministry.

J. MacPhail: The Liquor Appeal Board, then, is gone. Is that what the minister is saying? There was a liquor licence appeal board. Is that one of the boards that he did away with?

Hon. R. Coleman: I believe that's correct. We looked at a number of these appeal boards that were really doing no appeals. I think that the appeal on a licensing issue with regard to liquor is now a judicial issue with the courts, but I will confirm that for the member.

I move the amendment to section 58 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment removes the word "employee" from subsection (2) so that employees are not subject to administrative penalties in respect to a contravention committed by the corporation for which they work. A provision like this one is also found in the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act that I've also introduced during this legislation. The word "employee" is not found in the like provisions of that act either, and it is needed to be removed here for consistency.

My question related to this is: what if a director is appointed by the ministry under the Public Service Act as specified under section 175 of Bill 2, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: I just want to make sure we're answering the right question. Is the member referring to how we would set the fees if the director were to stay in government? If that's the case, how we would do that is the normal process with regard to fees in government. It would have to go through a process that's been established with regard to the setting of fees. The normal procedure would be followed. Moving forward to the next level, which could be the member's next question, the authority will have to meet how they do fees by regulation as to how they're set out in regulation, which would be to try and make sure that follows a similar procedure.

J. MacPhail: Well, let me…. We're almost there. I think what I was asking — what I am asking — is this. There are two ways that a director can be appointed: either through the Public Service Act, or it's the administrative authority. This seems to address the setting of fees, etc., only if it's the administrative authority that's designated as the director. What happens if it's the Public Service Act director, and the administrative authority is not appointed as a director?

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me see if I can get there. If the director stays in government, the setting of fees for that would be followed under the normal process, because we have processes in place for government. The intention of the section is that if the director is delegated over to the authority, then we need to have the regulatory process and the clear definition of how they can do fees set out. At this point in time there would be no procedure there, but there is already an existing procedure in government. So if it was appointed by the public service side, we would have them follow the existing procedures. If and when it gets over to the director there, we feel it's important that we have the clarification and the regulation to make sure the fee structures are appropriately handled.

J. MacPhail: This section gives the administrative authority the power to set fees and charges and other amounts payable for a licence or a certificate. Then the minister is also saying that if there's a director who is appointed under the Public Service Act, that person follows the current procedures for establishing fees. What precludes both bodies from setting fees, charges and amounts payable for a licence — i.e., double-billing?

Hon. R. Coleman: There is no intention to have two bodies. I mean, the reason we have introduced all three bills at one time is to get the authority to get this transition so the authority is up and running.

These questions sort of always lead me back to…. There's always a transitional phase where something could happen, I suppose, but the fact of the matter is that there's no intention whatsoever to have two directors setting fees with regard to licensing. The intention is to have the authority as the director, and they will be the ones responsible for that. It's not the intention to have two authorities where we would ever get to double-dipping.

I get the member's concern, because I think it's a valid one. I make it clear today that that is not the intention, and that's not the direction we're going to go.

J. MacPhail: In section 59(3) the legislation states: "In setting fees, charges and other amounts under subsection (1), the administrative authority must comply with a fee setting process that (a) is established by the administrative authority, and (b) is in accordance with criteria that the minister may establish by regulation." How is the minister going to set up this fee-setting process? Will it be done by consultation?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are actually in consultation with industries now with regard to those key requirements, and as we develop the regulation, we will do that. As we develop the regulation, there will have to be a proper justification with regard to any increases in fees or adjustment to fees. Because we want to do this consultation with industry, it is the intent to keep it to where it's basically as they've recognized in the past — some cost-of-living issues and what have you with regard to their fees and operations. It's going to be a key requirement that within the regulation, a process will be set out where we will work with the stakeholders to accomplish what they see as fair and what will work for both sides.

J. MacPhail: Well, I've had concerns raised through my office about making sure that operators are included when decisions involve increasing licensing fees — that's from one group — and also that consumers should be included surrounding decisions involving increasing licensing fees. So I would urge the minister to involve, at a minimum, those two groups in the process for establishment of fees. Will there be any limits to increases in licensing fees?

Hon. R. Coleman: The authority is not going to have carte blanche in setting fees for regulating industries. Fees will be set in accordance with a fee-setting process defined in the minister's regulations. That process is going to include consultation with industries and consumers. The authority will be required to show that any change in fees must be justified in terms of the cost of administrating the specific regulatory schemes.

This is a non-profit operation. It is not intended for it to make profit on fees. It is intended that it have a fee-setting process that will be done in consultation with industry and consumers and done in such a way as to make it as cost effective as possible for all participants.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 61 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment adds to the list of offences in the act that it is an offence to act as or hold oneself out as any one of several types of professions or businesses if that person is not licensed to do so. This is a standard type of offence and is also found in its companion bill, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 64 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment to section 64 is a clarification that the confidentiality provisions in the act apply only to those who administer the act, not to businesses that may be in possession of personal information of their customers. We are making this amendment to ensure there is no confusion about the application of the province's new private sector privacy legislation, the Personal Information Protection Act, in force since January this year.

In short, this latter legislation applies to personal information held by businesses. Those who administer the act will also be subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. This confidentiality provision is consistent with those found in a number of B.C. statutes and is also consistent with section 185 of the proposed Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move two minor amendments to section 68 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: The first of the amendments is to a section which sets out the authority to make regulations and replaces a reference of the sale of lots which was taken from the current Cemetery and Funeral Services Act with reference to the sale of right of interment.

The proposed Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act speaks throughout of rights of interment, and this more accurately describes what is actually sold. The second of the amendments to section 68 corrects what many of us would see as a typographical error. The word "who" has been inadvertently left out of the phrase, allowing regulations to be made, clarifying who is captured by the sense of the word.

J. MacPhail: Section 70 is the second section under part 15, "Transitional Provisions, Repeals and Consequential Amendments." Perhaps the minister could work through for us what the transition is from the 1996 act, Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, to this act. Is it a simultaneous repeal and implementation of this new act?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 70 is for clarification. It provides that the registrar ceases to be the registrar on the date the act comes into force. Despite this, the registrar may finish up any hearings or make decisions on hearings that he or she had started before the date the act comes into force. Boards of trustees continue as appointees under the act, and any investigators appointed by the minister under section 125 of the former act will be deemed to be an inspector under the act. I think that's basically the explanation, if that helps.

J. MacPhail: What is the minister's anticipated date of transition from the old act to the new act, and is there any conflict resolution dispute mechanism?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, having been on this side of the House, giving dates is sometimes a challenge — to know that it will actually happen. Our hope is that we would actually move into this operation on July 4 of this year, once we get the regulations complete. Our regulations will include a conflict dispute process that we would put in transition.

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendments.

Bill 3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, reported complete with amendments.

Bill 3, Cremation, Interment and Funeral Services Act, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 4; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Section 1 is definitions, and it defines authority. This legislation, Bill 4, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority Act, is the legislation that implements the other two bills that we've just been debating, Bills 2 and 3. The authority under this definition means the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority established under section 2.

Now, this piece of legislation is very significant because it allows the government, as I've just said, to create the authority that then is going to administer, enforce and regulate business practices and consumer protection. In other words, this is the bill that provides the means for the other bills to be implemented.

I asked the minister when Bill 3 was going to be implemented, and he said July 4 of this year — he hoped. When is the authority going to be created?

Hon. R. Coleman: As in the debate on the previous act, our hope is to have the whole thing up and running and done by July 4.

J. MacPhail: Well, is there a particular order? Is the authority created first?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. My understanding is that the authority is created first. It becomes a legal entity. Then the legal entity basically functions…. By legislation, the legal entity would be the end of this month, but the actual operational transition would take place on July 4 or thereabouts, depending on getting the regulations completed.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Under Bill 2 we discussed that the consumer services branch function would be replaced in the majority — I hope I'm not putting words in the minister's mouth — by the new administrative authority, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority. As I understood it, there would be a $500,000-per-annum transfer grant made from the government to the new authority and the consumer services budget would be reduced by that amount and more. Would the minister just run through those figures again for how the new authority is being paid by this government and how the budget is being reduced for the consumer services branch?

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member, the two-year, $500,000-per-annum loan guaranteed by the government with regard to what the authority may need — which is $1.5 million if they need to draw down — and the transfer of all fees that are presently collected by the branch go to the authority versus to general revenue.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That leaves a substantial…. I think the minister said the budget now for consumer services branch is over $2 million, so that's still a substantial budget that remains with the consumer services branch as far as I can tell. I can't actually get clearly from the minister what the consumer services

branch budget is going to be after this. He's told me what the authority budget will be. What is the budget for the consumer services branch, and what will their functions be?

Hon. R. Coleman: The budget for the branch will go down from $2.5 million this year to $1.5 million next year, to $0.6 million the following year, down to $100,000 a year after that. The $100,000 is for the oversight of the authority. The ultimate savings, if you use today's figures with regard to what comes into government and what goes out for government, would be approximately $1.5 million, which we would save in year three.

J. MacPhail: Okay. In year three the government is admitting to an actual net savings of $1.5 million. Is the minister somehow suggesting either that the consumer services branch was operating inefficiently, which I doubt, or that the consumers themselves will have to make up for that amount of money in increased fees for the work that's now being done by the authority, which was previously done by the consumer services branch?

Hon. R. Coleman: I would not say that my consumer protection branch is inefficient. They have, however, had to live in an environment where there are a number of different pieces of statutes with different types of enforcement procedures that are applicable to different things. I would suggest that administratively and on the enforcement side, we have not had the efficiencies there. Now, that was identified by the branch to me when I became minister, which led to this process of trying to move towards this type of a model.

As we move forward over the period of the next number of years, obviously those economies of scale are going to be of value to the new operating authority. In addition to that, as we move forward with things like telemarketers and other operators that should be licensed with regard to things in the province of British Columbia, those licence fees would then go to the authority as well. We think that in bringing those new industries in, along with the economies of scale, we will actually improve consumer protection, because the consumer protection and enforcement side is going to be the same for all consumer issues in the province, rather than trying to dig through a particular statute or a different statute or something over here or some regulation over here with regard to enforcement on consumer transactions.

J. MacPhail: Well, I, along with other consumer groups, will be watching very carefully to see whether this government is downloading $1.5 million of costs onto consumers that they previously had the services of through their regular taxation. It will be very interesting to see whether the cost to the consumer rises and yet their taxes stay exactly the same. Previously they would have got the services of the consumer services branch through their progressive tax system — less progressive under this government. Now the government will save $1.5 million, and this new authority has the ability to charge fees and licences. I expect that given the track record of this government, that will mean the consumer will be paying more for less.

Now, I have heard from people since we discussed consultation last, and I am also reminded of some feedback from people, particularly in relation to the implementation of this administrative authority. Let me read that.

John Chasca, the president of the Family Funeral Home Association of B.C., has expressed concerns about the consultation undertaken by the ministry. He said that the legislation that's in place already works well — hence the concern about why the government is tinkering with this legislation. He questions whether the new legislation will do anything to help the industry or the consumer. Or is it just off-loading, downloading by the government?

Now, Mr. Chasca's point of view is shared by Gordon Allert of the Funeral Service Association of B.C. and Stephen Olson of the Cemetery and Crematorium Association of B.C. They actually wrote to the Solicitor General, voicing their concerns. Then they met with the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General, the staff, to discuss the legislation. They then wrote to the ministry with their concerns.

Following the meeting — and it's the meeting they had after the legislation was introduced and after they had the meeting with the staff of the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor General — they wrote this:

That was after the legislation had been introduced and after they met with the ministry. What is the minister or his staff doing to alleviate the concerns of these organizations?

Hon. R. Coleman: Those groups are now meeting with staff to work on the licensing and general regulations with regard to it, and those meetings, I understand, are actually going quite well. The opposition seems to be primarily coming out of Ontario. B.C. people have actually been at the table, and my understanding is that they've had some pretty good meetings with staff. Subsequent to the legislation, we've actually

heard from some of them, who have phoned and frankly expressed their apologies with regard to their opposition, because they see now that the improvement of the enforcement side — which they've been asking for, for a year — will be more streamlined by putting this in one place. My understanding is that all of those consultations will continue through the regulation and the licensing, general policies and regulations, and that we actually have a pretty good relationship going forward with these groups.

J. MacPhail: Okay. If that's the case, perhaps the minister could tell me when the meetings have occurred where things are going swimmingly. I mean, I'll stop asking questions if he can name the people who are happy now.

Hon. R. Coleman: I am going to get you the list. Unfortunately, I don't have it here. Basically, those that are involved in the death industry had been meeting with the ministry over the last three to four weeks, at least a couple of times, with regard to regulations. They feel those meetings are going well, as I understand it. I will make sure the member has that information so she can confirm that.

Basically, in many cases it is the committee or the legislative side of committee of these organizations that meets with regard to regulation. We've also had good meetings with other people that are affected by this legislation in the last little while. Obviously, I'm not in those meetings, but my understanding is that things are going quite well.

I will get the member the list of those folks that we've been meeting with to make sure it covers the bases for her.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I want to correct the record that Mr. Chasca, president of the Family Funeral Home Association of B.C., met with the ministry staff before the legislation was introduced but made his comments after seeing the legislation about still being unhappy and, of course, has since reiterated those comments that I have been privy to.

Now, the minister says everybody is happy. I was going to sit down and not comment about consultation anymore if he'd name names. But because others here in British Columbia have expressed concern, not just death care providers…. They are not the only ones who are upset about not being properly consulted.

The Better Business Bureau of British Columbia, who have a mandate to promote fairness and honesty in the workplace, claim they were not properly consulted. The Better Business Bureau is concerned, and still remains concerned, that more people will be coming to them with complaints and concerns now that the government is getting out of the business of protecting consumers and businesses. I was hoping the minister would say: "Oh well, we've met with the Better Business Bureau, and they're fine too."

The Consumers Association of Canada claim that they still have concerns. Bruce Cran is still mighty concerned about the legislation. During second reading the Solicitor General said the authority will "promote fairness and understanding in the marketplace." I've only heard from people who are consumers or represent consumers, and they're telling us that the process is not one of fairness and understanding. In fact, the Canadian Bankers Association says the same thing.

Let me ask this: where can we find out about these emerging meetings that seem to be going so swimmingly? Are the results of them posted on the website that consumers can follow?

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess you could say that people don't like change, to start with. You could say that maybe some industry groups out there are concerned because this legislation actually gives better and more effective enforcement provisions so that we can actually protect consumers better, because it's not as confusing as it is out there today. We can still step in, as government, if there are any problems because of the way we have it structured.

Those consultations I'm referring to.… I said to the hon. member that I would get you the information on those consultations. I do know, from my understanding, that the Better Business Bureau was sent the information in advance like everybody else was, because they were one of the consumer bodies. They didn't make any submissions with regard to the legislation. I'm sure if they understood that there's going to be better consumer protection and better enforcement and more effective enforcement and better understanding as to how we're going to protect people in contracts that would hurt them within business, they would be supportive of this. I will undertake to make sure that we include the Better Business Bureau in our discussions with regard to the development of the regulations.

I know the folks in the ministry have worked hours and hours and consulted with people and tried to meet them with regard to their concerns as best they can as they've walked through this. As that's done, they've been building a relationship with groups who may have at some point in time had some concerns. We're trying to work through those concerns and at the same time find the solutions to their concerns to make sure, in the envelope, that we are actually working towards more effective enforcement and better consumer protection.

J. MacPhail: Okay, except that I'm sure the Solicitor General knows that one has to put one's money where one's mouth is, so his declaration that this legislation is better probably won't cut it these days.

How are people, ordinary consumers or groups, finding out how one is developing the legislation or the implementation of this legislation through these consultation meetings that the ministry staff is having? Is that information posted on the website where people can comment upon it?

Hon. R. Coleman: There was consultation going into the legislation. The legislation was done. It's brought before the House. There's consultation now on the regulations, the development of those regulations and how they can move forward. At the same time, this legislation actually allows for tougher penalties for those people that want to actually defraud or hurt the consumers of British Columbia. It allows for administrative penalties that can come from enforcement actions. They get to keep the penalties from the enforcement actions and put them into a consumer enhancement fund so they can actually do education and enhance consumer protection as we move forward.

Basically, it means that this body will actually be able to keep its revenues and do its job without having concerns that somebody else will come along and say: "We want your fees or your administrative penalties or your enforcement action funds to come into general revenue or somewhere else." In actual fact, they can build the administrative, the enforcement function, the administrative penalty function and the tougher penalties and enforcement side of this thing long term for the benefit of consumers in B.C.

J. MacPhail: I must say I'm terribly confused about this section, and it could be I'm just not reading it properly. Part 3, "Governance of Authority," "Appointment of directors" says:

That's how the directors get appointed. Okay. It looks like to me…. Is this a cascading appointment system? How do you move from one director being appointed under (a) to the directors listed under (b)? Who appoints them?

Hon. R. Coleman: To answer this question, I'm going to bounce between section 6 and section 32. Basically, the minister appoints one director, but the minister also appoints the chair. The chair of the initial board must appoint two other directors from a list of candidates selected on the principle of merit using a process designed to appraise knowledge, skills and abilities of candidates and may set their terms of office. Then they actually pick the board of the authority.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'm not understanding this at all. The minister is about to set up the authority. Tell me how he's going to do that. Just what's the process? How does it get started?

Hon. R. Coleman: This is how I understand it happens. The minister appoints the chair. The chair then selects and appoints two other members to the board. They then hire the CEO. They have to go through a process with regard to a nomination process for the balance of the board. In section 7 we identify how that committee must prepare the list of qualified nominees to fill the vacancies. The first two appointees to the board that are made by the chair have a term not to exceed one year, and the term of the chair — the chair's term of appointment — is established by the minister, I guess, through order-in-council when we appoint the chair.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, Mr. Chair, section 6(1)(c) says that "the directors may appoint any director, other than a director appointed under paragraph (a), as the chair of the board." Paragraph (a) is the minister's one director that he or she gets to appoint.

So tell me again: where do we get the chair? Just point out to me in the legislation where it says how we even get enough directors to nominate a chair. Section 7 says: "The board must appoint a nominating committee from among its members." I can't get the board started. That's my problem under this legislation.

Hon. R. Coleman: Let me see if we can get through this. Let's move away from section 6 for just a second and go to the transitional provisions in part 8, which we can discuss when we get there, but I may as well tie them back together. Part 8, section 32(1):

Try and think of this as two processes. The first process is the appointment of the initial chair and the board, who will then go on and take care of setting up the operation. Then the second is the governance of the authority, which is the next level. It basically is the next level where we actually appoint a director to the board, of the nine that are there. That section says the person that we appoint cannot be, other than a director appointed under paragraph…. Okay — any director. It means the director that's appointed by government cannot be the chair, in the second phase.

So the first phase is we do a chair who then selects two people to be on the board, based on merit. Then there is the next transition, which is the final board, which is a board of directors that consists of up to nine directors. That one takes place as described in section 6. Does that help?

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you. So really, the first board is all going to be government appointed, because I assume that the government selects the chair of the

initial board pursuant to section 32, and then the chair has to appoint two directors from a list of candidates selected on the principle of merit. I assume that list is given to the chair by government. Am I right?

Hon. R. Coleman: That's up to the chair. The chair can advertise for those appointees. I guess they could contact board resourcing to see if there are individuals out there that might, through merit, meet the qualifications of somebody who could sit on the board, but it's not the intention that we would be appointing the other two members of the board.

J. MacPhail: So the chair of the board, who is appointed by the government pursuant to section 32, gets to determine his or her view of what the principle of merit is, what the remuneration is and what the term of office is? That's being left up to the chair of the board? No wonder the associations are concerned about this. What's the limit on the time of their original term of office? I don't see any limit on that.

Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, the remuneration of the board is going to be set out by regulation and that sort of thing as we go forward. But under section 30, and we may deal with that in a second in more detail….

The powers and the duties under the initial board are set out under section 33. It says: "If the initial board appoints any of its members to the board, those persons may be appointed for a term of only one year." There is a term appointment time, so these people can't be sat there. That's why the transition provisions are set out, so we can actually transition the board to having a board that is reflective of people with the skill sets and the people that are in the industries who are affected with regard to this legislation and this authority.

You do have to have a transition plan, and that transition plan includes how you get the first board, how long they can stay. They can only stay a year, and then the CEO is obviously hired by those folks. There's a board put into place, there's a business model that's required, and that's why there are transition plans for business cases and stuff like that.

J. MacPhail: So the first board, the initial board, cannot be in office for any longer than one year. Can they be appointed to the permanent board pursuant to section 6?

Hon. R. Coleman: I don't want to mislead the member, so I want to go back over this, because what I was advised may not exactly work out to be definitively true.

The first chair appoints the two other directors from the list of candidates selected, as I said, on the merit side. He sets their terms of office. If those people are appointed to the next board, they can only serve an additional year on that board. Let's say they were serving for six months, and then the new board was appointed and they happened to be appointed to that board. They would only be allowed to be appointed for a term of one year to that board. The thinking is that it would allow for the people from the transitional board to be there for, basically, the continuity of some expertise that's been built as the transition is made.

What I said to the member is that they could only serve a year. I was mistaken with regard to how that section was explained to me. The term of office is set by the initial chair. The new board is appointed. If they happen to be appointed to the new board, they would have only one year that they could serve.

The initial chair…. Our expectation is that the term of office would be that they would serve until such time as the nine-person board is up and running, and if they happen to go through a process and get selected to that board, they can only serve for a term of one year.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for that new interpretation, which is one that I read on the face of the legislation.

My initial point was that the initial board appointments, pursuant to 32, have no time limit on them. The initial board, which is government-appointed, can be there forever. In fact, it says that the time limits under 6(3) that apply to the permanent board don't apply to the initial board. What's the government's intention there?

Hon. R. Coleman: In theory, the member is right. I guess the board could sit there indefinitely because of the way we've structured it. The reason it's structured that way, however, is that our intention is that the board is not there any longer than a maximum of probably no more than two years. In the first year, as we do the transition, they build towards the next board. My expectation is they'd have it done a lot sooner and that as soon as the transition is done — that's why it's open-ended — we want that new board in place.

It's not our intention, nor is it our…. We will find a way to make sure that our intentions are dealt with, I guess. It's not, as the member describes, that they have the board sit there ad infinitum. It's to give them the ability to transition the knowledge and base that's been there into the new board. If they decide to select a couple of those people to sit on the new board, they can only be there a year, and they have to be gone.

As we appoint the board, we have a number of concerns, as with any board, and that is to make sure we have staggered appointments, so we don't lose all the knowledge of the board in one swoop in one particular year. We would be applying the three-year appointment-type process that is the standard in Crowns — what we do today — and try and stagger the appointments so that there would be that transition. That's something they will have to do.

For the member opposite, though, I think the undertaking in these debates, so that everybody will understand, is that the transition is to take as soon as

practicable. Given some of the issues as we go through selection with industry groups — who may want to have different appointees versus somebody else and may want to actually do a selection process and recommend — that shouldn't take more than a year, but no more than a maximum of two.

J. MacPhail: Well, again, I guess we have to take the minister's word for it, and of course, who knows how long he'll be the Solicitor General. It's a year away from the election.

Frankly, there is no legislated time limit on this initial board. That was why I was raising those questions about what avenue of appeal of the decisions of the board are available — I guess judicial review.

If we have an initial board appointed, which the minister admits will be for two years, but there's no guarantee that it won't be for longer, and the avenue of appeal is a judicial review or to the ombudsman — who of course has had his funds cut like crazy; he can't carry out his mandate now — then I guess people have a right to be concerned about the work of this authority.

Hon. R. Coleman: We're designating the board. The board delegates the authority to the CEO, who then has staff who do the licensing and regulatory stuff. The board is actually not the day-to-day operator with regard to the delegated authority; the director would be. That is the CEO, who then has the ability — as I explained earlier in the other bill — to give authorities on licensing to employees and that sort of thing.

J. MacPhail: Yes, thank you for that information. My question was: how is the minister going to go about appointing the chair of the initial board? Is it going to be like a Doug Walls — the interim CEO of that authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're actually going through board resourcing for people who will…. We're looking for someone that has the previous regulatory experience, who has a résumé that would fit the position. It's being done on the basis that we're asking for recommendations with regard to the people we have in board resourcing, as we advertise on a regular basis. It will not be made based on a political decision. It will be made based on the qualifications of the individual.

J. MacPhail: I guess that's why I asked what was the process of merit that this government is going to use. Is the minister saying the merit that will be applied to choosing the chair of the initial board will be as per merit principles outlined in their agencies, boards and commissions office?

Hon. R. Coleman: That is my understanding. That's how we're approaching this — the merit information with regard to board resourcing.

I actually have responsibility for two Crown corporations, and I think that process worked pretty well with the people who were selected to those boards. My anticipation would be that we would look for somebody of the levels of calibre that I have on those Crowns, through board resourcing and application and résumés, to make the decision and then bring it forward to appoint the chair.

J. MacPhail: What two Crown corporations is the minister holding up as an example?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I'm responsible for the Insurance Corporation of B.C., as the member knows, and also the B.C. Lottery Corporation.

J. MacPhail: That's interesting. Nick Geer, the chair of ICBC, didn't go through that process, so I don't know what the minister is talking about.

J. MacPhail: We were talking about how the board is going to be appointed, the transition from the initial board appointment — which are sections 32 and 33 of the legislation — versus the process under sections 6 and 7 of the permanent board appointment process. The minister left us with his commitment about a sterling open and accountable process for appointing the initial board chair. When will the minister be engaging in this process of appointing the initial board chair?

Hon. R. Coleman: We will get into the process of appointing that chair immediately when the legislation is passed. There have been some people's names that I understand have been put forward, which are being assessed. We would be moving on that as soon as the legislation is passed to try and expedite the process, as best we can, while trying to find the individual that we're looking for.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister could tell me what qualifications he sees as meeting the test of merit. Will the person be required to have experience in part of the industry which the board will be regulating?

Hon. R. Coleman: What I'd be looking for if I were appointing a chair would be experience in areas like regulatory experience and board management and resourcing and development — the ability to, frankly, have a history of working with a variety of groups; the

ability to work and build consensus with people, to work through issues. Obviously, some strong policy-making skills will be an advantage in the position — and certainly the management skills to be able to manage an enterprise like this. We're going to be looking for a significantly broad set of qualifications in the individual, because I think it's important that we do that. That's why we will use a board resourcing process to do that, simply because I would suspect we will get a number of résumés that would need to be short-listed down to be able to have a look at them.

J. MacPhail: What is the remuneration that the minister expects the board to be paid — chair and directors?

Hon. R. Coleman: The remuneration would be set by the minister during the appointment process by order-in-council. Basically, we're going to look at it from the standpoint of what we're doing with other authorities like the Safety Authority, the Motor Dealer Council and that sort of thing to see what would be appropriate for us to attract the applicable individual. We will do that, frankly, on the recommendations of the board resourcing office and recommendations that'll be made by staff on options which will go forward to cabinet for approval.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could give us a range of what he's thinking about based on the experience in these other areas. Is the chair full-time? What's the anticipated commitment from directors, for instance, as well?

Hon. R. Coleman: I understand there's a possible range of between $500 and $700 a day. It is not a full-time position. We anticipate that the chair, in the first year, would have about 20 meeting days per year, and the members of the board would have ten to 15 meeting days per year.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just, one more time, tell us about this nominating committee. The nominating committee clearly must come from…. Or is this the nominating committee that will exist after the permanent board is established pursuant to section 6?

Hon. R. Coleman: This process is for the first nine-member board after the first three-person board is established. It is to establish a transparent, merit-based nominating process. The nominating committee comprises a subset of the board and will be responsible for preparing a list of qualified individuals to fill board vacancies. In preparing a list of nominees, the nominating committee will base their selection on the principle of merit and must use a process designed to appraise the knowledge, skills and abilities of the nominees. The nominating process de-emphasizes the importance of industry representation on the board and focuses on selecting candidates most qualified to lead the corporation. The board can only appoint from the list of candidates prepared by the nominating committee.

Hon. R. Coleman: On the first phase, which is the phase we talked about earlier with the three-person board, there isn't anybody on a board to actually start up a nominating committee — so that's why. They have to pick the other two directors based on skill sets. That group then goes forward and establishes the nominating process to do the permanent board.

J. MacPhail: It does seem to me that the initial board appointments…. There are two other directors from a list of candidates. That's what section 7 talks about. I mean, the government is exempting the initial board from all of section 7. I have to admit that the initial board appointments being so controlled by government, and with an undetermined term, raise suspicions about just how independent this authority is going to be. What was the thinking behind saying that section 7 shouldn't apply, given the fact that the board can exist for years?

Hon. R. Coleman: The reason, like I said, is that we're only appointing the chair. We're not appointing the next two directors. They're going to be selected by using, as outlined in section 32, the principles of merit and knowledge, skills and abilities of candidates.

In addition to that, there is a process, frankly, that goes outside with regard to how the auditor general wants to review this and doesn't want us to be too prescriptive on how these boards are formed, because then it determines whether it's the control of a government entity or whether it's an independent authority. As the member knows, the auditor general would have outlined those concerns to us as we went through this legislation. Basically, there is a reason we're just appointing the chair.

I get the concern over the indeterminate amount of time that the member has outlined. I can see how that causes her a concern with regard to the board itself. I've said earlier that we're going to move as quickly as possible to the board. The nominating committee would come out of the first three people. They would make the nominations to the board based on the skill sets. They would then select that board and move forward.

The reason section 7 doesn't apply on the transitional provisions is quite clearly because there is no nominating group relative to section 7. Section 7 deals with when we're actually appointing the full board by the transitional group, and then onward and upward. Every time there is a new board change, however the board's approved, that section applies to the future appointment of board members.

J. MacPhail: How will the minister prove that section 7(4) has been complied with?

Hon. R. Coleman: We're going to put that into the administrative agreement with the authority to have access with regard to that and make sure that those appointments and list of nominations submitted to the board by the nominating committee are properly facilitated.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, the administrative agreement would be made public and posted. I think we could make that as a provision.

J. MacPhail: Just to confirm that section 7(4) says: "The board may make appointments only from the list of nominations submitted to the board by the nominating committee." That's what I was asking that you would be making public, and the minister said he didn't see why not.

J. MacPhail: Section 8 is entitled "Persons qualified to be directors." Sub (2) says: "An individual is not qualified to become a director or to act as a director of the authority if that individual is (a) under the age of 18 years, (b) found by a court, in Canada or elsewhere, to be incapable of managing the individual's own affairs, (c) an undischarged bankrupt, or (d) convicted inside or outside of British Columbia of an offence in connection with the promotion, formation or management of a corporation or an unincorporated business…." Then it goes on to qualify that.

Are these standard areas that would disqualify someone from being a director under this government?

J. MacPhail: I'm curious about that because, of course, Doug Walls, the interim CEO of the Interim Authority for Community Living, which had its own board of directors of which he was one, had an undischarged bankruptcy of which the government was well aware, and yet he was able to be a director. I wonder if that's because he was related to the Premier and that he was the president of a Liberal riding association. Where did the minister get this list of areas that would disqualify someone from being a director?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that this comes verbatim out of the Safety Authority Act with regard to the setting up of the authority. I am not in a position to comment on whether legislation related to the matter the member is bringing before the House, which isn't part of this legislation, is covered by those provisions in a piece of legislation or not.

J. MacPhail: Well, the Solicitor General may not want to comment, but it's common knowledge that Doug Walls, the interim CEO for the Interim Authority for Community Living, had an undischarged bankruptcy against him when this government made him interim CEO. He continues to have such. The "Persons qualified to be directors" says that "a person must not become a director or act as a director of the authority unless that person is an individual who is qualified to do so." I mean, every word in legislation is supposed to have meaning. What is the meaning of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that the first section basically says that the person has to be qualified to do so, and the second section is what basically precludes people from being qualified to be a director, and the two go together. Basically, this section is intended to provide the baseline criteria for those who may be eligible to be a director and establishes criteria for disqualification.

The baseline would be the first section. It provides that the consequence if a director ceases to be qualified under a section is that they must promptly resign. This section is modelled, in addition to what I mentioned under the Safety Authority Act, also after section 124 of the Business Corporations Act.

J. MacPhail: Section 9 describes the standard of conduct of a director or officer. We've been spending some time on how the authority gets established, to whom they are required to report and what are the appeal mechanisms to decisions by the authority. Here we have outlined in legislation the standard of conduct of the director or officer of that authority. It reads:

Amongst all these requirements, which ones would the minister say are the requirements to protect the consumer?

Hon. R. Coleman: Well, I would say all of them. They're basically what would normally be included in

bylaws and standards of conduct with regard to somebody operating on a board. Obviously, the authority is set up to take care of consumer protection in British Columbia. We want the people that are on there to act in a manner which we prescribed in there, exercising the care and diligence and skill, act honestly and in good faith, act with the view of the best interests of the authority. The authority's best interest is consumer protection, so thereby acting in the best interests of consumer protection is in accordance with the legislation that applies to them.

J. MacPhail: Well, I was looking at the purpose of the authority. Here's why I'm asking these questions. Section 9(1)(b) says: "act with a view to the best interests of the authority." I found that unusual. The authority itself is there, according to clause 4, "to promote fairness and understanding in the marketplace and to administer in the public interest any Act, the administration of which is delegated to the authority." So the authority is there to promote fairness and understanding and to administer in the public interest. What would be the best interests of the authority that would need to be specified as a standard of conduct of the director or officer?

Hon. R. Coleman: The best interests of the authority are what the member described, the consumer protection and to be there to be the authority that will make sure that consumer protection — the administrative, the enforcement and the licensing functions — is completed. It is there for two reasons. One is to let people know that that's the best…. The interests of the authority are what we described, but also we really don't want people who want to come in and function as an officer and a director that don't have the best interests of the authority, whose goal is consumer protection, at heart. If they have a special interest and they want to sit on the board and actually be disruptive with regard to doing good consumer protection, obviously that's not in the best interests of the authority and therefore not in the best interests of the board.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister explain 9(1)(f): "subject to paragraphs (a) to (e), act in accordance with any provisions of the Business Corporations Act that apply to the authority"? What are those provisions? That act allows for corporate confidentiality in many areas.

Hon. R. Coleman: I could give the member a long answer and then come back to what is going to be the answer. We don't have the exact provisions in front of us right now in the information we have here. We'll provide that information directly to you as expeditiously as possible. Those provisions will be defined in the regulations as to what they are.

There's very little in the Business Corporations Act, as I understand it, that applies to this, but there is some minor stuff in there. I will identify that, I will get it to the member, and then I will also make sure she gets it well in advance of any regulation.

J. MacPhail: Section 12 is "Powers and duties of board." We must remember that these directors are to be independent of government. It says that somewhere here in the legislation: "The authority is not an agent of the government." Here are the powers and duties of the board.

Section 12(3) seems to me a step back in director responsibility in a corporation.

Hon. R. Coleman: This also comes out of the Safety Authority Act, but if I can deal with it this way…. I understand that the intention or the limitation under (3) actually is there as a protection, because it provides protections to third parties who may be affected by directors who exercise powers or perform functions that are beyond the scope of their duties or authority as directors.

J. MacPhail: I'm just getting this Safety Authority Act. I probably should have read it earlier, seeing as how it's such a significant piece of legislation.

I thought, given all of the scandals and concerns that Canadians have around corporations — this is a not-for-profit corporation, but it is a corporation — that director responsibilities were to be enhanced, not weakened. It seems to me that this 12(3) lets directors off the hook — that they could declare ignorance or they could declare: "Oh well, it wasn't something I was supposed to be doing anyway." How is that making directors more accountable in British Columbia?

This legislation establishes an authority that is responsible for about 90 percent of consumer protection in this province. We have had some horrible issues about consumer protection in this province. I doubt we're any worse than any other jurisdiction. Travel protection, private colleges, private training institution protection — there's a huge range of consumer protection. This authority is not an agent of government anymore. The people who are subject to this authority may have some serious concerns. It seems to me that 12(3) says that a director can claim ignorance, and that lets him or her off the hook. Am I wrong?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding, as I read that description a second ago…. Just to save the member time, it's section 14(3) of the Safety Authority Act that I was referring to with regard to previous legislation. That is a section of the Safety Authority Act that is the same as this act.

Basically, protection of third parties, not protection of the directors, is what this does. My understanding is that it provides protection to third parties who may be affected by directors who exercise powers or perform functions that are beyond the scope of their duties or authority as directors. It is intended to protect the third party, the innocent third party who is not aware of the fact that the director could or could not do something. The intention of the section is to protect the third party. That is my understanding of this section with regard to that.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, what is the Safety Authority Act? It's not part of our legislation here in the Legislature, so what is it?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is that it was Bill 20, 2003. It may not be in force until April 1, with the regulations. They're doing their transition. When we did this legislation, a lot of the preparatory work and the legal and external consultants that were used, we also used as well, because they had experience with another piece of legislation that came before the House. That may be the reason it's not in the bills. Bill 20 may be just weeks or days away from actually being in force with the authority.

J. MacPhail: Well, it is interesting. Boy, when this government gets on a bent, come hell or high water, they're going to transfer their bent, regardless of whether it's working elsewhere or not. Here we have the Safety Authority Act — very controversial in itself — that has not been implemented yet, and now we're transferring all of the details of that "independent authority," untested, to a consumer protection law.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you I am deeply troubled by section 12(3). I don't for a minute accept the minister's interpretation of saying that it's there to protect the consumer. It seems to be there to protect the director. The director can use, as a defence, ignorance of the circumstances, because that's exactly what it says. Therefore, the director will not be held accountable at all if their authority or their decision is challenged.

Section 12(2) says: "The directors must appoint an audit committee as provided in the regulations." Yet for the initial board appointments, which can go on for years — and we know under this government it will be for at least two years — section 12(2) doesn't apply to the initial board. So who the heck's going to be auditing the initial board for the first two years, at a minimum?

Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you to the member. She's right, and it's not acceptable to me. I've asked that we contact leg. counsel to see if we can get an amendment to section 33 that would basically not have us….

Hon. R. Coleman: I guess so. Anyway, you're right. I'm going to get that fixed — okay?

The Chair: Members, we'll take a short recess while you're allowed to go to the other House and vote.

J. MacPhail: Section 15 is the first section of part 4, entitled "Conflict of Interest." It describes when a director has a disclosable interest and when a director does not hold a disclosable interest. Sections 1 and 2 are for the purposes of section 3, which says: "A director who has a disclosable interest in a contract or transaction is not entitled to vote on any director's resolution to approve that contract or transaction."

Hon. R. Coleman: It incorporates the Business Corporations Act test of materiality of a contract or transaction.

If we would recess for a couple of minutes while my one staff person has gone to check with leg. counsel, who has the details with regard to this section…. If we could recess for five minutes, give her the opportunity to do that, then we could continue with the debate.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just for the member's information, rather than pull a drafter in tonight, we will stand down that section and deal with it first thing tomorrow so that the member's concern will be addressed — and, frankly, mine as well.

Basically, section 15 outlines what disclosable interests are. Section 20 lays out when the director must disclose the conflict of interest and how. So the two basically go together. One outlines the interest, and the

second one, section 20, outlines the issues with regard to actually making the disclosure of the interest.

Section 20 provides that if the director, chief executive officer or senior officer holds any office or property that could result in the creation of a duty or interest that materially conflicts with the individual's duty or interest as a director or chief executive officer or senior officer, the individual must disclose the nature and extent of the conflict, and this contributes to a transparent and open board process.

J. MacPhail: I'll have a couple of questions based on that when we get to section 20.

What's the avenue of appeal in terms of a conflict of interest? For instance, the Solicitor General and I are subject to the Conflict of Interest Act, which means if anyone has a question about a conflict that he may have or I may have, people can appeal to the conflict-of-interest commissioner. I know that's kind of very forward legislation that was brought in by the Social Credit in the late eighties and enhanced by the New Democratic government in the 1990s, so I'm not in any way suggesting that as a model. I'm wondering: if someone believes there is a conflict of one of the directors, how does one go about inquiring about an alleged conflict, proving it and having the conflict enforced?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are a number of varieties of routes, I guess. Some of it's based on, of course, as I said, the Business Corporations Act. The board, as part of the agreement with government, will have to develop conflict-of-interest guidelines for their board. Ultimately, a complaint on a conflict wouldn't be resolved by the board or by the CEO because of the difficulty. We are going to put something in the agreement that allows for a complaint and appeal to the minister with regard to conflict of interest.

J. MacPhail: Sorry, did the minister say…? I'm sorry; it may have been his voice trailing off. Is the minister going to put something in regulation about complaining to the minister in this situation? Is that what he said, or did I misinterpret it?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, and so I'm clear with the member, I'm told it would be built into the administrative agreement.

J. MacPhail: Section 17 is the powers of the court, and it talks about the powers that the Supreme Court has. Now, I am a little bit unclear on the powers that the Supreme Court has and how they relate to the administrative authority, which we are now setting up under this legislation, and the powers that that authority has to enforce rules and hand out penalties. Perhaps the minister could clarify what changes have occurred in the repealing of previous legislation and the setting up of this legislation in the process for enforcing rules and handing out penalties.

Hon. R. Coleman: Just so we're clear, we're dealing with the section on conflict of interest, and this is the powers of the court with regard to that.

This section provides the authority, director, chief executive officer or senior officials the opportunity to apply to the court for determination that a contract or transaction in which the director or chief executive officer or senior officer has a disclosable interest was fair and reasonable to the authority and to order that the director with the conflict not be required to account for profit, and also describes the other types of orders the court may make regarding conflicts related to contracts or transactions of the authority.

This basically outlines what the court can do with regard to an issue of conflict, should it go to that point, with regard to the dismissal of a director.

J. MacPhail: Okay, and is the minister saying that nothing has changed because such an authority didn't exist before?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, this is new. There was nobody this would have applied to before, because there wasn't an authority that would have had the directors. This is something that was put in, in the section in this act.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, it is in the Safety Authority Act, but both of them are based on the Business Corporations Act.

J. MacPhail: Will the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Authority be subject to the FOI and protection-of-privacy laws?

J. MacPhail: One of the reasons why I wanted to know if the FOI and protection-of-privacy law applied was because I have a question about 20(2)(b), which reads that a director must, in the reporting of a conflict: "…the individual must disclose, in accordance with this section, the nature and extent of the conflict. The disclosure required under subsection (1) must be evidenced in a consent resolution, the minutes of a meeting or any other record deposited in the authority's records." I assume that the resolution and the minutes will be available under FOI.

J. MacPhail: Section 22 establishes who are employees of the authority, and 22(2) says: "The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the authority or to its employees." Why not?

Hon. R. Coleman: Because it's not a government entity; it just goes back to the issues in and around the auditor general and what have you. It's an independent entity mandated to achieve full cost recovery for all its activities. The authority requires flexibility in hiring practices and human resource management, including the flexibility to offer competitive salary and benefit packages. Because it isn't a government operation, these acts, in my understanding, don't apply.

Hon. R. Coleman: Absolutely, and so would the workers compensation issues and any collective agreement that may be negotiated between management and staff. If there was one negotiated with any particular organized labour or whatever, those would all apply, just like any other operation.

J. MacPhail: Section 29 is the first section under part 7 — General. It is entitled "Application of other Acts." "The following acts do not apply to the authority: (a) Budget Transparency and Accountability Act, (b) Document Disposal Act, (c) Financial Administration Act." In sub (2): "The Lieutenant Governor in Council, by regulation, may direct that provisions of the Business Corporations Act apply to the authority."

Well, I assume sub (2) is going to have to happen because it's referred to in other parts of the act. What's the exemption from (a), (b) and (c) of sub (1)? What's the purpose of that?

Hon. R. Coleman: Those acts would normally apply to public bodies but would not apply to the authority as it will be a non-profit corporation operating at arm's length from government. The authority will not form part of a government reporting entity. An objective-based accounting framework will ensure that the public policy principles embodied in these various acts will apply to the authority. For example, although the Document Disposal Act would not apply to the authority, the authority will be required to implement records management systems that achieve the same objectives as current government records and management standards.

The member is correct. Subsection (2) is a yes, simply because we will make the provisions of the Business Corporations Act apply to the authority where necessary.

J. MacPhail: Where is the requirement that they meet the test that's now incorporated in the Document Disposal Act? Where is that in the legislation — the substitute provision, so to speak?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's not in the legislation. It will be in the regulation relative to the admin agreement.

Hon. R. Coleman: It will be in the admin agreement, but the admin agreement is not necessarily embodied in the regulation. Yeah, that would be the correct way to put it. It will be in the admin agreement.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes. As I said earlier, it will be made public and will be available for review.

J. MacPhail: What's the application of the Auditor General Act to this authority?

Hon. R. Coleman: My understanding is because this is an arm's length body, basically put at arm's length from government, it does not form part of the government reporting entity. I would suspect, then, the Auditor General Act doesn't apply.

J. MacPhail: You know, there are so many of these "independent authorities" that this government is setting up. What purpose does it serve to have an independent authority that doesn't have the provisions of the Financial Administration Act applied to it?

The Minister of Finance just introduced revisions, amendments, to the Financial Administration Act today that he claims will hold agencies to greater account. I bet you anything the amendments to the Financial Administration Act were introduced today because of the Doug Walls scandal. Of course, that Financial Administration Act under which Doug Walls may be found guilty means they won't be able to recover any money from him because he's bankrupt. He's got an undischarged bankruptcy.

I mean, this agency, this authority, will be dealing with consumer protection. It will be collecting fees that otherwise would have gone to government, so where is the provision of protection that would now be given to consumers, or taxpayers for that matter, under the Financial Administration Act? Do we have to rely on the administrative agreement that is not legislated?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are numerous provisions in Bill 4 to ensure the same high standards of financial and

public accountability demanded for government. For example, the keeping of accounting records and allowing the minister to inspect those records and related documents at any time, the production of annual financial statements, the requirement to appoint an independent auditor, the requirement to appoint an independent auditor, and the requirement to prepare three-year business plans and annual reports. In addition to that, the administrative agreement, which is covered in section 177 in Bill 2, is a legally binding contract which will ensure accountability by specifying the outcomes the authority must achieve as well as the performance objectives, reporting requirements, financial accountability, etc.

J. MacPhail: I know we've passed this already, but the issue of keeping books and records for account…. Here it says, "…must be open for inspection by the minister or a person designated by the minister," under section 23. Well, the Financial Administration Act has broader powers than that. Is the minister saying that this legislation is as accountable as the requirements of the Financial Administration Act?

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent here is to have an administrative agreement that is legally binding, where the accountability is exceedingly high with regard to this, so that it meets the tests. Having said that, it does allow for the minister to designate. I guess, in discussion with my staff, if I chose to designate the auditor general as the person who went and looked at it, I could do that too.

J. MacPhail: Section 32 is the "Initial board appointments." Section 33 is the "Powers and duties of initial board." We have canvassed them thoroughly, to the extent that I think the minister is standing down section 33 in order to put forward an amendment at a future date.

Hon. R. Coleman: As per my discussion with the member, we have the same concern with regard to one section of this act. We are going to stand this section down rather than bring in a drafter at this time of night, and we will bring it back before the House. We would anticipate we would be able to get that drafting completed and fixed by some time early tomorrow and bring it back to the House.

J. MacPhail: I have to put my question on section 34, which is a "Transitional business plan," in the context of sections 36 and 37. Section 36 we've already discussed, in that there will be a grant, it says, of up to $500,000 — I'll have questions about that in a moment — in the fiscal years starting April 1, 2004, and April 1, 2005. But what happens under section 34(1), which reads: "Within 3 months of taking office, the first board appointed under section 6 must prepare and make publicly available a business plan for the remainder of that fiscal year and the next 2 fiscal years"?

What happens if in that context the board of the authority forecasts deficits? The Budget Transparency and Accountability Act doesn't apply, so will they be permitted to run deficits?

Hon. R. Coleman: As we're anticipating the movement here, we have KPMG working on a business plan for the authority. It's not anticipated that they would be operating any deficits within that business plan. However, the reason there is a loan available to the authority is in case they need to bridge their cash flow, as they either receive fees back that they're expecting or anticipating that would normally have gone to government and because of the timing of when they get their three months done. If the business plan gets prepared and published and if we actually accomplish this by, let's say, July 4, then we're talking three months later. They're going to be well over halfway into the fiscal year. There may be some concerns about when fees were collected and when they were sent to the authority. However, our intention is that they would get the cash flow they require or would get from those fees in year 1, year 2, year 3.

It's not anticipated that they would operate deficits. It's certainly not something we would encourage with the authority. It's something we would monitor, and certainly my expectation was the business plan would not be one that would be built around deficits.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's a decision of the board based on advice from their accounting and operations. Yeah, frankly, I guess they could.

J. MacPhail: It's going to be this independent authority that's going to be setting the fees. Of course, we already know the government is to the benefit of about $1.5 million on its books that they'll be saving with the setting up of this independent authority. I'm curious as to who's going to pick up the slack of the government off-loading that $1.5 million. So if these people can run deficits, then it means they don't necessarily have to increase fees to cover their costs.

Where is it? I wish the minister could point me to something that shows a process for determining increase in fees that's open and transparent. Just tell me what section, and I'll never ask the question again.

Hon. R. Coleman: Section 179 of Bill 2 actually gives the power of administrative authority to set fees. The

authority will not have carte blanche in setting licence fees for regulating industries. Fees will be set in accordance with a fee-setting process defined in a minister's regulation. That process will include consultation with industries and consumers. The authority will be required to show that any change of fees must be justified in terms of the cost of administering a regulatory scheme.

J. MacPhail: Section 36 says: "Appropriation for start-up grants by government to the authority." It's interesting. I think you have to read the titles of the section as part of the intent of the legislation. "The government may pay out of the consolidated revenue fund to the authority grants of up to $500,000 during the fiscal year of the government starting April 1, 2004."

This is permissive? It says "up to $500,000." The minister, earlier on, specified that it would be $500,000 in '04 and another $500,000 in '05. Is that true?

Hon. R. Coleman: I move the amendment to section 37 standing in my name on the orders of the day.

Hon. R. Coleman: This amendment ensures that fees collected by the government for the 2004-05 fiscal year in the Cemetery and Funeral Services Act, Debt Collection Act and Travel Agents Act can be transferred to the authority when it becomes operational. The initial wording of section 37 assumed that the new consumer statute would be in force by April 1, 2004, but they may not be in force until July 2004.

J. MacPhail: Well, maybe I'll just ask a general question. What is the intent of 37 now? It describes long-term fees, and I assume, then, that the description of those long-term fees are what will be transferred to the authority. But then subsection (2), which I don't think was amended…. No. Subsection (2) says: " Despite the Financial Administration Act, revenue collected by the government as long term fees must be considered to have been collected by the government as agent for the authority under this Act and must be paid into the consolidated revenue fund."

Hon. R. Coleman: The intent is to allow the money to come into the consolidated revenue fund and then, in subsection (3), to go out from the consolidated revenue fund to the authority when it is up and running at the appropriate time so that those revenues, frankly, are available to the authority and not to government. You have to say they come in, and then you have to say they go out, as I understand it.

J. MacPhail: So sections 37(2) and 37(3) have to be read together. Again for the record, could the minister tell me what the value of these fees, or the revenue collected pursuant to subsection (2), would have been for '03-04 or '02-03 — whenever the latest records are?

J. MacPhail: Oh, I'm sorry — $800,000. So the initial budget of revenues or sources of funding from previous government sources is a $500,000 grant and about $800,000, and then the rest will be made up by a loan. How is it not anything but a given that licence and fees are going to go up, then, unless the business plan is $1.3 million per annum? Is that what the minister is anticipating?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's anticipated that the operational costs for the authority, given that the business plan has to be in place three months after, would be that $1.3 million of revenue will go into the authority in '04-05 to operate less than six months, which should leave the authority in a positive cash flow.

The second year, $1.3 million in revenues at the minimum is anticipated from the $500,000 from the government and the $800,000 from fees. As I said earlier, we are looking at things like the telemarketers, which is a real concern with regard to how they would be licensed, and people in the tow truck industry. We're looking at other legislation with regard to the Private Investigators and Securities Agencies Act, with regard to those and how those fees that are presently collected would be transferred over as part of the pack-

age as we moved other people within the authority. That's what the business plan will be predicated on to see.

While we're doing that, we're obviously harmonizing and streamlining our enforcement so that we're not running around with five or six or seven or eight or nine or ten different acts as this evolves — that we should find operational efficiencies so that this authority should be able to function pretty well with regard to that as we actually harmonize some of these things and move it through.

J. MacPhail: Will the business plan be made public before the authority starts collecting fees so that people will have an opportunity to comment on whether the business plan is going to lead to increased fees?

Hon. R. Coleman: The business plan will be made public as soon as the board approves it. It will be put up, and obviously from there, people will be able to have any discussions in and around this. Everything that's, frankly, possible — that should be made public or can be made public — will be made public to see that this authority is as absolutely transparent as possible, simply because that's the way I'd like to see it done and I know that we'd like to see it done.

Hon. R. Coleman: Not having actually stood down a section before, I was trying to make sure I had my language right. I would move that the committee rise, report progress and seek leave to sit again.

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

Hon. R. Coleman: I call estimates debate for the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

J. Bray: Just before I get into my questions, having reviewed the ministry service plan and knowing how much work goes into that in understanding what the ministry is doing in its goals and objectives, it's laid out very well in the service plan. I'd like to commend both the minister and ministry staff for the obvious work they've put into the service plan, because it certainly is very helpful for me and my constituents in understanding what the ministry is hoping to achieve and the targets that they're setting out.

There are a number of areas that I do wish to canvass with the minister. Perhaps the first I'm going to start with, going from the service plan, is actually in the area around staff development. There's no question that to the civil servants I talk to here in Victoria, there's no more stressful position than that of front-line social workers and resource workers dealing with families in difficult situations and always under a certain constant pressure. Anytime there are going to be any strategic shifts contemplated, that adds extra issues for staff to deal with.

I certainly know — and the minister, I'm sure, will agree — that we have probably the best front-line staff in North America in terms of their professionalism in dealing with families and children and adults with developmental disabilities. I'm wondering if the minister can lay out for me what the ministry's plans are with respect to professional staff development and the issues around staff training for staff to deal with their day-to-day issues so that they can in fact get the support, training and education they need to be able to deliver the programs on behalf of the ministry.

Hon. C. Clark: It's certainly true — and I think today is a good day to remind ourselves of this truth, because we're starting Social Work Week — that social workers in British Columbia are amongst the best in the world. We are incredibly blessed with the talent and the wisdom that we have on the front lines for the Ministry of Children and Family Development and our contracted agencies across the province.

Social workers do some of the most difficult jobs that anyone could imagine. The life-changing decisions that social workers need to make every day, knowing the impact that they'll have, knowing that no decision is ever perfect and knowing that hindsight is always 20-20…. It must be an incredibly stressful but stimulating environment.

I know a lot of social workers. Every one of them is someone who is drawn to the profession out of a real sense of obligation to make their communities better and to help kids thrive, a real love of children and a real caring for families in our communities. We are very blessed to have the social workers and front-line workers we have in British Columbia.

We are working with them very closely as we go through this period of change. We need to recognize

that any change is always stressful for any employees in any organization. This one is no different, although we've certainly had a great deal of support from people on the front lines in this ministry — people who say that for years they've known that a move to community governance is the right move to make, that moving to allow communities more say and more authority and more empowerment over the decisions they're making is the right route to go. I've had many, many staff stop me and tell me that over the last year and a half, the last couple of years, since the ministry has embarked on this period of change.

We've been working with them, recognizing that it's a stressful period. We've had regional meetings across the province to talk to staff about what the changes are that we envision and included them in the decision-making and planning. We've had round tables, which are a little more intimate gathering, across the province, as well, to sit down and talk about people's concerns and fears and hopes for the future. We've had workshops on service transformation that have happened across the province as well. We've had a blue-ribbon panel of experts in social work and in the service transformation we're doing to advise us and talk to the field about what we think will work and what we think won't work.

The key to what we are trying to do in transforming the service we provide is to make sure that everything we're doing is based on a best practice — make sure that everything we're doing provides value for money and ends up being the best possible service we can provide for the people who rely on the services that we make available as government. We're working very hard with social workers across the field.

There's more work to do. We're very much in a period of change. We recognize that that's stressful, but I think it's fair to say we've had a great deal of support from people in the field because the changes we're making are the right direction to go.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer. In appendix 3, around the human resources management plan, there are a number of specific goals and commitments, and I'm just wanting to canvass a few of those. For those following at home, that's page 57 of the service plan.

Obviously, for front-line social work staff and for those who are contemplating going into the field, a change to a governance structure that's community-based might make the issues of professional development — long-term professional development — look different. I'm not sure that's actually going to be the case.

In the specific commitments related to these goals, one of the strategies identified is leadership development. Certainly, in my time in the civil service that was an area we felt was somewhat lacking in our own professional development — the skills, the abilities and the learning around leadership. I'm wondering if the minister can perhaps flesh out for me a little bit more, for front-line social workers or for headquarters policy analysts, what types of issues and referrals we might see for staff with respect to leadership development and whether or not that includes referrals to the B.C. Leadership Centre that the Ministry of Management Services and the Public Service Agency have established.

Hon. C. Clark: We have employees that are attending programs at Royal Roads University, at UVic and at post-secondary institutions across the province. We also have a mentoring program within the ministry, and that's available to employees to upgrade their skills and to benefit from the experience of other employees that have been longer-serving or in different areas.

We also have the employee performance development plan. Every management employee in the ministry will have one of those in place by summer, I understand. The intention of that is to set out what people's expectations are and to try and make sure that we find a match and try to meet people's expectations for their career goals.

Of course, too, every employee in government and in our ministry is eligible to participate in the work of the Leadership Centre. This has been, I think, a real marker set down by the Premier to set out the degree of respect in which we hold the public servants who serve British Columbians so well and to ensure that they know we are interested in investing in our human resources, because we know those human resources are absolutely critical to making sure that government is able to carry out its program to make a better British Columbia.

J. Bray: I am certainly pleased that the goal is to have the performance plans done for all employees by the summertime. That's an excellent goal. The old-style employee appraisal was always that your supervisor would come and tell you all the things you're doing well and all the things you're not doing so well and send you off for donuts. That was sort of the end of the conversation.

I know the Public Service Agency has transformed that process into a much more collaborative conversation between employee and supervisor so that not only are performance objectives being met but, in fact, the things that are critical for each employee to feel satisfied at work, to grow their career and to maximize their opportunities within the public service are realized, because now supervisors understand the goals of the employee and are ensuring that those opportunities are taken up. I'm pleased that all employees are going to have that done, because it's actually a critical part for improving employee satisfaction. That's even more critical in a high-volume, high-stress ministry like Children and Family Development, so I'm very pleased to hear that.

In that vein, another one of the points is development of a succession management plan. As we all know, the workforce is aging and there is a looming tsunami of retirees coming in the next five to eight years. In different ministries the age range is slightly

different. Obviously, we want to make sure we have professionally trained, competent social workers joining the ministry so that they can take advantage of leadership experience mentoring.

I'm wondering if the minister can expand a bit on the Children and Family Development succession management plan and where they are in that process.

Hon. C. Clark: Mr. Chair, if I could just take a minute to introduce the staff who are with me, who are so ably assisting. First is Alison MacPhail, my deputy minister. James Gorman, assistant deputy minister, management services division is here as well. Jeremy Berland is the assistant deputy minister, child and family development services transformation. Jayne Barker is also with us. She is a director of mental health and youth services. I just wanted to take a minute to introduce all of them, because they are so ably assisting this evening. [Applause.]

I think probably the first most important thing this ministry can do in succession planning is make sure we try and retain the staff we have better. Our attrition rate in this ministry is beginning to fall, which is very good news. I think that reflects the fact that staff are starting to feel a greater sense of security working for this ministry than they have in the past. There is a greater sense of predictability, a greater sense of security, a greater sense of direction for the future. After a decade of upheaval and change and constant political scapegoating, it's finally time for those changes to stop. I think that's really reflected in the fact that the attrition rate has dropped in the ministry, which is very, very good news.

That's part of it, but it doesn't address what the member talked about, which is the demographic change that's hitting this ministry just like every other ministry. We're working with the universities to increase the number of spaces available for training social workers, and we're working very actively within our ministry to identify people who want to take on supervisory roles and who are able to take on supervisory roles and are prepared and willing to be mentored in doing that. We have taken on a special human resources adviser in the ministry to make sure we are maximizing the value of our entire human resource potential, but there is much, much more to do. The member correctly identifies this as a big challenge not just in this ministry but across government.

J. Bray: I thank the minister for that answer. Certainly, it is an issue, and I'm glad to hear that the attrition rate is starting to go down. That was certainly an issue I had heard before, so I'm….

The other area that I've canvassed before and certainly dealt with a lot when I was in the public sector before coming to government was the issues in the nineties where many front-line social workers felt their job was increasingly becoming one of administrative work — of documentation, of spending a lot of time on the computer filling out a variety of forms — and very little time actually doing social work practice. Some front-line social workers told me it was as high as between 60 and 40 and 70 and 30 — 70 percent of the time being at the computer and only 30 percent of the time being with families, with children and actually doing the kind of work they had gone to university for.

I'm wondering if the minister can tell me how we're evolving to get social workers away from their terminals and their laptops and back into the practice of social work so that they're actually spending time with the families and doing the work of social work.

Hon. C. Clark: This member is a passionate advocate for the professionalism of public servants and has always been very strong in advocating for allowing public servants to do their jobs, to exercise their professional judgment. There is probably no better example than this ministry of how that can work.

We have reduced the number of children in care of the ministry by 15 percent, but we haven't reduced the number of front-line social workers by the same amount. That's meant there has been more time freed up for social workers, first of all, to get out there and do their jobs, but it's also reflected a fundamental change in practice that the ministry has promoted and that front-line social workers have taken up with real vigour. That is getting away from kind of the check-box approach that really lends itself to a policy of taking children into care and asking questions later to an approach that allows social workers to really use the broad range of skills they have in trying to support families before things reach a crisis.

That means a lot more front-line work. It means a lot more work with families, face to face. It means a lot less of the kind of bureaucratic, put-the-check-in-the-box approach and a lot more engagement with families. That has really been at the core of our success in ensuring there are fewer kids who end up with the government as a parent and that there are more kids who spend their lives — and, really, crisis periods of their lives as well — in the hearts and homes of their families. As much as we can try and stabilize those families and transform those families into places that are safe and loving for kids, that's what the social workers on the front line work so hard to do every day.

J. Bray: I'm very pleased to hear that. Certainly, I think the strength of the transformation that the ministry is going through and the best service that the state can provide to families in need is in fact by having our professionals out there doing the job. I'm glad to hear that the trend I heard last year is continuing and in fact accelerating and that we are providing the appropriate

My follow-up question to that, then, is: on page 57 we have some discussion in the service plan around the information resource management plan. I see there are some changes from last year. I'm wondering if the minister can provide me with where we're at with respect to data warehousing and how we're making the changes so that the ministry is providing a platform so that data that is in the ministry's possession is secure now but also so it will be in a format that's usable and secure when the transformation to community-based governance is complete — so that the data is being used appropriately, but people can feel secure that the data the authorities hold will remain private.

Hon. C. Clark: We have an information management system. I'm sure the member knows about that. That provides key management information to track the number of children in care and those kinds of things so that our managers can always know what the trends look like and we can always make sure we're using best practice in our management.

We had that audited recently. The audit determined that the Internet system we use for data management is secure. When we move to community governance and the community living services authority, we'll log on through the government system, and it will continue to be secure. We will continue to make every effort to make sure that information is secure. For example, the data management system is now used by our regional authorities as well. We have a good understanding of how this system can migrate to regional authorities and no reason to believe it wouldn't be successfully and securely migrated to the independent authority when it's fully in place.

J. Bray: I appreciate the minister's answer. Moving on to another topic, I know I spent a lot of time on the executive support management side of ministries. That's where I come from. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is one of the ministries that does literally hundreds of contracts with various agencies to provide services — everything, quite frankly, from being foster parents all the way through to the delivery of psychological services for children. So contract management is a significant piece in the Ministry of Children and Family Development.

I have long risen in this House and talked about the contracts that used to be done when I was working in the civil service that were all input-based. In other words, the only thing measured was how many people received the service, and there was precious little measurement of the outputs of those contracted services and virtually no measurement of the outcomes. Everything was measured by how many individuals received the service, and that was the measure of whether it was a good service or not. What it was really a measure of was how well the referral links were lined up and not whether or not the service was providing any effective resolution for the issues.

My first question is: can the minister tell me whether or not the Ministry of Children and Family Development is moving or has moved towards outcome-based contracting with its service providers to ensure that taxpayers are getting good value for their dollar but in fact, more importantly, the people who need the service…? We can have assurance through the contracts that they are getting that service?

Hon. C. Clark: We are actively moving in this ministry from an input-based style of procurement to an output-based style of procurement where, instead of just paying for FTEs, as the member pointed out, what we're doing is paying for the amount of service we receive. That's a huge task in this ministry, which has so many thousands and thousands of contracts across the province and which, in some cases, isn't really fully apprised of what we need, much less what we're receiving. It is a huge cultural shift. It is going to take several years for us to get there, but we're actively working on that right now, and the service transformation that we have been doing in Vancouver is a good example of how we can change our contracting to reflect better procurement.

What they did in Vancouver is they said: "What is the population? What are the needs of the population that we are required and obligated to serve?" Then second: "What kinds of services do we need to provide in order to serve that population?" Then third: "How do we procure to get those services?" Over the years, with layer upon layer of contracts and changes around the edges that have happened, it's not always true that all the services we've been providing have been logically addressing all of the variety of needs that have been out there. There has been some duplication; there has been some overlap.

What we've been doing in the service transformation is addressing that — asking those basic questions first and then ensuring that the service we deliver reflects the needs of the community that we know is out there. That is a fundamental part of the service redesign that we're engaged in right now, and changing our procurement policy so it reflects outputs, rather than just inputs, is absolutely essential to making that happen.

J. Bray: Certainly, many members of this House who have heard me go on and on about this issue will know that that answer is music to my ears, because that's in fact one of the ways we ensure that we are actually able to provide services to individuals. I agree with the minister that this transformation is going to be years in the making simply because of the volume, but also it is a cultural shift.

I'm going to ask a bit of a rhetorical question that I am going to ask the minister to respond to. One of the issues in the community, when I worked in the civil service, was that a service or contract or an agency

would have a particular name to it. That name would somehow evoke everything that program was supposed to be doing, when in fact, no one really knew what the program was doing, but it must be good because the name is something we would all support.

As we go through this transformation, is it fair for me to say — and the minister can respond — that as we move to this output-based model, some of the programs that have very wonderful names attached to them that are descriptors of the service…? It doesn't mean, just because that service provider isn't providing that service or that contract doesn't exist, that we're not in fact serving that population. It is that we're going through this change. Quite frankly, to put it colloquially, people shouldn't get hung up in the names of programs, because the names of programs were no guarantee that the service was being provided. What we're moving towards in our contract management is ensuring the service is provided. Is that an accurate colloquial expression of what we're trying to achieve here?

Hon. C. Clark: Yes, it is. A good example of that is what's going on in Vancouver, where we have been working on transforming the service for a while now. In safe houses, for example, over the next year we're going to go from 22 safe-house beds to 19 safe-house beds. We're doing that at the same time that we are maintaining the budget and investing $400,000 more in services for aboriginal kids. There are going to be three fewer beds, but there will be more services in other places.

It will also be true, in other areas of ministry service that we provide, that in the course of recontracting, some agencies may not succeed in getting back the contract they had. For example, there was one safe house in Vancouver where almost 40 percent of the beds weren't occupied. Well, that's not a good use of taxpayers' dollars, and it's not the best way to spend those precious dollars that we need to make sure are focused on the needs of kids in a place like Vancouver. That is a great example of where we have taken services; we've looked at what the needs are, based on the use of the services; and we're reinvesting it elsewhere.

Change is difficult. No question about it. Some agencies will succeed in maintaining contracts; some agencies will be created anew with new contracts; some agencies will expand contracts. But some agencies may also have different contracts. They may have smaller contracts with the ministry, depending on the amount of need and the kinds of need we see out there.

J. Bray: I just have a couple of questions left. My final theme in contract management, then. One of the other issues people historically have raised with me, both since I was elected and previously, when I was working in government, was the fact that because contracting was by and large proposal-driven, there was a tendency for individual proposals to come out without any linking of the services. We often saw lots of individual contracts that seemed to provide a very logical service, but once the child or the individual was finished with that service, there was no logical next step. There was no action plan within the contracting to take somebody through a continuum of services.

Given what the minister has said about trying to make sure that we're matching the population, the needs and the contracting and procuring for the services, I'm wondering if the ministry is looking at a way of more effectively coordinating the services in a geographic region or for an identified population to ensure that caseworkers can take someone through a continuum of services, even if it is among several service providers, so that we're providing a comprehensive range of services rather than the sort of hodgepodge referral where we hope we are doing it in the right order at the right time.

Hon. C. Clark: That is a fundamental principle of redesigning the services we're providing: to try and make sure there are fewer stops, fewer multiple points of access required for someone to try and get a service from government. If we can make sure that we provide one-stop shopping, if you will, for people requiring service, we'll really be meeting our own expectations of ourselves.

It will take some time to get there. That's going to mean significant change in the way we contract. It is going to mean significant change in the kinds of contracts we have, but it is absolutely essential to try and make the ministry and the services we provide make sense to the people getting the services from us.

J. Bray: My final question is around the delegations to aboriginal authorities. It is a much more specific issue. Surrounded by Cedar is the agency in the capital region that will be providing services on behalf of the Ministry of Children and Family Development for aboriginal families. One of the more contentious issues that they've brought to my attention is that during their consultations with the ministry, their vision had their staff, if you will, of aboriginal descent being hired to be the service providers, including lettered social workers, to do the work. What they'd been advised in the fall was that there would be a certain number of staff or FTEs transferred from the existing regional staff here in the capital region to Surrounded by Cedar. This obviously caused them some concern. I'm wondering if the minister could update me on where we're at with respect to the staff allocations for Surrounded by Cedar for the delivery of aboriginal services.

Hon. C. Clark: I know the member certainly shares with me the real commitment to making sure that services for aboriginal communities are appropriate and delivered in a way that meets the needs of aboriginal communities. I've spoken with this member many times about his concern about the number of aboriginal children in care and how vastly overrepresented those kids are compared to aboriginal people in the general population. Certainly, Surrounded by Cedar is an organization that's worked very hard to try and reflect

the needs of the community better. I think they really benefited a lot of the people they've worked with.

We continue to be committed to that devolution of services to aboriginal agencies. We have to work with the available budget we have, of course, in doing that. We can't free up dollars before the positions are actually vacant. What we've offered to do is work with Surrounded by Cedar to try and assign some staff temporarily to the agency. That's been an approach that's worked with many other agencies across the province. We're continuing to work with Surrounded by Cedar to try and find a way through. It is a little bit of a thorny problem, but it has been a problem that we've mastered and overcome in lots of other places, and I have every reason to expect that we can overcome it in this case too.

V. Anderson: I understand the minister has followed in the pattern of the restructuring of services so that there are provincial services and government services in community regional areas. Could the minister give some introductory philosophy of the provincial services? What's covered by the provincial services and will be managed on a provincial basis? In the past everything was managed provincially. Give us a scope of the provincial services first off.

Hon. C. Clark: Provincial services is about those services that don't neatly fit into a children and family development kind of category or into a community living category — things like, for example, youth custody, justice, child and youth mental health. We are the first province in the country, by the way, to have a child and youth mental health plan. That's very innovative.

Provincial services administration, services for the deaf and hard of hearing, community link, youth forensics — those are the kinds of things that fit into this part of the debate that we're having this evening. The ministry ultimately envisions itself to be a standard-setting, monitoring organization. Perhaps it's helpful to think about this in sort of the same way that the Ministry of Education thinks of itself, which is as broad standard-setting, guarantee of quality, monitoring….

When we are ultimately able to devolve the management of services to independent authorities for children and family development, for aboriginal services and for community living services, those organizations will be responsible for delivering those services and making sure that the services they deliver match the needs in the communities. It will be the province that's responsible for those big issues about monitoring and consistency, reporting, accountability — those larger issues that really can only be in the purview of the province.

V. Anderson: One question I would ask comes out of the actual title of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I think we automatically understand that the ministry is responsible for making sure that children are protected and cared for and given every opportunity they can, but I'm not sure that we understand the family development part of it. If the minister could elaborate on what family development means. What is the breadth or narrowness of it? What is actually involved in the concept of family development?

Hon. C. Clark: That is something to which this ministry is deeply, deeply committed. I know it's been an issue for this member since he was first elected in 1991 — ensuring that government supports families, tries to help families function better, tries to help make families safe, loving places for every child, which is recognizing how important families are as a fundamental support in our society. We cannot function as a society, as a community, as a province without strong, healthy families.

The real, primary mission of this government is to try and ensure that we support families as much as we possibly can. When we talk about things like the fact that the number of children who are coming into care has dropped by 15 percent, what we're talking about is the fact that social workers and the mission of the ministry have changed enough that we're building supports around families to try and make them safe, loving, stable places for children to be.

We do that through things like parenting programs. Some people who are very young who've had children may not know how to be parents because they didn't have good parents themselves. Some people who are very old who have children may not know as much about parenting as they might. The parenting programs are a great example of how we can support families and give parents the tools they need to really make sure their homes are loving, safe places for their children.

We do know — and this is true in every single jurisdiction across the world — that kids do better when they remain in their own homes than they usually do when they're in government care. Now, that's not to say that kids who come into government care don't do well, but overall, outcomes are better for kids when they've been able to stay with their families. We've really tried to put a focus on that, to allow social workers to use the broad range of skills they have to support families and give them the tools they need to be able to do their job, which is, of course, the most important job in the world. That's being a parent.

Every child will only get one biological mom and one biological dad or one adoptive mom and one adoptive dad. I think we all know as parents that we're only going to get one shot at being the parent to our own children, so we better do the job right. If government can assist people in making sure they have the tools they need to do that for kids, then that's what we should do.

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

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

J. Kwan: I'm just going to take a few minutes to find out where we left off, not last week but the week before, and then we'll continue on with questions for the minister.

Also, for the House's information, I'll continue on with debate with the minister until the big House finishes debate on the bills at committee stage, at which point I understand the Ministry of Children and Family Development estimates are up. At that point I will switch with my colleague. The member for Vancouver-Hastings will take over estimates in this House, and I'll go to the big House and do MCFD. That's just for the House's information.

I think we were dealing with child care issues. Let me just find my spot, and then I will resume questions for the minister.

J. Kwan: I'll continue with questions on the issue around child care. Could the minister please advise: since the Munroe agreement has ended, what is the status of this situation with the child care centres across British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: The funding ceased last year, and there is no funding for the Munroe agreement in this year's budget.

J. Kwan: Yes, I do know that. My question in terms of status, since the Munroe agreement, is: what's happened to the child care centres? Does the minister know that a child care centre has been closed as a result of the ending of the Munroe agreement? Have there been reductions in salaries for child care workers? What's the status of that? Does the minister have any information on what's happened to our community as a result of this Liberal government's ending of the Munroe agreement?

Hon. M. Coell: I think last time we were discussing this part of the estimates I had committed to doing some research with the health authorities who would have that information and to bringing a report forward for the member and for ourselves at the same time. I think we had talked that in 2001 there were 72,965 spaces, and there are now 80,230. But for the detailed information with regard to closures and openings in different regions, we were going to work with the health authorities and bring that back. It's quite a bit of research needed to do that.

J. Kwan: So the information that I requested with respect to closure of child care centres, the minister will include in it if the Munroe agreement was a result of that in terms of background information? That wasn't a specific question I asked of the minister. It was just about closures and how many and where.

Hon. M. Coell: Once we have that list, we would be able to identify agencies that were affected by the funding change to Munroe, but I think it would be pretty hard to tell exactly why they either closed or expanded, for that matter. But we'll do the best we can.

J. Kwan: For the centres that did stay open — and there are a number of them, even with the withdrawal of the Munroe agreement support from this government — do we know that the workers' salaries have been reduced in those instances? Or is it the case that they might have had to lay off some staff to compensate for the loss of the Munroe agreement funding support? Does the minister know what happened in those instances for the centres that remained open?

Hon. M. Coell: We don't track those sorts of wages. We basically just fund operational costs, and individual groups may have different relationships and wage levels with their staff. It's not something we track.

J. Kwan: Well, at the time when the Munroe agreement was withdrawn, there was much consternation in the community. I know because many of them came to my office and spoke with me about it. I'm sure that some of them have gone to the minister, as well, to raise their concerns. What concerns did the minister register? And what is the average wage now for child care workers in the province?

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any idea at all what the lay of the land is for the province? It may be that he doesn't have the information from agency to agency, but surely he must have some idea about what the average wage is for child care workers in the province.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, it's not something that we are tracking. The child care operating funding program provides operational funding to eligible licensed groups and family child care providers. The applications process is subject to an annual renewal, and funding is based on actual enrolment reported monthly, with set rates based on the age of the enrolled child and time enrolled. There isn't a relationship to the dollar or monthly amount paid to workers. They could be paid differently agency to agency, and that would be worked out with the employer and the employees.

J. Kwan: I can only assume that once the Munroe agreement had ended, child care workers were being paid less than what they were before. There's no doubt about that. In fact, I think, on average…. Actually, I don't want to make an assumption. I had thought the minister would have that information, in terms of the broad-based figure of what that might look like for child care workers.

After all, they're the people who take care of children. As the minister and, I think, many experts have acknowledged, those early years for children are some of the most important years in the children's development. Therefore, it's astounding to me that the government would actually get rid of the Munroe agreement, which really speaks to pay equity and also to value of the work of child care workers in our community, and that the minister would have some idea of what the lay of the land might be with respect to how much they're being paid…. The Munroe agreement, I think, was the first step towards not begrudging child care workers for the good work they do but instead recognizing them and compensating them financially for the good work that they do with our children in our communities.

I would ask the minister, then, to endeavour to find out what the average child care worker's pay is in British Columbia and how that compares since the ending of the Munroe agreement. I would think that's an important component of the minister's job, in that child care issues all fall under his area of responsibility. Proper compensation for child care workers and the recognition of their good work would be an important component of that.

Hon. M. Coell: We are funding more providers and more spaces. I don't see what purpose a research project would help us in providing more spaces and more funding for providers at this point….

J. Kwan: There are a number of reasons why this information would be important. One, as I talked about, relates to the issue around pay equity. I canvassed the issue with the minister responsible for women's services, who seems to have no understanding whatsoever of the importance of pay equity. I'm canvassing the minister now around issues of financial compensation for child care workers. It relates to the issue around pay equity, recognizing the value of women and their work in raising children, in caring for children and really helping develop the children's future in these early years. What is the average wage relative to other work in the broader community? I would say that's pretty important information for us to garner, to understand what the lay of the land is.

The other piece that I would say is important as well…. The minister talks about how he has increased child care spaces across British Columbia, and so therefore there's no need. The reality is that substantively there are a number of children in the province who can't get access to child care because of financial barriers. We know that for a fact. We also know there are a number of children who are in child care situations that are substandard, that are not monitored. There are some issues related to that as well.

All these issues fold together, I think, for us to have a better understanding of what the child care picture looks like in British Columbia. We need to understand whether or not there is financial incentive, as well, for people to get into the child care role in terms of a skill that is demanded in British Columbia and whether or not the compensation is on par with other provinces, other jurisdictions. How does that compare in terms of other jurisdictions? I would say that's all important information for the minister to have and to understand, so that he has in fact a full understanding of what child care looks like in British Columbia. Those are the reasons why I'm asking the minister. I would ask for the minister's response to my comments.

Hon. M. Coell: Listening to the comments, I'll take that into consideration and give it some thought.

J. Kwan: I hope this is not just a way for the minister to push off questions in debate during the estimates, saying, "Hey, I'll take that into consideration; then let's move on," and then later on just conveniently forgetting about it. I was actually hoping for more of a solid answer than that from the minister, and that is to really look into this matter and to commit to look into this matter to get that information. I do think that it's

important. I'll tell you, the language the minister puts forward to say: "We're increasing spaces, so therefore everything is fine…."

Let me just put this letter on the record from a community group about the situation with respect to child care in the province. These are the changes that the government has brought in. Now, the letter was written back on May 15, 2003, so on some aspects of it the minister has already made a decision, particularly in relation to the referral programs. They've already made a decision, but at that time it was uncertain in terms of what the status was. Some of the information may be backdated, but the thrust of the letter still, I would say, is very valid and to the point. Let me put this letter on the record, and I would ask the minister to respond to it, because language is about everything, and this letter points it out.

The letter was addressed to the former Minister of State for Women's Equality from the Britannia Community Services Centre. It addresses the former minister:

I just want to pause here for one moment. That's particularly important in terms of an issue. As an example, many people know that in my community, families tend to be of very low income. I know that the child care centres in my community are suffering as a result of the government policy changes. Is it to say that we don't need the spaces? No. It means that people cannot afford to send their children there because of the change in government policy. This is the point that the Britannia Community Services Centre is making.

Let me just stop here again. The issue around needing to know what's happened since the Munroe agreement that the government has ended and how it has impacted the financial compensation situation with the caregivers…. It's important. The Britannia Community Services Centre actually raises this issue.

Then tying into that, the flipside is: what does the fee structure in each of these centres look like since this situation? Have fees gone up as a result of it? There's also another reason why it is important to know how child care workers are being compensated and whether or not the Munroe agreement has impacted our communities and how it has impacted our communities. Those are the reasons why I would also add it as important.

The letter then goes on to say: "We're at best confused about your government's plan for the child care resource and referral programs." In this paragraph they actually talk about the situation before the decision was made about the referral programs. I will just simply skip over that paragraph because we've canvassed that already.

As I began putting the letter on the record, I stated that language is everything. The Britannia board has pointed out, as an example, that the government says they are increasing the child care subsidy threshold by $100, when in fact they are just trying to replace a reduction that took place the year before. Even then, it does not bring it to the previous level of 2001 in terms of that threshold.

I would like the minister's response, generally, to the concerns raised by the Britannia board with respect to the child care situation in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could give me the date on that letter, because we have responded to one letter from that particular preschool, I believe.

Hon. M. Coell: I believe that the former minister would have responded to that letter by now. I can check into that and see, if that's not the case, why it wasn't responded to. But staff believes it would have been under normal circumstances.

I can tell the member that we're continually reviewing all policies government makes. We'll continue to do that.

J. Kwan: Be that as it may, it may well be that the former minister might have responded. I'm also the MLA for the area, and the Britannia community actually is in my community. I've spoken with them many times about the situation with the changes in child care and its impacts. They've asked me as their representative to raise these issues in the Legislature as well. I'm endeavouring to do that. I happen to just put their letter on record because they've put it so succinctly, I think, in terms of the many issues that the child care community is faced with in British Columbia.

Given the minister's answer — and that is that the government will continue to review their child care policy — does that mean to say the government or the minister actually recognizes the concerns that have been raised by the community and will therefore be the advocate for change in terms of better support for child care? If that's the right assumption, then I think I've read the minister's answer in that direction. If I'm wrong, I'll ask the minister to correct me. If I'm right in that direction, then let's start with the federal dollars in terms of advocating for the federal dollars to go in the direction as outlined in the letter.

Hon. M. Coell: I think we canvassed some of this about nine days ago. The new federal program the member is talking about — all of that money from the early learning and child care program goes to child care.

J. Kwan: The earlier canvassing with the minister about the federal dollars — what we did was lay out where the dollars go in the multilateral agreement. I think we agreed that we would call it the multilateral agreement. That's the second agreement. What was called the early childhood development initiative, the minister had laid out for me and passed documentation to me to let me know where those dollars have gone in the last couple of years. I appreciate that information from the minister.

Where I'm going with this now is to advocate for a redirection of those federal funds into child care. I'm specifically talking about the first agreement, the federal early childhood development initiative — those dollars. It was shocking to me when I read in the report that those dollars have gone into programs like immunization programs or into programs like the Healthy Kids dental and optical benefits, as an example, which are important programs, to be sure. I'm not disputing that, but the issue I take is that those should have been funded through the Ministry of Health's budget, not from a child care dollars' budget point of view.

I'm advocating for a change in the government's policy. As the minister said that the government will continue to review its direction in terms of child care dollars, I'm asking for the minister to redirect those funds per the suggestion from First Call!!, which is a coalition of community groups. They've come to a consensus position that two-thirds of the federal early childhood development funds — the first agreement, the initiative funds — be allocated to child care and then to supplement it with the new multilateral agreement funding. As stated in the letter from Britannia, "This will give $47.3 million for child care this year," which will actually begin to make a difference from the community's point of view. I certainly support them in their advocacy in this area, and that is a redirection of the first federal agreement dollars.

Hon. M. Coell: We may have some differences of opinion here. The first agreement is different from the second, as we talked about. The first agreement…. Some of the issues that I think the member takes issue with — the promotion of healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy; improving parent and family supports; strengthening early childhood development, learning

and care; and also strengthening community supports — are different from the second model.

When I look at some of the programs that are supported — and these are incremental dollars — I think you have to realize they were over and above what was already in the budgets. I look at things like nursing support services, which got an extra almost $3 million dollars. Parent support — new money was put in there. The At Home program, early intervention therapy, Healthy Kids dental and optical benefits — I just go through it, and I don't think there would be any disagreement that they are very worthy projects.

These are incremental dollars, again, on top of ministry budgets — very much in keeping with the agreement between Canada and British Columbia to improve programs and services in those four areas I outlined. When I look at them, I think they were actually quite well placed in those programs with that agreement.

I think the second agreement is very different in its intention and in the intention of the federal government as well. I think there is a case to be made that the funds from the second agreement are going into child care, and you won't see programs like these get incremental moneys out of them.

J. Kwan: No. This is what the government's done on the child care budget. They took federal dollars and put them into what I call health care areas for children that do benefit children and families. I'm not disputing that; I fully acknowledge that. But the government took child care moneys, in my view, from the federal government in the first program and put them into these other program areas. While they may not have reduced the health care budgets in these areas, the government did reduce the child care budgets in those critical areas for children.

The subsidy change was a direct reduction of child care budgets in the ministry. The operating funds…. The ending of the Munroe agreement has a direct negative impact on child care funding. As an example, the funding for the referral programs is a direct reduction. The child care resources and referral programs are a direct reduction of government funds from this ministry in the area of child care. The government is actually taking some of the federal dollars to replace reduced provincial moneys, so it's not supplementing existing budgets at all. The net budget for child care across ministries, across government, is not going up. In fact, it has gone down.

From his own ministry the budget has gone down year over year. The subsidy component in 2001-02, $126.402 million. In '02-03 it went down to $107.302 million; in '03-04, $104.2 million. In the year '04-05 it's only gone up slightly to $106.7 million. If you compare that to its optimal year of '01-02, you're still $20 million away just in the subsidy area.

Then you look at the referral resources area. In the optimal year of '01-02 it was $13.12 million. In '02-03 it stayed the same, but in '03-04 it's down to $9 million, and in '04-05 it's $7 million. If you look at the operating budgets, again, in the optimal year of '01-02 it was $62.583 million. It went down in '02-03 to $50.95 million and in '03-04 to $48 million and in '04-05 to $47.6 million.

The figures show that the budget for the child care pieces have actually gone down substantively. By the minister's own admission, in the child care resources and referral area the government is taking federal moneys to supplement the provincial cuts — $4 million of federal moneys in the '04-05 budget.

What the community is asking the minister to do is to not take federal dollars to replace provincial dollars. It's to supplement provincial dollars. That's one thing. The second thing they're advocating for is for the government to direct two-thirds of the federal money of the first initiative towards child care.

Those other programs that the minister says are important…. I agree that they are important. Those programs should be funded out of the Ministry of Health line items. That's what the advocates are asking for, and that's what I'm asking the minister to do: to be the advocate for policy change in the government in the allocation of federal government dollars, to maintain provincial dollars and not to reduce provincial dollars and not to use federal moneys to replace reduced provincial funds.

Hon. M. Coell: As I say, I think we have some disagreement on the usefulness of the first agreement. I think government has allocated those funds in an appropriate manner and reported out in an appropriate manner. I think the second program will be a success very much like the first one, using federal and provincial talent to serve programs.

I don't see — and I don't want to give anything other than a pretty straight answer to the member — any changes to the first federal agreement being made at this time.

J. Kwan: Just for the minister's information, I know for a fact that the federal government on the second agreement came through with far stricter requirements on how those federal dollars can be spent in the area of child care because of the advocacy from the child care community. Through really incredible efforts they went to lobby the federal government to say there is no accountability with the provincial government on how the first agreement dollars were spent. People were frustrated. They were concerned with it, and they actually lobbied the federal government to put stricter conditions on federal dollars and how they should be spent. They actually have correspondence from the federal minister with respect to that.

That's why the second agreement is strictly tied to child care. It's not an accident. It didn't just happen in a vacuum out there by fluke. People saw what was going on at the provincial level and how those dollars were

not being accounted for. They then went to work to lobby the federal government, because it was of no assistance at all to lobby the provincial government. For them, talking to the provincial government, to the former minister, was like talking to a brick wall. They may as well talk to a brick wall. They may have better results. It appears that still might be the case. I don't know.

I'm hoping that's not the case. I'm hoping there'll be more response from this minister. Certainly, I know from that community and from the women's community that talking to the Minister of Women's Services was worse than talking to a brick wall. They got arrested for that. People are hoping for this minister to be more responsive. The minister did say that the government will review their child care policy in light of the negative impacts of the government's policies to date.

I'm advocating for and bringing a message from the community for the government, for this minister to be their advocate at the table for the federal dollars, to not replace provincial programs that should be funded by the province, to not replace existing programs that are being eliminated by the province and for these two agreement dollars to go directly into child care and therefore enhance child care opportunities for families and children across British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, I don't want to give any false hope that the first agreement is going to be changed. I don't believe it is. When you look at the first agreement, the first program initiative was to promote healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy, and $69 million went into public health nursing, speech, audiology, nutrition and dental. There were programs for pregnancy outreach. There were parent information publications. I think I mentioned Healthy Kids dental and optical, assisted post-adoption services, adoption support services, respite services and protective family support programs. All these are exactly to promote healthy pregnancy, birth and infancy and to improve parenting and family supports.

In keeping with the federal agreement, the province did exactly what was in the agreement.

J. Kwan: When they came to office, the provincial government renegotiated the first agreement with the federal government to give it the lax language that is there now. That's why the government is spending the federal government dollars in those programs — precisely because the Liberal government wanted to take existing provincial dollars in the child care area away from child care and replace it with federal dollars. That's exactly what happened.

Before the election the agreement the former government went out and consulted with the community on was that those dollars should all be spent in the area of child care. Since the election that's changed, and the government said they refocused their direction in the area of child care. They put these moneys, the federal dollars, into health-related programs for children and families.

I'm not undervaluing those programs and the need for the funds. I fully recognize the importance of pregnancy programs for mothers and the fetus and, later on, for the child's development and of those other programs — immunization and dental programs. I fully recognize the importance of all those programs. The issue I take is that those programs should be funded out of the Ministry of Health's budget. If there's a greater demand in terms of greater need for these programs, then the Health budget, with its increase, should be allocating dollars to those programs and not taking federal moneys that should have gone into child care into these health areas.

I understand the past, as well, in terms that those moneys are spent, but there are five years to this program. There are still a few years remaining. For the first couple of years the government actually didn't even spend its full amount, the federal amounts. But according to the agreement, you can spend it within that five-year period, so you have more moneys from the federal government from the first agreement that could be redirected into child care. That's what the child care advocates are calling for.

What I'm calling for is for this minister to be the advocate for child care and to do that job, seeing as the Minister for Women's Services won't do that job, and to be the advocate around the cabinet table and argue for those federal dollars to go directly into the area of child care to enhance the child care situation for families of low and moderate incomes particularly. I would say that even working families with two parents working…. We know that child care is very expensive for a lot of people, even if you have two parents working. A lot of times they can't afford it.

In fact, this last week when we had our spring break, I was at a KidSafe program, a breakfast initiative that was held in my riding at a local school. The KidSafe board members were there along with the principals, the volunteers, the mayor, councillors and children. All kinds of people were there. Those programs exist because they're important.

I was talking to a woman from the YMCA who provides for child care services. She said to me that people in our communities are finding it very difficult to afford child care, even if they are two-income families. I know that from my own situation and from that of my friends. They find it increasingly difficult in terms of meeting client needs, particularly for those of lower and middle income that don't fit into the criteria in terms of child care subsidies as a result of the government's change — not because they're wealthy by any means, not because they can afford child care by any means, but because of the change in the policy. They can't afford it, even with the $100 change of trying to reinstate some of the reductions the government has imposed in the qualification for child care. That is the lay of the land, and that was just last week in talking with folks in the community about what is happening.

What my advocacy is — and it's in support of the community's call — is for this minister to be the advocate for child care and for this government to change its policy in the funding allocation for child care and actually show British Columbians that they value and prioritize child care by putting the money directly into those services for British Columbians.

Talk is cheap. The minister can say they care about child care all he wants, but the reality on the ground is completely different if you match that with the government's actions to date.

Hon. M. Coell: I'd just like to correct the member on one thing. There were no renegotiations. This deal was signed in September 2000. In the year 2000 it had in it: promote healthy pregnancy, infancy and birth; improve parenting and family supports; strengthen early childhood development, learning and care; and strengthen community supports. Those were there when it was signed. We came into this process and have allocated federal funds into those areas.

I think the two programs together will be a very good match. I understand what the member is saying. She's saying: "We'd like to not do these programs or have someone else pay for them and put the money into child care." That wasn't the agreement with the ministries that this government made. I think the annual report shows these moneys have been allocated to do just what the first program supported.

The second program will fit into this very well in supporting children in a very holistic way — not just with child care but with their health, with their parents' health, with parenting and with strengthening the community supports. I think the two programs will mesh very well for children in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you, if the agreement was not renegotiated with the language — and it's my understanding that the agreement was renegotiated…. Even if it wasn't renegotiated, the commitment from the previous government was that those moneys would go directly into child care. The government has taken money away from child care, and that's the reality. The government has done that. The budget of the provincial government reflects a reduction, year over year, substantively, in the area of child care. There is no denying that. The numbers are there; they are black and white.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. Obviously, the minister would not advocate for the federal dollars from the first initiative to go directly into child care. Obviously, the minister, from his answer today, is not going to be an advocate for that. That is, I think, most unfortunate.

Let me ask the minister this question. There is concern from the community that aside from these programs — and even within some of these programs — a lot of those dollars have not actually gone into supporting children but rather have gone into consulting fees. How much of the federal dollars have gone into consulting fees?

Hon. M. Coell: I can say that in this ministry we have not spent any of the federal moneys on consulting fees.

J. Kwan: In terms of the consulting fees, have they all been spent out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not aware of that, but that would be something to canvass in their estimates.

J. Kwan: It's funny, because I expect that the allegations don't just sort of pop up out there with no substance. In fact, a presentation was made to the Finance Committee on this issue and on the concern that the dollars have actually not gone into supporting children, but rather, substantively, they've gone into consulting fees. Just by way of comparison, here's the information: child care workers make about $10 to $15 per hour on average, and consultants make $40 to $75 per hour. Substantively, according to this presentation, the federal dollars have gone into consulting fees.

The minister says he doesn't know if that's the case out of the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I will certainly canvass with the Minister of Children and Family Development, which is happening in the next set of estimates in the big House. I certainly will canvass that.

Just to be clear, the minister says that none of the dollars out of his ministry went into consulting fees. If it's the case that MCFD federal dollars that should have gone into child care went into consulting fees, will the minister advocate within cabinet for change — that is to say, instead of dollars going to consulting fees, for the dollars to go to directly assisting children?

Hon. M. Coell: As I mentioned, it's something I'm not aware of, but it may be something that could be canvassed in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. As I say, when you look at the funds we got, there don't appear to be any consulting fees that my staff are aware of in here.

J. Kwan: The other question I had of the minister is that…. Yes, I'll canvass these issues with the minister in the Children and Family Development ministry, but if it is the case that, substantively, the dollars have gone into consulting fees instead of services for children, would the minister advocate for change at the cabinet table?

Hon. M. Coell: That's really a hypothetical question. I don't think I could give it justice by answering it.

J. Kwan: It won't be hypothetical for long, because after the bills are debated in the House, I'll be running in there to debate estimates with the Minister of Children and Family Development. CAWS, I'm sure, will not be completed by the time I get to that section and,

hopefully, find out the answer. Then I'll be back to ask the minister this non-hypothetical question.

To be honest, I don't think the folks who put out this presentation to the Finance Committee made up the information. I really don't. I think that the information is factual. The information is on the public record. It is from the Kamloops Child Development Society. Their concern is that the dollars have gone into, substantively, consulting services. It also lays out very good information.

When $100,000 is spent in these areas, here's what it looks like. Every $100,000 spent funds either one supported child care consultant for one year or 16 children in direct child care with two early childhood educators for one year, as an example. Value for money is what they're trying to lay out, I believe, in this presentation — and that direct child care is much better in its value, as an example. I will canvass these issues with the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and it may well be that I'll come back to ask this minister that.

Now, I'd like to just get a better sense of where the minister stands with respect to child care issues so that the community will know at what level and how this minister will advocate on their behalf. There is a document which I referred to earlier called The World Ahead — in terms of this presentation to the Finance Committee by the Kamloops Child Development Society. Aside from the information about consultation dollars, here is the gist of what the presentation says.

It outlines how funding-supported child care instead of direct care puts the majority of funding into the hands of highly paid consultants instead of into homes and centres providing direct child care spaces. The presentation also outlines how funding for direct child care has been cut, how subsidy criteria and thresholds have been changed to reduce the number of families who qualify and how, as a result, many families are not able to afford or have access to licensed care for their children and are dropping out of work or leaving their children in unsupervised or improperly supervised situations. These are the experiences of the Kamloops Child Development Society.

I'd like to ask the minister this question. What is his response to this analysis by the Kamloops Child Development Society?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess when I look at the health and well-being of children in British Columbia, you have to look at it in a very holistic way. You need good education. You need good health care. You need good child care. You need parents with good parenting skills. You can't just draw one group's issues out and say that this is the only thing that matters. It's a very broad and, I think, complex world that children grow up in. We have to make sure, as a government, we're covering many angles thrown in front of children today that will make their lives better and have more opportunities.

I think that everything from revitalizing an economy so parents have jobs through to making sure we have more money in health care and education is important. I think that child care is a component of that overall strategy for better lives for children. It's an important component — but one of the components.

The Chair: Noting the bells have been rung and it looks like a division, we will call a recess until following the vote in the large House.

J. Kwan: Prior to the vote in the big House, the minister's response to my question about the demise of the child care situation in British Columbia was that we need to look at other programs that impact children and their development as well. I agree. Child care is not the only thing, with the exception that here is what he cited: the education situation.

What's happening in education? We'll get the estimates on that as well. The education budget in terms of real money for students in the classroom is actually a reduction from what it was when this government took office. The government likes to claim that the budget has gone up, with the exception that the government has not accounted for increased costs for students and, therefore, for school districts — whether it be inflation as a result of the government's legislated, imposed teacher and supportive staff agreements; whether or not it included increases in fuel costs, since the government increased the taxes on fuel for all British Columbians and, therefore, for school boards, which have to pay them; whether or not it included the government's imposed increased costs in benefits, MSP premiums, for all British Columbians and, therefore, for school boards, which have to eat those increases; whether or not it included inflation, as an example, which is just cost-of-living inflation, and the school boards have to eat those costs as well.

When you add up all the increased costs in real terms of student impact in the classroom, the net result is a reduction in education funding. That is what is really happening. We'll get into estimates debate on education in no time, I'm sure, and we'll be debating those matters for sure. That is the reality in education across British Columbia.

Formerly, under the previous administration, increased costs such as teacher's salaries and supportive staff costs were paid for by government independent of the per-student funding in the classroom. Costs like fuel costs were paid for by the government, and they were not part of the formula calculation on a per-pupil funding basis — as an example. The school board

would not have to eat those costs and find it in their budget to pay for them, but this government has changed the rules. In fact, the increased costs in the classroom are higher than any increase in the education budget by any stretch of the imagination. Education is on the decline as opposed to on the incline for students.

We are now under the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and this has a direct link to the well-being of children. The Ministry of Children and Family Development is cutting $3 million out of a proven program in Vancouver that provides for hot lunches for kids and counselling to help at-risk children to stay in school, to help parents with ESL challenges become more involved with their children in the school system — as an example. The Vancouver school board will now lose $3 million as a result of this government's cut to their programs, impacting children directly in a very, very negative way.

As Raffi says…. I'm now listening to all kinds of new tunes, and one of my daughter's favourite songs happens to be a song from Raffi that talks about what children need. I think all of these programs exemplify the needs of children and are contained in these verses in the song from Raffi: "All we need is a song in our heart, food in our tummies and clean water to drink." It's very simple. It kind of just puts it all very nicely into a tight little package for children's development — what they need. I think each of these programs we talk about fits into that arena.

That is what's happening with education. As we've established already, the child care budget is on the decline in terms of subsidies, making it harder for families to qualify for child care subsidy. The operating dollars are on the decline, making it more difficult for operators to provide the services they need. Child care providers' funding — their salary, their financial compensation — is on the decline because of the withdrawal of the Munroe agreement, which therefore impacts the child caregivers' situation. Referral programs and the like — programs in the community that exist to support our child care community…. Funding in that area is also on the decline. That's what's happening with the child care budget.

The last piece the minister talked about is parents, that we need to account for the importance of parents. I absolutely agree with that. The parents are critical to the lives of their children. I don't dispute that for one moment, but let's look and see where the pressures are coming from.

A family of four — two parents and two children — making, let's say, a salary of about $60,000 actually has to pay more taxes under this administration versus a single person making $80,000 or more. They actually have to pay fewer taxes. The pressures for a family unit with children are increasing under this government's administration. These are the facts. These are directly from the budget book. I'm not making this information up.

When you account for the things the minister says you need to form and put together for a whole picture of what impacts children, unfortunately, all of these areas are faced with negative impacts as a direct result of this government's policies. That's the lay of the land. The Kamloops Child Development Society outlined the situation, and the minister's answer, quite frankly, doesn't address their concerns. The areas I think he hopes would address them don't, unfortunately. They don't. That's the reality.

Let me ask the minister this question. Has the ministry conducted any studies to find out the effects of his policies and how they have impacted children and families in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: These programs are just coming to the end of their first year. As I said earlier, we do plan to review these programs as they unfold, both with the federal agreements as well as the programs we have ourselves.

There was one parent survey done with regard to child care. I don't know whether we have the results of that as yet.

J. Kwan: The minister said they will review the programs at the end of the year. The end of the year is a couple of weeks away. Is the minister talking about a full analysis of the child care policies and then reviewing what the impacts are, based on the government's change to the child care policy? Is that what he's referring to as to what they'll do at the end of the year, which is about two weeks away?

Hon. M. Coell: The parent survey should be completed and posted on the website in the next little while. On the other issue with regard to program evaluation, these programs will see their first year of completion, as the member says, in the next couple of weeks. The member also has been in cabinet and knows that every year you review programs as to their effectiveness and how they can be approved. I think you'd expect that of your professional staff — that on an ongoing basis all programs that were new and initiated had some review to them.

J. Kwan: Yes, I am aware of general reviews in programs, but I am talking about specific analysis, which is different from a general program review.

Let me then ask some direct questions. Will the government be looking into, as part of this review, how many women had to leave the workforce as a result of the direct change related to the government's child care policy changes? As an example, I've come across women who have said to me: "You know what?" They're no longer qualified for the child care subsidy, and so they had to drop out of the workforce because they have no other way to send their children to child care.

What kind of analysis…? I'm not talking about just some sort of broad scope review. I'm talking about in-depth analysis of its impact for women and children and families in our community. Another example,

aside from women leaving the workforce, would be how many children are now in latchkey situations in terms of child care provision. It's another example of concrete analysis into child care policies that have impacted children and families in British Columbia.

Hon. M. Coell: In the parent survey some of those issues were canvassed, and that information should be available shortly. As far as any reviews of our programs that are underway this year, we haven't designed the review process as yet. I will take into consideration the suggestions the member made when we're doing the design of the tool that would review the programs.

J. Kwan: The minister said they will do a review, and that is a full analysis of the child care policy and its changes and how it has impacted our communities across British Columbia. The government has been in office for three years now. The minister says: "Well, the program has only really been one year in terms of real change." I can dispute that, but I'm just going to leave that for a moment, because the budget numbers show in terms of where the changes have occurred over the years.

In that light, given that the minister's saying there would be a full review and full analysis of the situation, when does the minister expect that the tools for the analysis would be completed? When does the minister expect that he will go out into the field and that the ministry will go out in the field? When does the minister, most importantly, expect that he'll find out the full range of the answers on this analysis? When will we have that information?

Hon. M. Coell: Staff have, I think, given me some good advice that on an ongoing basis staff review and make recommendations for changes but that for a program review you'd probably want a program to run for two to three years before it was reviewed. With the program information we're getting from changes made in the new program set, there have been some changes and likely could be some more, but a major program review — like I think the member is suggesting — would probably be at the end of a three-year program.

J. Kwan: Well, that's convenient, so the minister could get away with saying that we won't have any information on what the impacts are until after the next election. Really, effectively, where is the accountability in that?

You would think that given the outcry in the communities now on all of these issues, surely there is some indication of how the government's policies are impacting British Columbians. Surely the minister would have some sense of that. Does the minister have no idea at all, then, of how the policy changes are impacting British Columbians?

Hon. M. Coell: As I've just finished saying — I don't know whether the member was listening or not — we just finished doing a major parent survey, and we're using that to have a look at some minor reviews.

J. Kwan: Well then, okay. What the minister said is that he's done a parent survey. Then I asked for a full analysis. He says, "We won't have that because a program analysis will take three years," so there's no hope of getting any of that information in terms of how the program is doing and what the impacts are.

Let's then go back to some specific questions. Does the parent survey include questions to parents as to how the subsidy has impacted them, as one example? Does the survey include parents that have been disqualified because of the change? Does that include former parents who were qualified, as an example, to get a clearer and fulsome picture of its impacts?

Hon. M. Coell: The survey was a cross-section of 4,000 British Columbians with children under the age of 13. It did have many of the questions that the member has asked. I'll make sure I get a copy of the questionnaire to the member. That full report should be released within a couple of weeks, I'm told.

J. Kwan: Great. The minister said 4,000 parents. Where did the 4,000 parents come from? What sample group did the minister use?

J. Kwan: So as long as you're a parent with children under 13, then you would fall into that. Is there no analysis or separation in terms of income groups? Is it just random across all income sectors?

Hon. M. Coell: The sample is random, but they do have income information. I'll get you a copy of the questionnaire. It outlines all the types of questions and the breakdowns you would expect and an analysis.

J. Kwan: The minister said today. Great. So I'll expect that information. I can take a look at it and see how the survey was done.

Is the minister aware of a study done by the Coalition of Child Care Advocates of B.C., where they surveyed 700 caregivers across British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not aware of that information. I've asked staff if they have a copy of the results. We don't have it here with us at this point.

J. Kwan: I could safely presume though that the minister has it in the ministry and that it would come across the minister's desk…

J. Kwan: …at some point in time. I'm talking about this minister. That's actually an important piece of information, as the minister's gathering information — to review the government policies in child care.

Just for the minister's information, given that he doesn't have a copy in front of him…. Just briefly, here are some of the findings.

It actually does create a bias in terms of the situation in the community. I should say this as well, and this is my own commentary and not from the documentation here. I actually believe that all families need quality child care — all families. I support a universal child care program for all families.

These are just some of the findings of the survey that I've put on record. I would ask the minister to earnestly look into this. I would actually like the minister's response, once he has a chance to look at this survey, to see what his views are and whether or not he agrees with the direction the government is going in. If he doesn't agree and he wants to rectify some of these inadequacies — or inequities, if you will — as a result of the policy changes, how does he intend to bring that about, and what policy changes would he bring about to effect that? I will give the minister an opportunity to look at that, and I will await his response as well.

I should just put on the record, as well, that the former Minister of State for Women's Equality actually admitted that some of the inner-city school child care centres have been hurt by the cuts to the system. That's a matter of public record. It was reported in newspapers, particularly the Vancouver Sun in July of 2003.

Let me ask the minister this question. This ties into the closures, which the minister said he would be providing information about, of child care centres across British Columbia. As it has been reported from a variety of sources, closures are taking place for some of the centres because of the change in the formula in terms of funding for these child care centres. It used to be a different formula than that of enrolment. Is the minister reviewing the funding formula for child care operators?

Enrolment itself does impact equitable access because of different incomes in different neighbourhoods and whether or not parents can pay the full fee. In affluent communities those families tend to be able to pay the full fee, but in lower- and moderate-income families they tend not to be able to pay. Therefore, enrolment affects whether or not a centre is closing. Will the minister look into that question as well, in terms of the closures, in terms of the enrolment question?

Hon. M. Coell: Following on the member's questions and the information she provided, I think it would be safe for me to say that as we're coming to the end of, really, the first full year of these employment programs, staff during this year are going to be looking at some changes, probably minor in nature, for recommendation during the year and then, next year, for changes to programs. I should say I think we obviously have some disagreements on how child care should and could be provided in British Columbia. We feel that in the long term, these changes will be beneficial to parents and children. We will, on an ongoing basis, review the programs to see where you can make changes that would be of more benefit and do that in a sustainable way.

J. Kwan: My question was a very specific one in terms of the impact on child care centres with the subsidy changes. There is a direct relationship to communities that are more affluent and communities that are less affluent, and the funding formula with enrolment impacts negatively for low- and moderate-income communities. Those families are less able to send their children to child care, because they are no longer qualified for the child care subsidy. Therefore, that funding formula has inherent inequities within it by changing it to an enrolment basis.

I'm not talking about general issues around child care. There are many areas, as we've canvassed through these estimates debates, that have established that I am fundamentally at a different place than where this government and this minister are at with respect to child care. I fully acknowledge that, but now we're talking about something very specific in terms of equitable access to child care for all children and the impact of the subsidy changes for low- and moderate-income communities. I'm asking if the government is reviewing the formula for child care centres with that view, to see how access could be more equitable and that the funding formula promotes equality rather than inequality.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and phrase my answer, and it may pose another question. As I said, we look at the program as the right program in the long term. Specifically, enrolment-based funding provides an incentive, we believe, for providers to fill spaces. It's publicly accountable, and it avoids the risk of funding inefficient or poor-quality operators that have low enrolment for reasons other than those we've noted.

We would probably be more likely to fix a change to the subsidy eligibility than we would be to reinstate the subsidy criteria and thresholds, I think — rather than changing to a capacity-based funding model. There may be a difference as to…. We would keep the same funding formula that's there now in the program but look at changes in a different way than the member is possibly suggesting. You may have a further question for me, hearing that.

J. Kwan: What the minister is indicating is that if the link in funding child care centres relates to enrolment and that is the proper funding formula, and that this government's view, because the government wants to weed out operations that are not optimal in their cost-effectiveness in that they might be too small or are not running an optimal centre somehow…. Therefore, the enrolment formula will take care of that, because it would weed out these poor operators.

That's the logic I'm getting from the minister's answer and that he would address the inequities that have resulted in the government's formula with low- and moderate-income communities by separating out the issue related to subsidies as opposed to inefficiencies. How would the minister be able to do that? Is the minister doing an assessment of these centres to determine their operation and whether or not the operation is operating efficiently in the minister's and in the government's view? Then, is the minister also determining the low- and moderate-income communities where centres have to close or are faced with closure because enrolments have gone down because child care subsidy dollars have gone down?

Is the minister studying that specifically, as a subsidies question, and is he therefore able to come to that conclusion? How could the minister separate out these things, or how is the minister proposing that he's going to go about separating out these things and will therefore be able to assess the child care centres' demise?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the simple answer to that question — and I thank the member for the question — is that we're going to continue to monitor the data from this year and into next year to see if there are any changes warranted and then recommend those changes, if they are warranted.

J. Kwan: Is the minister talking about how many people are accessing child care subsidies as a result of the change in the $100 and then monitoring that in terms of what the net impact would be? That's just so I'm clear in terms of just what the minister is monitoring exactly.

J. Kwan: How does that compare now in terms of how many people qualify for child care based on last year's policy change — not the $100 change; the $285 change — versus with the previous administration in terms of the child care subsidy policy for 2000?

Just to clarify my question, prior to the government coming to office, in the year 2000, the child care subsidy policy was different than what the government has put in place. Were the subsidy numbers with the previous administration…? That is to say, how many children are accessing child care through the previous funding formula for a child care subsidy versus the current policy? Sorry, I should say the policy before the $100 change — the $100 reduction in child care subsidies under this Liberal government's policy.

Hon. M. Coell: I think we actually went over this last week. It would have been 37,000 children receiving some sort of level of subsidy. You're looking this year at between 27,000 and 28,000 who would be receiving one form of subsidy level.

J. Kwan: I appreciate that answer. I'm just checking my notes here to see whether or not the minister actually gave me a number on how many in terms of the change. Here's what the minister gave me in terms of information. In the year 2001-02 he advised that it was 38,000 in terms of child care subsidies per month that the province supported. In the year 2002-03 it was 33,000. These numbers are slightly different. The 37,000 and the 27,000 — is that on a monthly basis, or is that the overall average number? What is it specifically?

Hon. M. Coell: What I gave the member was: back to 1999 was the 37,000. Then in April of 2003, when there was actually a $100 increase in the subsidy, it was about 33,000. It has actually still continued to decline — to 27,000 to 28,000 for '03-04 — with that addition of the $100 subsidy. There are a number of other issues at play here too, with the population of children aged zero to 12 expected to decline an average of 1 percent per year till the year 2010, I believe. The population of children zero to six is expected to decline an average of 1.6 percent a year from 2001 to 2006. There are a number of other issues, I think, at play at the same time.

J. Kwan: If we account for a population base that is 1 percent in terms of the decline, etc., you can sort of do a bit of an analysis on what the rate of decline should be. The rate of decline is certainly more dramatic than that of the population decline given the numbers the minister has provided.

My other question related to this, then, is: does the minister have information on the year over year? Let's

start with 1999, because that's the number the minister gave at 37,000. The 37,000 families that received subsidies — what communities did they come from? Do we have that information year over year?

Hon. M. Coell: Staff inform me that they don't have that information. It would be widely dispersed across all of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: I expect it would be widely dispersed, but whether or not there is a greater need for subsidies in lower socioeconomic communities, lower- and moderate-income communities…. That would, I think, shed some light on the question around closures as well. If we know that the reduction in child care subsidies…. How they correspond with the makeup of the communities, particularly on the income level of those communities, is what I'm trying to drive at with these questions. In terms of that analysis of how it impacts lower-income families with the subsidy change and therefore the enrolment of centres and therefore closures of centres…. I would suggest that's an important piece of information to have — to get that kind of breakdown. Is the minister planning on getting that kind of detailed information?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess there are a number of ways of looking at the issue. When you go back, you know, to 1998, there were 5,061 facilities that offered child care. There are now 5,658. During that time, some have closed and some have opened. There has been basically a steady increase, pretty well every year, of facilities. People retire, and people go out of business. They change. Community organizations change. New ones come up. Subdivisions are built, and cities grow, and new child care opportunities grow with cities. The other is…. When you look at the spaces offered, there has been a steady increase during that time, from 67,000 in 1998 to 80,000 in 2003.

There may be facilities or spaces that change, but there actually has been an increase in both over that six-year period.

J. Kwan: Starting in 1998 the minister talks about increases in child care spaces, and so therefore, following the minister's argument, I suppose that with the increase in spaces we must be doing okay in the area of provision of child care. With due respect to the minister, I would disagree with that. It's one indicator to consider in terms of opening of child care spaces. It makes a big difference to understand where these spaces are being opened.

What centres are being closed? Who is accessing child care support, and who is not accessing child care support? What are the barriers that people are faced with in trying to access child care support? In light of the government policy changes, how has it impacted the community? Is there validity to the question around inequities around lower-income and middle-income communities versus more affluent communities on the basis of enrolment? Are more child care centres being opened in more affluent communities? Are the ones in lower-income communities shutting down because the funding formula has changed and the enrolment impact is therefore creating a problem for lower- and middle-income families?

Those are all issues that I'm trying to canvass with the minister and trying to get a clearer picture on. Just because there is an increase in child care spaces does not mean that everything is fine with child care. There are other issues here. In my own community I can tell you that a number of the child care centres I have visited had to shut down. A number of them had to merge with others because of declining enrolment, whereas before the formula changed and before the subsidy issue changed, these child care centres were full. They were fully occupied. In fact, oftentimes there was a huge wait-list, and you literally had to sign on months, if not years, in advance to try and get a spot.

Now that has changed, and I suspect it is not because of decline in population. Nor do I think it is a decline in space. I think it is the change in government policies in its funding of operations and in its funding of the subsides for the parents that is impacting that.

Is there an overall reduction in spaces in lower socioeconomic communities? Those are all pieces of information that we're trying to garner. Those are, I think, important pieces that the minister needs to put together in trying to evaluate the situation in child care in British Columbia.

The minister says he doesn't have the information on the breakdown on a community-by-community basis of who accesses the subsidies. Does the minister have — within the 27,000 people that are accessing subsidies now versus the 37,000 in 1999 — the information pertaining to the levels of income for these families? There is a threshold in which you must qualify, but within that threshold there is still a range depending on how many children you have, etc. Do we know who falls into what category over the years?

Hon. M. Coell: That subsidy data information system is the same system that has been in place for about ten years now. It's the same one they had when the member was in government. We are looking at reviewing it so we can get better information, because it just wasn't set up, I guess, to get that information. We're reviewing it to see whether we can get more information out of it.

J. Kwan: I would say it is important to get that information so that we have a better understanding of the lay of the land with respect to that.

Let me ask the minister this question: how many children are in licensed child care facilities now that have no subsidies? Does the minister know?

Hon. M. Coell: The estimate is that about 104,000 children would be in licensed child care in B.C. and

Maybe I should add to that. Of the 27,000, some would be in licensed, and some may be in unlicensed as well.

J. Kwan: Of the 104,000, some would be in licensed and some would be in unlicensed. That 104,000 number — what does that refer to? Is it just licensed?

J. Kwan: The 104,000 children in licensed child care — what year is that? Is that this year's number, or is it the previous year's?

J. Kwan: That's 2003. Does the minister know what the number is in the previous years, I guess going as far back as 1999, seeing as that's the figure we're using for subsidies?

Hon. M. Coell: It appears that the survey done this year, the 2003…. There was only one previous one done about five years ago, in about 1997.

J. Kwan: Could the minister, when he gets the information, provide me with that information? It would be interesting to see what the base number is in the different years and whether or not that has changed or how it has changed.

J. Kwan: For the record, the minister said yes, so I'll expect that information as well.

Just looking at these numbers so far, what we do know is that there are almost 10,000 fewer families who will qualify for child care since the government's policy change, in comparing 1999 to now — 37,000 to 27,000. I think that tells you something in terms of how this impacted the community — particularly those of lower income, because the threshold is such that you really have to be making very, very minimal income to qualify. Even those that are low income…. You would not qualify, even though you are low income, because the threshold has been changed. I think the numbers we have so far tell you and do paint a bit of a story. It happens to coincide, I think, with what the advocates in the community in child care are saying in terms of the impact. It will be very interesting to get the information from the parents survey from the minister, in terms of the questions that are being asked and the results.

Just to nail down, a little bit, the time frame of when the results would come in for this parent survey, the minister said: "In the next little while." Are we talking about a month, two months, one week, two weeks? What are we talking about?

Hon. M. Coell: There are two areas of interest. The results of the survey would probably be within a couple of weeks. Probably academics will go over the analysis for a number of years. There may be some analysis done in the short term, but we would expect that academics would take this and do an analysis of the raw data results. The raw data results are available very shortly.

J. Kwan: When he gets the results, would the minister release them publicly?

J. Kwan: Posted on the website. In a couple of weeks, then, we could expect to see that. Then the government's analysis on that, with academics and the like, would be released when the analysis — at least the first go at it — is completed. We expect that to be released publicly as well.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that would be the case. I actually haven't seen the results myself, and I intend to do that over the next week or so before it's publicly released. The member, I think, asked if she could have the results of the one done in 1997 as well, and I want to have a look at that as well.

J. Kwan: I'll look forward to receiving the questions asked, as well, from the survey.

I want to just switch gears for one moment, to spousal assault. Previously, when the former minister was the minister, a letter was written to the then minister from the Port Coquitlam council asking the Minister of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services to incorporate spousal assault support into this ministry. I'm just wondering: what is the status of that?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have staff here from that program area. I will send out to get the answer to that question for you.

J. Kwan: Yes, this was just given to me today to follow up on. That is that the city had actually written a letter to the then minister asking the ministry to incorporate programs to support victims of spousal assault. It was formerly in the Ministry of Children and Family Development. I'm wondering what the status is around that request from the council. I'll ask those questions in MCFD, too, when we get to MCFD on the other side.

Okay. That wraps up my questions for the minister around the child care area. There's a bunch of information which I'm expecting from the minister, and the minister says it will be coming. I'll look over that in-

formation to see whether or not I have further questions arising from it. But for the time being, I have wrapped up questions in the area of child care.

I'll simply close with these final points. The government's child care policy and its funding has, in my view, really negatively impacted the child care community and then, in relation to that, the families and the children who need child care services in British Columbia. I think that by cancelling the Munroe agreement, the government is sending a very strong statement of undervaluing the work in this area, the area of child care, that is predominantly provided by women. I think it underscores the lack of action that the government has in the area of pay equity, and that is recognizing equal work of equal value.

If we truly value our children's future and want to invest in them in the early stages, we need to then look at all of these things as a comprehensive package. That is that child care workers really spend incredible time in the early stages with our children that will frame and shape, I think, the future of children and their development. If we don't invest that money up front, then I think we're doing a disservice to both children and our society, economically and socially, in the long term.

These are the studies that we have found, over and over and over again, from all kinds of experts in the field. It's not just me, opposition member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant, saying that. I haven't done the research. I've only looked at the research and the information that came from it, and I think it is important for the minister to look at it in that comprehensive context.

I'm very worried that the child care policy the government has put in place is skewed against low- and middle-income families and therefore is impacting the centres in those communities in providing for child care. I do believe that the funding formula negatively impacts, as child care providers have indicated from their survey, what is happening with the change in the policy. I fundamentally disagree with the government's spending of the federal dollars in the area of child care.

I really believe that those programs that took money away from the first program of the federal initiative, the early childhood development initiative, into health-related areas related to children and pregnancy programs and the like should be funded by the Ministry of Health. They should not be funded from the child care budget point of view. I fundamentally disagree with that.

I would urge the minister — given that he is relatively new to the job here and that there is an opportunity, really, for the government and for this minister to reverse their regressive policies that this government has put in, in the area of child care — to really make a difference in advancing child care and child care services for British Columbians.

With that, Madam Chair, I'd like now to turn to local government community charter issues. I, too, would like to thank the minister's staff for their cooperation and the provision of information to the minister regarding the estimates debate in this area.

Let me begin with this relatively simple question. Following the January cabinet shuffle, the position of the Minister of State for Community Charter was eliminated. Who is now responsible for the Charter and its implementation?

J. Kwan: Have the funds from that previous ministry been transferred to the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and the department that was under the former ministry been transferred to this minister now?

Hon. M. Coell: They actually were all part of this ministry. There was a minister of state responsible, but the budget and all of the employees were still part of the ministry.

J. Kwan: This year's budget estimates show that the local government department has taken a $56 million hit from last year. The $56 million overall cut includes $50 million reduction in local government transfers. Maybe the minister can then advise: what is the rationale for this cut?

Hon. M. Coell: During the budget speech and, I think, during the budget lockup, I suspect the Minister of Finance got some questions on that. The local grants we're hoping to pay out before the end of this year. They'll basically be paid twice in this year's budget, so there won't be a need to pay for them in next year's budget.

J. Kwan: It's the local grants that were paid out in the previous budget. Therefore, it's not being paid out in this year's budget. Did I hear the minister correctly when he said that?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. Before the end of March we'll be paying the grants that they would normally receive sometime in April or May — paying out this year. They'll be receiving the same amount of money. They'll just be receiving it about two months earlier.

J. Kwan: That's interesting. Okay. There's no grant reduction this year for local governments, so all it is, is an accounting change. Am I right in understanding this? The government is using the last year's budget to pay for this year's local grants, so the '02-03 budget is paying for the '03-04 local government grants.

Hon. M. Coell: The province in its financial year April '03 to March '04 will be paying the local government grants — because they run it January to December — January '03 to December '03 and January '04 to December '04. We'll be paying both of those grants out of the April '03 to March '04 ministry budget.

J. Kwan: Why? Why is all the money coming out of last year's budget? What accounting trick is there with this?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry had significant savings in infrastructure grants this year, so they had room to pay both years out of one year.

J. Kwan: Savings in infrastructure grants. Could the minister elaborate on that?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess the simple answer is that we had approved projects that we only pay out when they're complete. Those projects haven't been completed, so that leaves savings in the infrastructure budget for local government.

J. Kwan: The infrastructure grant dollars. Are those provincial moneys? The savings that yields — are those provincial moneys?

J. Kwan: How often is this done — this practice of paying for local government services and transfers out of the previous year's budget? Is this a regular practice, or is this the first time it's happened?

Hon. M. Coell: As far as I know, this would be the first time it's been done.

J. Kwan: How much savings did the minister have from infrastructure grants that allows for the minister to pay for local government services and transfers?

Hon. M. Coell: We won't have that number until March 31, but I think your best estimate would be around $30 million from that particular fund.

J. Kwan: The minister says it's about $30 million, yet the budget number shows a reduction of $56 million overall, which includes $50 million in local government transfers. Where's the other $20 million that is required to pay the entire $50 million in local government transfers from last year's budget?

Hon. M. Coell: There are basically four areas that have a change. In the local government services this year, which is the infrastructure, we won't have spent $35 million. In next year's budget the federal government is actually increasing our recovery by $15 million, and we're eliminating the community transitions by $2.4 million. The heritage budget also has a reduction next year of $3.6 million.

J. Kwan: Let me just get this straight here. On the infrastructure side, the minister is expecting that the federal government will come in with an additional $15 million. Therefore, the federal moneys will then replace provincial dollars in the amount of $15 million, so that's $15 million of savings for the minister. The minister is saying no. Maybe he can explain, because — I'm sorry — I didn't get what he said.

Hon. M. Coell: It's the year-over-year recovery. I can give you an example. In 2003-04 we recovered from the federal government, because of the Infrastructure Works program, $35 million. Next year — or this year, '04-05 — we'll recover $50 million from them, so the net budget is actually smaller. That allows us the room to pay the grants this year.

J. Kwan: Let me just try and get this straight. In the '03-04 year we recovered $35 million from the federal government in infrastructure grants. In the '04-05 year we're expecting to recover from the federal government $15 million.

J. Kwan: Fifty. Oh, sorry. I heard the minister wrong — 50. That's a total of $85 million of recoveries from last year and this year from the federal government.

The minister said earlier that we have a $30 million savings from infrastructure programs, so I asked the question. Because the budget book actually shows a reduction in local government services and transfers in the amount of $56 million, of which $50 million is in local government transfers, the government is able to pay, in advance, local government transfers from last year's budget — that $50 million. That's why it shows there's a reduction in the books.

Of that $50 million, $30 million came out of the savings from the infrastructure grants program. Where did the other $20 million come from? Did it come from the recoveries of the federal government in the '03-04 years? The recoveries are $35 million in '03-04. What does the $50 million in '04-05 have to do with anything? I'm kind of just not following the minister's answer on this.

Hon. M. Coell: Not being an accountant, I'm glad to have one sitting next to me. The local government services — the $30 million to $35 million that we see as a reduction in local government services this year — and then the federal government $15 million recovery actually adds to a total of $50 million that is…. The reduction in expenditure is a credit, and then the increase in the recovery is a credit. When you add them both together, you get the $50 million.

J. Kwan: I'm sorry. I'm still not quite following. Let me just sort out the federal government recoveries. Did I hear the minister correctly? The recoveries for the infrastructure programs — which are a credit to the provincial government's budget — in the '03-04 year are $35 million, so there is a credit of $35 million from

the feds. Then in the '04-05 year there is a credit of $50 million. So that totals, for '03-04 and '04-05, $85 million of credit from the federal government. Did I get that part right? Let me just stop there.

Hon. M. Coell: If you look at local government services and transfers, our gross for 2003-04 is $171.224 million, and we have an external recovery from the federal government of $35 million, which makes our total budget $136.224 million. When you go to the estimates for 2004-05, the estimate for gross is $136.265 million, and we get a recovery from the federal government of $50 million in this year coming up, which makes our total budget $86.265 million. If you look at it that way, you can see where the almost $50 million is for the decrease in the budget.

J. Kwan: Okay. The decrease, then, in theory, is from the federal government's recoveries, the 50 million buck reduction — with the exception, though, that the minister said the decrease is a result of paying local government transfers from last year's budget. That's why there's a decrease, not because there's a credit of $50 million from the feds.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try to explain it this way. If you look at the local government services having $35 million less in it and then you have the federal government actually increasing by $15 million, that's a net of $50 million. With the community transitions being a reduction of $2.4 million and the heritage grant a reduction of $2.3 million, you get to the $56 million net figure.

J. Kwan: Okay. Let's see if I can follow the logic here. Local government services. There was a reduction in the budget of $35 million, and that reduction is in the '04-05 budget.

We're trying to account for where the $56 million have gone — right? So in the '04-05 budget, of that $56 million, $35 million is because of local government grants. It's not an actual reduction in the grant itself; it's just paid for by last year's budget. Then there's a $15 million increase in federal recoveries from the infrastructure programs. That brings a reduction of that $50 million to $50 million. Then there's also a reduction in the community transition, and that reduction is not an actual reduction in programs but a….

J. Kwan: Okay. Sorry. That's an actual reduction in programs of $2.4 million, and then there is an actual reduction in programs of $2.3 million…

J. Kwan: …heritage. That gives you a reduction of $6 million. That accounts for the total $56 million. Okay. Then the savings from the infrastructure program from last year was $30 million. Where did you get the other $5 million to account for this full reduction of $56 million?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said, we now have a calculator here, so we can…. I said the savings were an estimated $30 million, but we're not at the end of the year. It could be $35 million, or it could even be greater than that.

J. Kwan: Okay. We've accounted for the $56 million. Let me just focus on the infrastructure grant savings for a moment. The savings that yield $30 million-plus — because it could be higher than $30 million…. All the programs, all the capital projects, were announced. Does the minister have the breakdown of what projects were announced and when, in what community and when? Does the minister have that information?

Hon. M. Coell: We can provide that information. We don't have it here, but we would have the federal-provincial announcements of the infrastructure programs and then where the actual municipalities are in the development of those programs.

J. Kwan: Yes, I would appreciate that information. When can the minister provide me with that information?

J. Kwan: Okay. Fair enough. I will look forward to that information from the minister tomorrow. Then I'm sure I'll have questions arising from them.

Noting the time, though, in any event, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm pleased to stand before the House today to debate the 2004-05 estimates for this

ministry. Just so you know the staff with me, of course, you all know the deputy minister, Lee Doney. I have along with me Richard Longpre, who's the assistant deputy minister for industrial relations; Betty Notar, who is the assistant deputy minister for skills development; and Ruth Wittenberg, who's the Assistant Deputy Minister of Management Services.

With more than 150,000 employers and two million people working, this ministry plays a key role in the British Columbia economy. In one way or another what we do affects nearly every business and every employee in the province. In the past year our economy added almost 80,000 jobs, and our work has been vital to that growth.

In '03-04 we continued to fulfil new-era commitments to revitalize the economy while protecting vulnerable employees. We continue to encourage employees and employers to develop healthy workplace relationships that lead to good, sustainable jobs. We continue in our commitment to deliver core programs and services in the most cost-effective way possible.

In 2003 this province saw the number of strikes and lockouts cut by more than half. That's eight in the year 2003. There were 18 in the previous year, but more reflective would be the fact that in the year 2000, there were 88 strikes. We've gone from 88 strikes in the year 2000 to this past year with only eight in 2003. That's good news, obviously, because a stable labour relations climate attracts investment, bringing with it more jobs and a stronger economy.

Members of the B.C. Government and Service Employees Union voted overwhelmingly to extend their contract with government for another two years to March 31, 2006. Negotiations for this deal began eight months before the existing agreement was due to expire. In a parallel vote, employees of the liquor distribution branch voted 85 percent to accept contract changes that will allow B.C. liquor stores and distribution centres to remain in the public service while making the necessary changes to pursue modern business work.

An agreement was ratified recently in the community health subsector, and tentative agreements have been reached with the community social services subsector, B.C. Transit, two university faculty associations and the support staff of Prince George's College of New Caledonia. In all, 28 public sector agreements have been negotiated within the zero-zero-zero bargaining mandate.

Still, there have been areas where contract settlements have proven challenging. Last March we brought in a 20-day cooling-off period and returned to bargaining at the University of British Columbia, where a strike by teaching assistants posed a real threat to students completing their academic year. The parties, however, returned to the table and agreed to a mediation-arbitration process to resolve outstanding issues.

In April we appointed an industrial inquiry commissioner to look into a labour dispute at Simon Fraser University that had led to two weeks of rotating strikes by support staff. Both parties agreed to the commissioner's recommendations.

Following one day of job action this past January, the University of Victoria and its teaching assistants ratified a three-year agreement reached with the help of a mediator. That agreement provides financial support for graduate student teaching assistants in the form of a fellowship and a market adjustment to the wages and benefits of second-language instructors.

However, one of the more difficult sector labour disputes over the past year involved B.C. Ferries. Because the parties were unable to meet essential service levels as directed by the Labour Relations Board, government brought in an 80-day cooling-off period under the updated Railway and Ferries Bargaining Assistance Act. We ordered a return to full service on the ferry system and appointed special mediator Vince Ready to work with B.C. Ferry Services and the union. The parties agreed to binding arbitration and have submitted both their positions and responses. From those positions, Mr. Ready will be making selections to the final offers put forward.

In this case, government action avoided a potentially costly blow to the Island economy just before Christmas. In labour relations, our preference is always to let parties work out disputes amongst themselves. However, we will always be mindful of the public interest and will not allow any labour dispute, public or private, to escalate to the point of becoming a threat to the overall economy.

Late last year a work stoppage in the coastal forest sector was having a devastating effect on families and communities throughout coastal B.C. In December the parties told me that this dispute could well last until summer if something wasn't done to resolve the matter. At the request of both the industry and the IWA, we brought in legislation to put these communities back to work and to set the parties on a path to a new agreement. This agreement will take into account the economic viability and competitiveness of the coastal forest industry as well as labour relations stability and interests of unions and employees.

In January of 2002 this government was forced to pass the Education Services Collective Agreement Act to provide a collective agreement covering teachers in the public school system. This was the latest in a long series of government interventions in the sector — regardless of political party. Clearly, there needs to be a better approach to teacher bargaining.

Following meetings with school employers, unions and interest groups, I appointed former deputy Education minister Don Wright as a one-person commission to review teacher bargaining and to develop alternatives. Dr. Wright is consulting with key education groups — including principals, school districts and the B.C. Teachers Federation — on the best structures, practices and procedures that would lead to successful bargaining rather than continued government intervention. His report is due in the fall.

We also saw encouraging signs of recognition among public sector unions that they too have a role in ensuring that we continue to sustain the health care system. In April, with the help of senior ministry staff, a tentative agreement was reached with the B.C. health unions to reduce the costs of delivering hospital support services. Taxpayer savings would have been in the amount of $500 million–plus, all going back into patient care, and health authorities would have contracted out far fewer jobs.

Regrettably, members of HEU and BCGEU and Operating Engineers rejected this tentative agreement. Since then, a number of local agreements have been negotiated between health care workers and the health employers that involve terms similar to those that had been in the tentative agreement.

A consistent labour relations framework affects government as a whole. In November we introduced the Health Sector Partnerships Agreement Act, legislation that opens up opportunities to create improved health care facilities by ensuring that partners who finance, design and build or renovate facilities will be able to operate under the same rules that currently apply to other health employers.

We also took steps this year to ensure that our film industry continues to be competitive in the face of change. Film and television production is a $1 billion industry in our economy, and tens of thousands of British Columbians rely on it for their livelihood. It's incumbent upon us to ensure that the industry remains an economic driver. In November I appointed Mr. Justice David Tysoe to study how the film and television industry is structured and functions and to consider labour relations issues that seem to be hindering the industry's competitiveness with other jurisdictions.

Justice Tysoe came back with a series of recommendations, including ensuring that technical crews and drivers are assigned based on who the employer wants rather than on seniority; developing an internal system to resolve grievances and jurisdictional disputes before the producer is involved; and putting in place a three-strikes rule that says: "Three terminations and the worker can no longer be a member of that film union." It's now up to the unions and the employers to put these recommendations into effect. Judge Tysoe has agreed to meet with the parties to try to facilitate changes to collective agreements.

Mr. Chair, our work goes far beyond dealing just with unionized workplaces. In simple fact, the majority of people working in B.C. are not union members, and they are covered by the Employment Standards Act. Giving workers and employers greater flexibility in employment standards to negotiate mutually beneficial relationships that help them compete and prosper was a key commitment we made three years ago.

In 2003-04 we continued to make regulatory changes to meet the needs of employers and employees in specific sectors, including high technology, aquaculture and agriculture. Balancing this greater flexibility has been the improved protection for vulnerable workers. This past year we signed a memorandum of understanding with the agriculture industry that provides better education for employees and employers and continued site visits by employment standards enforcement staff. We also brought in a requirement that farm labour contractors pay workers through a direct deposit system to ensure that people are paid properly.

Certainly, when we look at employees who need protection, we first have to consider the needs of young people in the workforce, and we've heightened that protection considerably in the past year. Going from a permit system that was cumbersome and ineffective, we brought in very specific rules for young people who are 12, 13 or 14 years old and who want to work. That includes a requirement that a young employee be under direct supervision of an adult at all times, and backing up these rules are mandatory penalties of $500 to $2,500 and to $10,000.

Further discussions are ongoing with various sectors as we work to identify and eliminate barriers so that our economy can once again become number one in Canada. At the same time, we continue to target those sectors that have proven to be a problem with employment standards compliance.

It's good to have a job, and it's good to be well paid, but it's vital that people have safe workplaces. How much do workplace injuries cost our economy? In 2002 there were three million worker-days lost to workplace injuries. Compare that to 76,000 worker-days lost to strikes. The WCB, the Workers Compensation Board, paid out more than $930 million in claim costs for that year alone.

One particular industry we focused on in the past year has been forestry. There are an average of 25 fatalities each year in B.C.'s forests. The people who have died in the woods are our family members, our friends and our neighbours. We owe it to them to find a way to make working in the forests a safe place.

Last July I appointed a task force made up of senior representatives from the forest industry, the IWA, fallers, contractors and the Workers Compensation Board to target the unacceptable rate of death and serious injury in the forest industry. The task force has made 20 recommendations, including developing a sectorwide safety accord that will guide changes in attitude, procedure and operation, resulting in a new safety culture; creating an industry-owned-and-operated health and safety infrastructure that would include prequalification and certification of forest companies, contractors and independent operators; developing uniform training and certification standards for workers; and providing financial incentives for firms that adopt and operate according to a sectorwide safety model.

To make the task force recommendations a reality, industry will now form an operational team. We'll develop a plan of action with the larger forest community to gather feedback, work through the recommendations and implement changes to make B.C.'s forests safer places to work.

One of the fundamental ingredients for prosperity in B.C. is having a qualified and competent workforce.

Growing B.C. businesses need skilled workers to produce quality products and services, and a skilled workforce will attract businesses looking to relocate in B.C. My ministry is directly involved in ensuring that we maximize the employment and skill development benefits from the 2010 Olympic Games and related public investments. We're working with our partners in all levels of government, as well as with employer organizations and first nations, to put in place a provincial human resource strategy that will ensure that B.C.'s economy is not held back by critical skills shortages.

There have been no shifts or changes from the goals outlined in the 2003-04 to the 2005-06 service plan. In the coming year we will continue to work on a number of priorities to honour the commitments we have made, including continuing to monitor the industrial relations environment in British Columbia and assist in maintaining industrial relations stability; continuing to work toward increased compliance with the Employment Standards Act and to foster fair, productive and harmonious workplaces that promote prosperous businesses, quality working lives and a strong, growing economy; monitoring labour market trends and developments and providing information and advice for industry-led human resource planning; and ensuring that we are focusing resources on effective delivery of our core services.

In the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour, our goal is to make B.C. a better place in which to live, work and do business, because more than anything else, our economic recovery depends on having workplaces that work, workplaces where employers and employees are moving forward.

We need a stable labour relations climate that balances the needs, rights and responsibilities of all parties in the workplace. We need employment standards that give employers and employees the ability to work together to prosper. We need to effectively protect the vulnerable employees, and we need safe workplaces. We need a trained workforce with the right skills to make B.C. competitive in the coming decade.

Mr. Chair, with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions with respect to this ministry from those that may have them.

B. Locke: Today's seniors are living longer and healthier. While I fully support and understand that a lot of them want to retire at the age of 65, others really love their jobs and want to work — maybe only part-time, but they want to work — to make their retirement easier financially and for a number of reasons. Can the minister tell me how we deal with mandatory retirement in the government sector, in Crown corps and in the private sector?

Hon. G. Bruce: In actual fact, the age 65 — the mandatory retirement age for B.C. government employees — falls under the Human Rights Code through the Attorney General. However, I think it would be incumbent upon government at this point to take a look at reviewing that. Certainly, in the private sector, there is nothing that requires anyone to retire at 65, apart from those that may be under a collective agreement where they have an agreed-upon retirement age.

The member makes a good point. I find that the older I get, the younger the older guys look. When you put that all into effect, there's a whole pile of older young guys that would like to continue working that are not retiring at 65.

From our standpoint as a government, I think it's an area we should be revisiting.

B. Locke: Thank you, minister. You still make me feel young, so that's a good thing.

A number of my constituents talk to me about the training wage. I wonder if you can tell me how the training wage is working. Did it achieve the goals you had hoped it would?

Hon. G. Bruce: We don't have anything definitive, or empirical information that I can give to you. What I've looked at generally in that particular part is that we now have 13,000 more younger people in that category — 14, 15, 16 — that are working today, that are in the workforce, than what was there before. It was really meant to be, and still is…. We often call it training. What it really is meant to be is a first job wage, entry level.

I think one has to go back in history a little bit as to why we brought that in. We've had successive minimum-wage increases, from $7.15 to $7.35. I think it went to $7.80 and then up to $8 per hour. We also were coming out of one of the most disastrous periods of time, particularly for small business, under the former NDP administration and from the standpoint of trying to encourage small business to hire again. What was actually happening, which I had noticed within my community, was that with the increasing minimum wage, small business was more and more reluctant to hire on, particularly younger people. This was meant to encourage them.

I have it anecdotally from a number of different business associations that they haven't found there's been a great uptake in respect of the $6 wage limit. The other interesting thing is that as the economy starts to turn and demographics start to change, the minimum wage becomes less and less a player because of the demand for people to be part of the labour force — such as Alberta. I think the minimum wage in Alberta is $5.85, and from what I hear, there are very few in Alberta that pay less than $10 an hour, if not more, because of the fact that they've got to keep people.

A strong economy and a good business climate will encourage employment opportunities and will reduce the need for or the dependency on minimum wages. It will also probably start to impact so that there'll be

fewer and fewer who would even be taking advantage of the $6 first job wage entry level.

From where we're coming from and what we're trying to achieve, I think it's been successful only in that there are 13,000 more young people working. I'd put that into the full context of the fact that there have been 160,000 jobs created in British Columbia from, I think, January 2001 to today, and there are over two million people working in British Columbia, which is the largest number of people working in the province in the history of B.C.

B. Locke: With that entry-level wage, there was some provision for fines for employers that would maybe take advantage of it. Can the minister tell me if there have been any of those fines levied against employers that were perhaps unscrupulous?

Hon. G. Bruce: We've had sporadic complaints, but there have been no determinations written, and the evidence compiled hasn't justified a determination.

B. Locke: I'd like to ask a couple of questions about firefighters, if I could. One of them was with regard to presumptive cancer with WCB as a result of firefighting. I know that the firefighters have spoken to the minister, and I wonder if he had looked at that or if there were any plans for changes to WCB.

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes. In late spring of last year, I think, I met with the firefighters. The whole issue had been canvassed with the Workers Compensation Board. At the UBCM there had been a resolution passed, as well, to have the cancers put on the schedule. We, of course, have been working through a process of science to make sure it's science-based. The board — I'm not sure if it was the entire board of the workers compensation system or just the chairman — has met with a representative group of municipalities and employer groups, and firefighters, as well, in an effort to bring this issue along. It'll be forthcoming to the WCB as it goes through its peer review in regard to the science to sustain or justify this.

Hon. G. Bruce: No. That hasn't come back here, and I'm not sure I've actually heard that that's been to the WCB.

B. Locke: That's it for me. I want to thank the minister for his answers. I appreciate it.

J. Kwan: Let me start off with this statement. We in the opposition understand that it is the government's call to decide what ministries get called up for debate. We were advised by the Government House Leader that we were going to be debating in this House the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, after which we will go into Agriculture, Food and Fisheries.

During the half-hour dinner break we had, the Government House Leader, which is the MLA from Chilliwack, phoned and advised that the government's going to be switching that order and that we would be going into the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. You know, I have to say that we have to do what the government says. Those are the rules by which we play. However, it would be nice, though, if the government could actually keep their word or, if they don't, give the opposition a little bit more notice than half an hour in terms of change. That's exactly what we got for this set of estimates debate, and quite frankly, it's not acceptable.

As the government knows, there are only two opposition members, and there's an enormous amount of work we have to undertake. It's challenging because of those circumstances, and also because the government told us what the orders would be, and we've been preparing our estimates accordingly. In the ninth hour the government decides to change just like that and break their word, which I know they regularly do. Quite frankly, Mr. Chair, that's simply not acceptable.

Having said that, I'll be it. Here we are, so we will start estimates debate in this ministry, and I'll begin estimates debate in this area. My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, the House Leader for the opposition, is debating bills in the Legislature. When she completes those bills, we understand, as the government advised us, we'll be moving on to the Ministry of Children and Family Development — if there are no sudden changes at the last minute. In that instance, the member for Vancouver-Hastings, the Opposition House Leader, will switch with me. I will go into the big House and begin estimates debate on the Ministry of Children and Family Development, and my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings will take over with estimates debate on this ministry.

Let me start, first of all, by asking the minister these questions around the service plan. On page 8 of the service plan, which provides for a resource summary, the resource summary refers to the ministry's budget cut of $6.825 million and then references a change made by this government as of January 5, 2004, whereby the Labour Relations Board began to charge fees for applications made under the Labour Relations Code and for the mediation services it provides. How much is the ministry projecting the LRB will bring in as a result of these new fees?

Hon. G. Bruce: Not to be argumentative, but I can't just let comments go unchallenged. It's in my nature not to do that. I'm not involved with the goings-on as to which particular estimates are coming due, but usually there's a fair amount of give and take. I would suspect that if there were a change, it was for good reason. Whether or not there wasn't enough give or take or what have you on the opposition's part I don't know,

but I would suspect that there was probably something more at play than just that.

J. Kwan: Seeing as the minister actually provoked a response from me in terms of the change of schedules for the estimates process, all the opposition was told was that we're switching. We were told beforehand, this morning, that we were going to be doing the debate in the big House on the legislation in committee stage on the three bills the Solicitor General had brought in. After that we would go into the Ministry of Children and Family Development. In this House we would debate the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, and then if we completed those estimates today, then we would move on to Ag, Food and Fisheries. That was the procedure we were going with.

At the supper break at a little after six, we were told by the Government House Leader — it used to be a ministerial assistant who did that work, but it now is undertaken by an MLA — that that's all been switched. In terms of the give and take, we often do provide….

H. Bloy: I do, yes. We've heard this, and we should move on with the questions.

The minister did respond to the member, and the member has a right to respond to the minister.

That's all that I'm doing. The opposition was just told, with less than half an hour's notice, that we have switched the order of things — that in this House we're now going to be debating the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. That was not what we were told half an hour before the dinner break.

What I'm saying is this. A little bit of courtesy would be nice. A little bit of order for government business would be nice. Notice for the opposition in terms of how we are to do our work and organize our plans toward the work we do in here would be nice. The government consistently throws any of the plans they've put on the table out the window at a snap of the fingers, just like that. Just because the government has a large majority does not mean that they can abuse the system, and that's what the government is doing. They're abusing the system.

Already, as it were, today my colleague and I, because most of the matters that have been debated in this House happen to fall under my area of responsibility, worked it out to split up — because we have to split up. She's taking the bills I would normally debate in the big House so that I could continue on with the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services. My colleague normally takes labour issues, and she would normally start the estimates in this House.

Because of the flip-flop that continuously goes on with this government, we're unable to plan accordingly without huge interruptions, quite frankly. There's just no other word to use than abuse, and that's what's happening here in this estimates process from this government. With that, I'd like to ask the minister the question around the resource summary.

When a union is covered by essential services legislation, the process is that the employer and the union sit down in mediation at the Labour Relations Board and negotiate the essential service levels during the dispute. Under this new policy the fees that would be charged to unions to establish…. Actually, let me ask: will there be fees charged to the unions to establish the essential services levels?

J. Kwan: The minister says no, so the $300,000 the minister is expecting to collect with this new fee does not include discussions for essential services levels. Is there any anticipation that the government will change in terms of the fees?

Hon. G. Bruce: As it relates to essential services, which I think was the first question, the answer is no. I think the second question was still related to essential services levels, and the answer is no.

J. Kwan: That's interesting, because information we've received seems to indicate a different answer from the minister.

The minister says no mediation fees were charged to the unions last year to recover costs for mediation. Let me just be clear on the record here so that there's not misinformation provided by the minister.

J. Kwan: Could the minister break down, then, the fees charged? The $300,000 the minister expects to collect for the fees charged — exactly where do they apply?

Hon. G. Bruce: These are estimates, as we know. They'll be around the filing of fees, also days of media-

tion. There'll be $250 per day charged for days of mediation and also filing for appeals.

J. Kwan: So $250 a day for mediation and the filing of the appeals. The $250 for mediation — is that pay for the mediator? Is that what that cost is associated with?

Hon. G. Bruce: Yes, that's correct. It's basically for the reimbursement for the time of the mediator.

J. Kwan: So the unions are charged $250. Is it the case that the employer is also charged $250?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's $100 for the filing of an application, $50 for responding to it, $200 for filing of an appeal and $50 to respond to it.

J. Kwan: So there are no fees charged for mediation related to essential services legislation. These fees do not apply, as the minister says, and there are no plans to change that, as the minister says. He said no is no.

Are there any health care dollars going into the labour relations process, the LRB?

Hon. G. Bruce: Everybody pays, public or private, who files at LRB for a variety of applications.

J. Kwan: Are there any other categories for which fees are not charged? The minister said that in essential services negotiations no fees are charged in those mediation processes. Are there any other areas in which no fees are charged?

I've just noticed that there's no quorum in this House. It's required to have ten members in this House, and there are only one, two, three, four, five, six — including yourself, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It would appear we have a quorum present now, so we will continue.

Could the minister advise: the fees that are charged — is it just cost recovery, or does it go over and above cost?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's not cost recovery. This is, in a way, to help to defray costs.

Hon. G. Bruce: There are three mediators, and then there's a fourth who is a vice-chair and who also does mediation work.

J. Kwan: The number of mediators totals four, essentially, because the vice-chair also does mediation work. How does that compare to previous years? How many mediators were there in previous years?

J. Kwan: There's been a significant reduction in terms of mediators doing mediation work. Given that a number of collective agreements expire in 2004, does the minister expect that the three mediators plus the vice-chair could actually carry on the negotiations that would be required?

Hon. G. Bruce: Absolutely. As the member would know full well, we actually have a modicum of labour peace in this province. I think in the year 2000 — in the last year of the member's administration, the NDP — there were 88 strikes. In the year 2002 there were 18. In the year 2003 there were eight. As the member would well know, to this point in the public sector dispute negotiations we've had 28 negotiated settlements between the parties, which is really quite something. We've also seen a number of innovative approaches in the private sector. More people are working today in the province than ever before with fewer labour disruptions — actually, more labour peace — more jobs, more businesses expanding. The economy is starting to turn around after ten tumultuous, terrible years under the member's former administration.

J. Kwan: You know what? The minister has missed a page from his spin doctors. Of course, that's the page I know Martyn Brown does not share with the members from the government side — including ministers, I expect — because the unemployment number is actually up with this government. It's actually up with this government. Here's the record for this government to be singing its praises about its economic performances.

We actually have a situation in British Columbia where communities are hurting in an unbelievable way because of this government's inability to address the economic situation faced by many British Columbians and because of this government's failed economic policy. It's the policy they ride on that says: "The tax cuts for big corporations and the wealthiest British Columbians will pay for themselves." As we now know, those tax cuts do not pay for themselves.

Who's getting hurt by all of this? British Columbians, particularly middle-income and lower-income British Columbians. That is in addition to the tax shift that this government has brought to British Columbia.

This government has brought in a shift in tax policies that is causing moderate middle–income, middle–low income families and seniors to have to pay more in taxes and fees that this government has imposed. A family of four making $60,000 is paying more taxes today than a single individual.

J. Kwan: A family of four with two kids making $60,000 is paying more taxes than a single individual making $80,000. This government says: "Oh well. That's very helpful, and it's good for families." Well, actually, it isn't good for families. The tax shift is such that the higher your income is, I suppose one could argue, the less responsibilities, given that a single person doesn't have the responsibility of children. They're paying less in taxes. That's the tax shift and tax burden this government has brought on, and this government cheers and says, "Hooray. This is wonderful" — from the minister who says, by the way, there is labour peace. It's only this minister who, since he took office, time and time again brought in emergency legislation to whack unions. That's exactly what this government's done — the transit strike, the nurses labour dispute, the teachers labour dispute, to just name a few. They brought in essential legislation.

I might add that in the teachers labour dispute, this government legislated a collective agreement and then said to school boards, "Yeah, yeah, yeah. Don't worry. Everything will be fine," and then decided that they won't pay. They won't pay for the legislated wages for teachers and support workers in the school system. School districts now are stuck with that increase in costs in addition to other increases in costs — MSP costs; fuel costs; increases in taxes, one might say, in other areas.

So even though the meagre increase in education that this government likes to claim they have put into the area of education…. In reality the funding for students in the classroom has actually gone down. That's the record of this government, and that's what this government is doing with respect to funding our education system and creating labour peace in British Columbia. They just legislate them and threaten them and then privatize them. That's what the government is doing with respect to that.

The minister projects to collect $300,000 in fees in terms of mediation services. Does the minister have a breakdown of the areas in which mediation services would be required and the fees received from the different areas?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't know if the member opposite realized that for the first time in six years there are now people moving back to British Columbia. More people are moving back to British Columbia than left the province. If ever there were a damnation of government policy, it would be in British Columbians or people from that particular jurisdiction leaving. During the ten years of the former member's administration, we saw family, friends and businesses leave this province and go to other jurisdictions. May the Lord help us if they ever get back in power, because that's exactly what will happen again. It's scary.

In fact, there is a turnaround. You've seen very substantive growth. Now, the member can flip around numbers and everything else, but of course there are more people looking for work today in this province, because there is much more opportunity. You actually have people moving back to this province because there is a taxation structure that is now enticing. Guess who those people might be when they move back. They could be doctors, which I think this member talked about lots of times.

We'd like to have doctors move to this province. We train more doctors. There would be nurses. In fact, our tax cuts to a nurse of, I think, four or five years would be around $600 per year. Actually, the tax cuts to a machine operator at the pulp mill in my community would be about a thousand dollars a year. That's actually all real money in the pockets of British Columbians.

In fact, British Columbians today have more money in their pockets than they did before. The average hourly wage has gone from $17 to $19 during the course of our administration. It still leads the Canadian average. The weekly wage is up in British Columbia. The fastest growing component of wage increases is at the $25-an-hour mark.

All of those things combined…. What you're actually finding is that people now identify with British Columbia as a place for some opportunity and hope. You've seen housing starts that have gone up. Housing starts have gone up about 21 percent — I believe that's the figure for housing starts — which, in fact, is a true indicator of British Columbians' confidence in the future. You don't go and build a house when you don't feel you have a future to live there. Real estate sales and transactions are up at an incredible rate. It's all of those things together.

Now, of course, the member mentions that interest rates are low. That's true, and that's an important part of all this. The funny thing is, you know, that if you actually need to worry about interest rates — that means because you have to borrow money — and if you have to borrow money, one of the questions they usually ask you if you're taking out a mortgage or buying a car or whatever, when they're going to lend you some money, is: "Do you have a job? And what are the prospects for the future of maintaining and sustaining that job?"

All of those things go along and are combined to show a pretty serious change in the economic well-being of working families in British Columbia, which is something this government is very, very keen on and interested in — making sure that our families can live in their communities, live in their homes and keep their homes for themselves and that their businesses can grow and prosper.

In respect to your question about mediation, as issues arrive in respect to labour disputes, mediation may be called for or asked for, and at that point, that's the manner in which we will go about allocating that mediation. This is a best-guess estimate, but as I mentioned, it's only an attempt to offset costs. It's not full cost recovery.

J. Kwan: The minister says the housing starts are great, so that's a sign of the economy in terms of how they're doing. You know, that works for the lower mainland, but for a lot of different areas in British Columbia, housing starts are actually down. In fact, you have some communities where people are trying to sell their homes at dirt-cheap values. That's because of the failed economic policies of this government.

Yes, housing starts have ramifications related to interest rates — absolutely. Interest rates are extremely low, so it's more economical for people to buy houses. Therefore, that drives the economy in terms of people purchasing homes, particularly in the lower mainland. That certainly is the case. The minister says, "Well, you know, maybe that's an indication of how bankers, perhaps, who are evaluating those applications as they come in for mortgages…."

Hon. G. Bruce: But they have to have a job. Have you ever gone in and tried to get a mortgage and not have a job?

J. Kwan: …and asking if I've ever gone into the bank to get a loan when I don't have a job.

As a matter of fact, I bought a home a few years ago, and I suppose one would say that my job is not one that has full security. Every five years — formerly five years, up to five years — the electorate gets to decide, if I should seek re-election, whether or not I should have a job. It's up to them. Maybe by that interpretation of the minister's, one could then say that those who evaluated my mortgage application made a determination that I have a very secure job in my role as MLA for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant for the NDP.

By implication, it's interesting that the minister should mention how things are going. We've just had a poll to show how things are going, and things are going quite well. Maybe — who knows? — the bankers use that as their evaluation to make a determination with those who apply for mortgages as politicians. The polls actually show that the NDP is doing very well. In fact, we've surpassed the Liberal government in terms of their performance, according to the latest poll.

J. Kwan: If we look at the performance of the Premier, we'll know that the opposition leader, Carole James, is doing very well indeed, and that British Columbians, according to the latest poll, generally speaking, have more faith in her.

J. Kwan: The minister is saying: "Well, why isn't she in the House?" Don't worry. The leader for the NDP will be in the House after the 2005 election — no need to worry — and maybe before. Who knows?

J. Kwan: Anyway, just to answer the minister's question on this issue, the minister need not worry about Carole James. She will be in the House — make no mistake about it. Maybe what the minister should worry about is how many by-elections there might be between now and the next election as a result of people from his own caucus fleeing this party like a plague.

The polling numbers speak for themselves, and I think they speak to the issue around the economy that the minister brought up. The government said: "Don't worry; the tax cuts will pay for themselves." That economic policy, which they said will undoubtedly resolve all the economic woes in British Columbia…. It turns out that is not the case. British Columbians, I may say, don't have as much faith as this minister does in the economy. The unemployment rate, the minister said, is actually the best it's ever been. Well, no, it isn't. The unemployment rate has just gone up.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Madam Chair. You know, it would do the members well if they want to raise a

point of order to learn the rules of the House. Estimates debate is such that members could actually engage in a discussion before a question is asked for 15 minutes. That's exactly what I'm doing, according to the rules of the House, and it would do the member well, if he thinks he's being smart by raising points of order, to actually learn the rules of the House.

There we have it. The economy, in my view, is worse. Talk to the people that this government likes to call the heartlands, which the community out there would like to call the "hurtlands." That's what the government is doing. People are suffering out there, and they're hurt by this government's policies. There's no two ways about it. The economy? Unfortunately, I wish the economy was performing well, but unfortunately it isn't. It isn't.

The minister says the $300,000 figure is a projection in terms of best guesses at the amount of the fees that would be generated for the mediation services, but he doesn't necessarily know which area the mediation fees would be charged to, to contribute towards this projection. Could the minister advise how many public sector unions' collective agreements are up or expire in 2004?

Hon. G. Bruce: I have that; I don't have it here. I'd be happy to get it for you. There are a large number of public sector unions, and as I mentioned, quite a few of them have settled. I do have that. I regretfully don't have it with me in the chamber here.

J. Kwan: When the minister can provide that information, I would appreciate it. I expect, actually, as I mentioned earlier, many of the public sector unions' collective agreements are up in 2004. I am worried and concerned that the number of mediators the government has will not be sufficient to deal with the number of collective agreements that will expire in 2004. Does the minister know how many collective agreements have expired and have been renewed through negotiations — or are coming up to expiration, I should say?

Hon. G. Bruce: Again, I'm going by memory. We've had 28 collective agreements negotiated. Of course, none of them, in that group, required any mediation services. It is a large period of time, but you have to remember, too, that the bigger ones have settled.

BCGEU — that's 35,000 employees. They just settled prior to Christmas. We still have the HEU before us to be negotiated. They're in negotiations right now. That's the Health Employees Union. The British Columbia Nurses Union is up. As the member is aware, the BCTF, the B.C. Teachers Federation, is up. They're actually in the process of going through a restructuring program and are looking at the structure of negotiations right now.

Of the 28 — of course, not to be confused in respect of the question you asked me — those are settled. They didn't require mediation services. Again, I'll get you the number of those that still have to be negotiated.

Hon. G. Bruce: The largest one in mediation right now is ICBC. I stand corrected in respect to the utilization of the mediator we used in, I think, the UBC and UVic faculty. When I said that in the 28 settlements we didn't use any mediators, we did at UVic and UBC.

J. Kwan: Yes, if the minister could provide us with the list, then, that would be useful and helpful. Thank you.

All right. Let me ask the minister about issues around the human resource strategy in terms of the potential skill shortage in British Columbia. The 2004 Premier's letter to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour states that the ministry will continue to work to "monitor labour market trends and developments and provide information and advice for industry-led human resource planning." Could the minister please advise what is meant by industry-led resource planning and how he intends to follow up on the goals set for him by the Premier?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's a comprehensive look at the demands in the marketplace today. First of all, you want to make sure, as people would know, that we don't get caught up in the flavour of the month of where the shortages are, where you make decisions based on what seems to be popular information but not necessarily factual information. You can go about a whole training process and then find, at the end of the day, that the shortage was cyclical — for that moment, if you like — and not structural, as we have found in a couple of other instances.

What we're attempting to do through this whole process is work with industry and business and educational institutions to get the best and most concise information we can in respect to where we think the shortages will be as we go forward. There's no doubt there are demands already happening as this economy starts to turn around. Also, in regards to demographics, you have this aging population which we all seem to be part of, unfortunately, and….

With those combined, there will be just the natural demographic change that will take place which will require more skilled trades in a number of different areas. What we're trying to do through that process is work to make sure we've been able to focus in on the real areas and put our efforts in those areas, as we're already starting to do. Health care is one, with nursing — the new nursing spaces that are being created in the province — and physicians.

We know that there'll be demands in transportation. We know, at this point, that there's a construction demand. We're trying to ascertain how much of that is cyclical and how much of it is regional. The construction industry moves with fair freedom. A number had left the province — small construction firms and big — in the past. They're now coming back to British Columbia, but the actual demand is outpacing their return.

We also know, in that respect, that with the renewed and new interest in oil and gas, particularly in the northeast sector of this province, there's a tremendous demand for employees up there. I just came back from there. Anybody that wants to work can be working, virtually. In three or four days of some limited training, you can be making somewhere in the neighbourhood of $7,000 to $8,000 a month. It's tough work, but there's a demand there.

What we would want to be careful of is even though there's that initial demand as this industry starts to take off, what's the long term of it. I don't mean the long term in the oil and gas sector but the long term in the continued expansion of the employment levels there. Once you get your base workforce up, you're drilling a well, you get her all set up and going, and the crew can then move to the next well. At this point they're outpacing themselves in the demand. In fact, there are some wells that are underdrilling that work on three shifts, altogether — two shifts a day. Each shift is 12 hours, so one shift is always off. They've actually had to shut some wells down because of the fact that they haven't had that extra drilling crew available.

We want to make sure, as we're working in that instance with industry, how much of it is actually structural and then how much of it would be cyclical between high times of drilling and exploration work and regular times of just making sure and maintaining, sustaining the pumps themselves. We're all working through those types of things with industry to make sure we have a well-trained, skilled force as we move from this day forward.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that he's working with industry to develop this plan. Could he advise how he is working with industry? Is he consulting with them on a regular basis, and they're then letting the minister know they expect a shortage in this area or in that area? What is the process the minister is embarking on?

Hon. G. Bruce: There's been continued work with employers in eight different sectors to determine from them their concerns about skill shortages today and moving forward and what solutions they're employing to deal with what they consider to be shortages in the future in their field. We've had discussions with academic experts in the field of labour market issues on analysis of today's skill shortages situation and the risk of future skill shortages and research on the effectiveness of various solutions. There are different ways to deal with this. Detailed analysis of a number of data sources determines the nature and extent of skill shortages today and determines which occupation and industry sectors will likely face future skill shortages. There's been a fair amount of work in and through the sectors to actually drill down and try and get past what we might think is a shortage.

I guess I always liken it to whether or not I would recommend to one of my kids, "Hey, you ought to spend two or three years training in this particular field," and they put the time and the money in that and then turn around and find that it was a demand at that period, but by the time they had got through their training, the jobs had…. It hadn't been a structural demand. It had been cyclical and filled by people shifting and moving within the economy.

J. Kwan: The minister mentioned that there are eight sectors. What are the eight sectors?

Hon. G. Bruce: The construction industry, tourism, forestry, technology, small business, retail, transportation, and oil and gas.

Hon. G. Bruce: Sure. Construction, tourism, forestry, technology, small business, retail, the transportation sector, and the oil and gas industry.

J. Kwan: I know there are no sectors that include, as an example, people who might be required, especially, I think, in the university level. This would be professors and people with PhD backgrounds to take over that aging workforce. I understand there is a skill shortage looming in that sector as well.

The areas the minister has laid out don't include that. Is there some other work being done for these other areas in the professional — I guess this is what we might call them — areas?

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry. I was only mentioning those sectors in regard to the private sector. PSEC, as in the public sector, reviewing…. Certainly, there's been a great deal of work done in the health field because of the growing demand and worldwide concern in that respect and, as well, the educational sector in the professional end — in the faculty, university college.

J. Kwan: Is it, then, to say that for the professional…? Let's just call them the professional sector. The skill shortage involved in those areas — does that fall under the minister's area of responsibility? Or is that being done by somebody else?

Hon. G. Bruce: The human resource strategy takes into account all aspects, including the private sector and the public sector. There are different leads as we try and gain the required information. In the instance

of the public sector, that's PSEC that takes the lead. In PSEC there'll be health information that's fed in, and there'll be educational information that's fed in. We're taking and compiling all of that with both the private sector and the public sector so that we can get a very good — as good as you can get — view of what the world looks like today and where we think it's going relative to, as this economy turns, the demands in both the private sector industry and the public sector and, specifically, the health sector.

J. Kwan: With the private sector, the eight different sectors the minister has outlined, who from industry did he consult with in these sectors?

Hon. G. Bruce: The different associations we have in the province. Just to name a few, the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; the Canadian Federation of Independent Business — the construction association, CLRA, would be one — the Business Council; the Retail Merchants Association; the small business coalition, I would imagine; the Retail Council — as broad a cross-section as we can get with respect to the association bodies there that bring their information they're finding from their members.

J. Kwan: Actually, I just got passed a list of the people who participated in this exercise by the minister, and in fact, according to this list, there are a few associations I see that are on this list. Four I can see are the B.C. Construction Association, the Mechanical Contractors Association, the Independent Contractors and Businesses Association and the Vancouver Regional Construction Association.

Then there are a couple of chambers of commerce — the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and the Prince George Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry. There's one more association, the Interior Forest Labour Relations Association. Then the rest of them look to me like private companies. That's what the list actually looks like to me. This is, I guess, what the minister or the Premier meant by industry-led. Essentially, most of the participants are industry representatives.

J. Kwan: It's interesting in terms of this. The minister says: "As opposed to…?"

One might expect that if there was a broad range of representation around the labour skills shortage question faced by British Columbians, by the provincial government, the government would have, in addition to business representatives and a few of the associations that I've identified, perhaps, workers at the table as well — people actually out in the field who are doing the work — independent or otherwise, saying, "Hey, there's a huge shortage in this area or that area," or whatever. But I don't see that, actually.

The minister talked about academic experts, people who do analysis around this. You might think they'd be around the table as well. I don't see them in the list of participants in terms of participating in this exercise. Now, maybe this report doesn't give you all the information, but there's other information that indicates others that would be involved in this exercise with the government, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Maybe the minister will correct me and say: "Well, no. Actually, we have others participating in this exercise, and the government is meeting with them." But it doesn't seem to be the case in this report. Does the minister care to further clarify?

Hon. G. Bruce: I believe that all of it is published on the website. So whoever is feeding you the information, if they went to the website, they could probably find out the rest.

We try to get a cross-section. Oddly enough, it's actually employers that hire people and will tell you the ones they're going to need. They would actually be the ones that would be telling you, as the economy grows and as they see better times ahead, just how much they're intending to invest either in their small business, medium-sized business or large business and the number of jobs that would be required for that, the future of what they see in respect of their industry and the investments that would come to that particular sector which, again, would need employees.

We're trying to be as broadly consultative as we can in all this, because this is very important information for the working families in this province. They can know where there are good opportunities for them at this point and then move forward — also, very important information for the working families in encouraging their daughters and their sons as to what type of vocation they would be looking at.

Just one off the mind right now. There has been much concern about the forestry sector, but there's an increased demand with respect to professional foresters. The forest sector still makes up 25 percent or more of our economy. Although there is restructuring taking place — softwood lumber issues have been out there — there is still a bright future, and it gets brighter as we do the necessary things in forestry restructuring. So it's that type of consultation, as well, as what you are going to need in the future and then getting that information into the hands of the people, the moms and dads and students and educators, so that they can encourage young people where the opportunities are.

This information is very important. We're always looking to try and be as widely consultative as we can, so this information can then be the basis of making sure that the directions taken are to those fields where we know there is going to be a structural challenge. By structural challenge I mean in regard to employing skilled workers for that sector. There's nothing hidden about this. In fact, we're trying to create as much opportunity as we possibly can for people in the province.

J. Kwan: My colleague from Vancouver-Hastings has just arrived from the big House, and she will be taking over the Ministry of Skills Development and

Labour estimates. Just so that I could her let her know what transpired prior to this, could we have a five-minute recess?

I want to talk a little bit about the construction industry and the skills shortage. I know that you were talking about that with my colleague from Vancouver–Mount Pleasant. What ever happened to that work the previous Ministry of Labour and the CRA and the WCB were doing on the underground economy?

Hon. G. Bruce: Of course, in the construction industry today there's a demand for workers, and the industry itself is working hard to attract more labour, more skilled trades to their sector. Anyone that's building a house — I'm actually just going through a renovation myself — will know the demand that's there and the fact that the trades actually both command the wage level on their own and the timing on their agenda.

J. MacPhail: Actually, I want a little more specific answer than that. Up till, I think, about 2002 the Ministry of Labour — which then became Skills Development — the WCB and the Canada Revenue Agency were doing investigations around the underground economy, particularly in the construction industry.

The WCB was contributing on the basis of who was actually licensed on the job, what kind of safety record they had. The CRA, the Canada Revenue Agency, was looking to see who was paying their taxes, etc. The Ministry of Labour was assisting throughout all of this. This government cancelled that program, I think, in early 2002. What replaced it?

Hon. G. Bruce: A strong economy. People are working, and they're…. In some of those instances where they were having problems and that sort of stuff, the fact is that now you've got a much stronger economy. You've got industries working. You've got a construction industry that's vibrant and alive for the first time in a number of years and that's going to grow and expand. That's what has replaced it.

J. MacPhail: Gosh, I hope not, because that economy was thriving. It was the underground economy. It was thriving like crazy, and there was corruption alleged. It's not a trick question. I want to know what the government is doing about it to replace cancelling that program. It's a very serious matter, the underground economy, and it flourishes in the construction industry.

People were working before. I might note for the minister that this month there was the highest job loss in the history of British Columbia in one month, and much of that was in the construction industry — 36,400 jobs lost month over month. The economy is not necessarily thriving on a continuous basis.

I'm talking about the underground economy. We have an example of that being alleged at the building of the Victoria arena here in this city. There was a strategy in place where WCB was working with some contractors, with the unions and with the Canada Revenue Agency to do an investigation to halt the ill effects of the underground economy. The reason why the government, through the Ministry of Labour, was participating is because there's a huge drain of lost revenue to the government.

Is the minister saying the underground economy is no more, and therefore, there's no need to do anything about it?

Hon. G. Bruce: No. First of all, there are 160,000 jobs that have been created in British Columbia during the course of the past two years. There will be the ups and downs of it.

The jobs — you want to talk about the construction side. Is there a demand in the construction industry? Or isn't there a demand in the construction industry? We hear from those in the construction industry that they are looking for people. We see, anecdotally, that people are moving back to British Columbia. A large part of that, we see, is the construction industry.

I know in my own community they have two or three small firms that actually left the community when the member across the way was government of this province. They actually left and went to Alberta to work. They are now slowly, and some of them a little quicker, coming back to British Columbia because there's a lot of work.

There's actually a lot of work in the construction industry. It's only going to grow. In fact, you can see the housing starts, you can see the construction starts, and you can see the real estate starts — fundamental starts of an economy that turns and of a province that's trying to rebuild after ten years of some pretty crappy government in this province.

The actual revenue side, though, is where it ought to be. The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is the one that is looking after unpaid bills, if you like — unpaid taxes in that respect — for revenues to government. That's not under the Ministry of Labour; that's under the Ministry of Provincial Revenue.

J. MacPhail: I'm confused. I have no idea why the minister is doing a political partisan rant, other than that's his nature, on a matter that's extremely serious, the underground economy. I asked what happened to the program he cancelled. Is he saying that program has been transferred to the Ministry of Provincial Revenue? Because it hasn't.

Hon. G. Bruce: The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is responsible for provincial revenue, so they've taken on the function of making sure that those who owe things to government in British Columbia are doing just that.

J. MacPhail: Then nothing's being done. The short answer is that nothing's being done, if that's the minister's answer about the underground economy. What happens in the construction industry is that WCB violations occur by collusion. Wages are not paid in a fashion that allows taxes to be collected by collusion. Firms are not licensed in the construction industry because this government did not follow through on the licensing of contractors or subcontractors, or maybe they did. Maybe the minister could tell me where that's happened.

The underground economy is an extremely serious issue in Canada. It's an extremely serious issue here in British Columbia, and the construction industry is rife with the ill effects of the underground economy. The Victoria arena is but one example of that. Is the minister saying that the Minister of Provincial Revenue is doing something about this? Because he isn't. He's doing nothing about it, and I don't think it's necessarily his jurisdiction.

Hon. G. Bruce: It is the Provincial Revenue ministry's jurisdiction, and they are the ones that are doing it.

J. MacPhail: What is it exactly that the Minister of Provincial Revenue is doing then?

Hon. G. Bruce: At the appropriate time, when the Provincial Revenue ministry's estimates are up, you'll be able to canvass all of that.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Provincial Revenue is doing nothing in this area. How do I know? Because I've talked to WCB. We have information from WCB about this. We have information from the Canada Revenue Agency about this. We have information from the construction trades about this. The Minister of Provincial Revenue is doing nothing. He's in this room. He should feel free to stand up and offer what he's doing. That would be appropriate.

This government cancelled the investigation that was being led by the Ministry of Labour in 2002. Let me ask from this point of view: what's the WCB, which this minister is in charge of, doing about the underground economy and the violations that flow from that in terms of workers' safety?

Hon. G. Bruce: The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is responsible for the collecting of revenues for government for this province. With respect to workers' safety, definitely it's WCB. We've had several initiatives working on the aspect of workers' safety in the forestry sector — a complete and very comprehensive approach to reduce death and serious injury. Where we intend to move from there is through into the construction industry, which is the second area of greatest concern. Apart from making sure that you've got safe workplaces throughout the province, we're actually trying to target certain sectors, make a difference, improve work safety and reduce fatalities and serious injuries.

J. MacPhail: Okay, maybe the minister doesn't know what the underground economy is or the effects of it, so let me describe them to him. It's a situation where money is laundered, where people engage in business practices where workers are employed on a cash basis, where WCB premiums are not paid, assessments are not paid, taxes are not paid, the rules of the industry are not followed — by collusion. Up until 2002 the government of the day had investigations in all of these areas, and this government cancelled that.

The reason why I am asking is because when the raids on the Legislature occurred and the Solicitor General said organized crime had pervaded all aspects of our society, the construction trades unions met with the Solicitor General and presented a brief to him about how the underground economy is affecting the construction trades. In that brief it was demonstrated that up until 2002 the British Columbia government was tackling this issue through the Ministry of Labour.

I'm asking: what is this minister doing about the ill effects of the underground economy on WCB?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll answer again. In respect of WCB, they are responsible, obviously, for their premiums from those companies they cover, which are virtually all in this province, to make sure they are paying their bills and their premiums. We actually, early on in the administration, signed an agreement with CRA, WCB and the HRDC for information-sharing so that they could collect information where it was required.

Again, I come back to the actual tackling of the issue of an underground economy in respect of revenues. That indeed is the Provincial Revenue ministry, and they're following through with that.

If you have more in regard to money laundering and know of such issues, then that would be quite rightly within the Solicitor General and his investigations. That's not with the Ministry of Labour.

J. MacPhail: Well, this government's an expert at passing the buck. The Ministry of Provincial Revenue is doing nothing on the underground economy in the construction industry — nothing. When this minister's ministry cancelled the program, unless he picked it up, nothing's being done. Perhaps he could tell me about this agreement they have — now we're getting somewhere — with the HRDC, the CRA and the WCB. What's the nature of the agreement, how long has it been in effect, and what have been the results?

Hon. G. Bruce: It hasn't been cancelled. That's the agreement I was telling you about. It's information-sharing. What it allows is that if an industry is registered and WCB is able to gain that information from CRA, but they're not paying WCB premiums…. You now have an industry that should have been, so WCB can go back to them. Conversely, if WCB is collecting premiums and HRDC doesn't have that particular industry on its records, it's a cross-share. They can go through with that. That's the protocol in respect to the WCB and CRA. The idea there is a linkage so that there can be a cross-referencing of who isn't and should be paying premiums or taxes.

J. MacPhail: If was signed in 2001, then it's almost three years old. What's the result?

Hon. G. Bruce: Part of the agreement was that this information in transference would be kept confidential. It doesn't come back to the political arm which company is or isn't. That was the whole protocol, the basis of the two bodies, between WCB and CCRA.

Hon. G. Bruce: I certainly don't have any problem with that. I'll just have to make sure there aren't any confidential aspects around that. I don't believe there are, and if that's the case, I'd be quite happy to share it with you.

J. MacPhail: Who administers this agreement on behalf of the provincial government?

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I don't know whether the minister made arrangements with the member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant about when WCB comes, but I'd be happy to put these questions over to the minister actually producing the agreement. Then I can question these when we get to WCB. Were arrangements made? I don't know.

J. MacPhail: Good. Then when we discuss it, when we get to WCB, by that time I'm sure the minister will be able to produce the agreement, the protocol agreement, and we can discuss them when WCB is present.

What's happening to the licensing aspects of the construction industry, either at the contracting level or the subcontracting level in this province?

J. MacPhail: Exactly. There was a whole initiative started, post–leaky condo, about licensing contractors and subcontractors, and then when this government got in, they cancelled all of that. How does one make sure, given the breadth and depth of the underground economy, that a contractor is certified to do good work?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, this ministry doesn't license contractors. We're not in that aspect of that. There are contractors out there that do the work, like there are in a number of areas. They would get business licences from the jurisdictions they work within, but the Ministry of Labour is not responsible for the licensing of contractors or other businesses.

J. MacPhail: Part of the issue around the underground economy is that people are doing…. I don't know why the minister isn't aware of this. It has been a huge story here in Victoria around the building of the Victoria arena. Part of the issue here is quality of work. This started to be discussed in the 1990s around contractors and the leaky-condo crisis.

Of course, this government said they were going to do something about that. They actually even set up a government caucus committee to look at the leaky-condo crisis, and of course, as is typical with this government, they reported out squat — nothing — on the leaky-condo crisis. Absolutely nothing. Throughout the 1990s there were huge advancements made in the leaky-condo crisis, of which this government, when they were in opposition….

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could tell us how much his government has done through his ministry to prevent an exacerbation of the leaky-condo crisis, as they promised in the New Era document. He was quite cheeky to just laugh there with, as always, his sterling performance that's full of partisan record. What has his government done — he is a member of the executive council — to make sure the leaky-condo crisis does not recur, as promised in the New Era document?

Hon. G. Bruce: I never try to reflect any more partisanship than the member opposite. So if we're asking….

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, questions specific to this ministry would be a good idea.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not specific to this ministry at all. We're dealing with estimates here. I'm happy to deal

with the estimates. I'll get the information you're asking for that deals with this particular ministry. I'm happy to share it with you wherever I can, and it's fair ball to do so. I told you that. I'm quite happy to go along and talk about the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour and the estimates we're here to deal with.

J. MacPhail: Well, part of the reports — the two public inquiries into the leaky-condo crisis conducted in the 1990s that this government, when they were in opposition, said they would go even further on — was to talk about licensing of contractors in the construction industry. That's where the responsibility lies with this minister. He's a member of the government that, in their New Era document, promised they would solve the leaky-condo crisis.

The government caucus committee report into this, if there is one, has been buried the same way all their other government caucus reports are buried. I don't know what the government caucus is reporting out on leaky condos, but part of the recommendations from the public inquiries in the 1990s was to license contractors. This minister stands up and goes: "We don't license contractors. It's not our job." Well, then, what…?

Madam Chair, I wonder if the Minister of Provincial Revenue, who's present, could stand up and tell us what his ministry is doing about the underground economy.

J. MacPhail: The Minister of Labour said that the Minister of Provincial Revenue is responsible for this, and he's sitting right in the room here. There's no rule against him not being able to get up and answer questions. In fact, it was his own cabinet minister….

J. MacPhail: It is shameful what this government caucus is doing here: mocking every question — all of them. Actually, I don't know whether all of these people are members of the government caucus. Some of them could still be under suspension. It is shameful, and there is no rule against the Minister of Provincial Revenue, sitting here, getting up and answering a question about the underground economy which was referred to him by the Minister of Skills Development and Labour. He certainly has a lot to say from the peanut gallery, as do they all.

The member for Burquitlam has a leaky-condo crisis in his riding that's unparalleled, and he's doing nothing about it, and they mock the questions I'm asking.

From the report of Dave Barrett, the public inquiry into the leaky-condo crisis….

One of the recommendations was that the contractors in the construction industry be licensed. What is the minister doing about that?

Hon. G. Bruce: The licensing of contractors is not under the responsibility of the Ministry of Skills Development and Labour. Safety is, through Workers Compensation, as I've mentioned. We've embarked on a very aggressive safety program in the forestry sector, and we're moving from that to the construction side to try and emulate what we've attempted to start and bring about as a change in culture in the forest industry from the safety side. We're going to try and embark on that same process through Workers Compensation in respect to the construction sector.

J. MacPhail: How little this minister knows about the construction industry. The recommendations around the licences of contractors — which were being implemented until 2001, when this government was elected — were about ensuring consumer confidence in the construction industry. I assume that's why the Premier appointed the government caucus committee investigating the leaky-condo crisis. Oh, we wouldn't know, because we haven't heard a thing about it. The member for Burquitlam should be standing up and asking these questions. But no, he'd rather sit there and mock questions in this area, along with his other colleagues.

Is the minister saying that he has no plans to license contractors in the construction industry?

Hon. G. Bruce: My responsibility as minister is in respect to the construction side — the human resource aspects of making sure we have a skill set that's necessary for our construction sector to be able to flourish and grow; a human resource strategy that identifies those areas that are cyclical or structural so we can make sure we're bringing along people in the right fields; and the safety of construction workers to make sure we have safe workplaces through the Workers Compensation system. That's what I'll be dealing with as Minister of Skills Development and Labour.

J. MacPhail: How about skills development for the contractor? What's the minister planning on that?

Hon. G. Bruce: Like in any profession — and it's a growing thing — young people get involved in a sector, in an industry. They learn the trade. Some of them take on extra schooling so that they know whether they've taken their carpenter's ticket, their construction ticket. Many of those same people move on and up through a company, which may be a large one or a small one, that they take over.

Some will just go on their own and start as journeymen to run their own construction companies. In fact, we're seeing that. I know a young fellow that had

been working as a painter for a major company, and he's now starting his own little business.

We've seen a sizable increase in small businesses in British Columbia. I think there's about a 21 percent increase. I think it's that much. I think I've got that figure mixed up with housing starts. There's a 21 percent increase in housing starts in the province. I think there's about a 9 percent increase in the development of small businesses in British Columbia.

That young fellow was working in the construction industry, the home building industry, as an employee for a painter. He has now embarked out on his own to do his own contract work in painting houses.

It can happen in all sorts of different ways in making sure that you've got good business people. Some of it is from learning on the job, on the trade. Some take additional schooling to be able to carry on. All of that comes from the standpoint that you've got a strong economy.

On the construction side, what you have is more people going into that. You've got more jobs being allowed. You've got people coming back from other parts of the world, from outside of British Columbia. As the member opposite would know, thousands left British Columbia during her administration of the NDP in this government. Now we're actually seeing…. Last quarter was the first quarter in six years that we saw a net in-migration of people coming back to British Columbia — families, skilled tradespeople, workers and the like. All of those things bode well to building the management side as well.

J. MacPhail: God, we're in rough shape here. No wonder investors are not coming to this province. No wonder there's a lack of business confidence in this province, if that's the answer a senior member of cabinet gives about certification of contractors. He tells a little get-em-on-dogie story about some person who moved from being a painter to owning a painting company. That's his answer for instilling consumer confidence in the construction industry. It is shameful — the lack of business skills this government has, demonstrated by this minister and demonstrated by his lack of answers to a very serious issue.

Here's what's going on at the arena. This will be my last point before we rise. There are death threats and suspected sabotage on the Victoria arena construction site, and there's an underground economy thriving there. This minister doesn't have any answers for what's going on here — absolutely none. He stands up, and all his little colleagues sit here and giggle and mock. He stands and spews political, partisan rhetoric that has absolutely nothing to do with the very serious issue. I guess we'll just have to wait, when there are actually some real people caring about this issue from the WCB, and have this conversation with people who actually care about this matter, unlike the minister.

Noting the hour, I move that we rise, report progress — I stumble over the word — and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.


	YEAS — 56

Falcon	Coell	Les
Chong	Brice	Hansen
Bell	Bruce	Santori
van Dongen	Bray	Roddick
Wilson	Masi	Lee
Thorpe	Plant	Clark
Bond	de Jong	Harris
Christensen	Abbott	Coleman
Penner	Cobb	Jarvis
Anderson	Hogg	Nuraney
R. Stewart	Hunter	Chutter
Trumper	Johnston	Bennett
Belsey	Krueger	J. Reid
McMahon	Hayer	Stephens
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Visser	Lekstrom
MacKay	Halsey-Brandt	K. Stewart
Bloy	Suffredine	Whittred
Hamilton		Kerr

	NAYS — 5

Orr	Nebbeling	MacPhail
Kwan		Mayencourt

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY