Hansard -- Thursday, April 22, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 2 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10367

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10367
	St. George's Day
	J. Bray
	Train accident in North Korea
	H. Bloy
	Agriculture industry in B.C.
	B. Lekstrom

Oral Questions		10368
	Surgery wait-lists
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Collins
	Employee satisfaction survey by Fraser health authority
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Collins
	Religious education in home schooling
	K. Krueger
	Hon. T. Christensen
	Government response to questions on B.C. Rail–CN Rail agreement
	P. Nettleton
	Hon. K. Falcon
	Immigrants' access to income assistance
	B. Locke
	Hon. S. Hagen

Second Reading of Bills		10372
	Society Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 32)
	Hon. G. Collins

Committee of the Whole House		10372
	Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19) (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Bruce

Report and Third Reading of Bills		10383
	Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 19)

Second Reading of Bills		10383
	Passenger Transportation Act (Bill 30)
	Hon. K. Falcon
	J. Reid
	R. Nijjar
	Hon. R. Harris
	Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 29)
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	D. Jarvis

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10391
	Estimates: Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services (continued)
	Hon. M. Coell
	J. Kwan
	L. Mayencourt

B. Locke: It gives me pleasure today to introduce into the House, on behalf of my colleague from Surrey–Panorama Ridge, a class of grade 9 students from Tamanawis Secondary School. With them are their teachers, Ms. Cathy Cybulskie and Ms. Vivian Bridger. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. L. Reid: I have a number of introductions today. We're joined in the gallery by Kelly Webb Guichon and Heather King, both trustees from the Delta school district. I'd ask the House to make them welcome.

Also in the gallery today are Jim and Alice Mann, individuals who have been in my life for very close to 30 years. I'd like the House to extend to them a very warm welcome as well.

B. Suffredine: It's actually not very frequently that I have guests from my region. Today I feel a bit like the alter ego of the Minister of Skills Development and Labour; I've got so many friends here today. There's a long list. I even had to get a list made: Sarann Press; Pat Casey; Cory Mildenberger; Roberta Hall; Pattie Adam; Lorraine Manning; Bruce Halstead along with his wife, Sherri, his son Mathew and his daughter Melinda; and Micky Kinakin and his new wife, Adriana Huerta. All of them are school trustees visiting Victoria in the conference of school trustees — and, as well, probably one of my most stalwart political supporters, my son James. Would the House please make them welcome.

Hon. T. Christensen: On behalf of my colleague the MLA for Surrey–White Rock, I am pleased to introduce one of Surrey school district's outstanding and very long-serving trustees, Ms. Laurae McNally. Ms. McNally has been a trustee for 19 years now. I had the pleasure of meeting her and the rest of the Surrey school district about a week ago. They're doing great work for the students in Surrey, and I would welcome the House to assist me in welcoming Ms. McNally here to the Legislature.

Hon. K. Falcon: I rise in the House today to make a kind of very special announcement. My lovely niece, Jade — otherwise affectionately known by her nickname, Pino — is celebrating her fifth birthday today. She is the daughter of my brother Michael and his lovely wife, Catherine. I would ask that the House join me in wishing Pino a very happy fifth birthday today.

Hon. J. van Dongen: In the Legislature today is a large number of farmers and ranchers from all over British Columbia. They are visiting with members, talking about issues in agriculture. Also, today we're celebrating the 110th anniversary of the ministry. I want to acknowledge all the good work of the staff in the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, and I ask the House to make our farmers and ranchers very welcome.

L. Mayencourt: Over the past couple of weeks I've had the great pleasure of having an intern working with me in my riding. He's a hard-working guy, and we finished the speech. So please welcome Paul Rushton to the legislative chamber.

J. Bray: As a Canadian whose ancestry is one-half English, I am pleased today to acknowledge that tomorrow is St. George's Day. St. George is the patron saint of England and lived in the fourth century. Very little is known about the man himself other than he died in Lydda, Palestine. According to legend, a pagan town in Libya was being terrorized by a dragon. The locals kept throwing sheep to placate it, and when it still remained unsatisfied, they started sacrificing people. Finally, good St. George came along and slew the dragon. At this, townsfolk converted to Christianity.

St. George is the patron saint of soldiers, cavalry and chivalry; of farmers, fieldworkers, boy scouts and butchers; of horses, riders and saddlers; of archers; and of sufferers from leprosy, plague and syphilis. In the thirteenth century, St. George replaced Edward the Confessor as England's patron saint.

Many traditions today are linked to St. George. The feast of St. George is celebrated on April 23. Many festivals in England still take place in villages and towns. Knighthoods of the Order of the Garter are bestowed on April 23. St. George's Day is also a provincial holiday in Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are many English descendants or immigrants in my riding who will be celebrating and acknowledging St. George's Day. You may see them tomorrow wearing a white or red rose in honour of St. George. Today I am wearing blue, which is the saint's colour, based on the shade of the original garter.

I think it's appropriate on this occasion to reflect on the contribution of English culture made to our province. Railways were invented by an Englishman, George Stephenson, and are a major part of B.C. history. William Shakespeare added to our love of literature. The philosophy of John Stuart Mill has enriched our lives. Of course, the birth of our style of democracy and the Mother of Parliaments is in Westminster, and what is critical for us in this chamber — the concept of fair play — was born on the fields of England. To all I wish a happy St. George's Day.

H. Bloy: Today my thoughts and prayers are with the Korean community, both here in British Columbia

and abroad. The media has been reporting news of a serious train accident in the city of Ryongchon, North Korea. It is believed that two trains carrying flammable materials have collided at a train station about 20 kilometres from the Chinese border. There have been many unconfirmed reports of serious casualties. At this time, the full extent of the tragedy remains unclear. My heart goes out to those who are concerned for the safety of their friends, family and loved ones.

In my riding of Burquitlam the Korean community has emerged as a vibrant, successful component of our neighbourhood and local businesses. The Korean Canadian business association has been particularly active in Burquitlam and has made its voice heard on many important community issues. The Korean community has also contributed to the ongoing revitalization of the North Road area. These are people who take active roles in our schools and the safety of our community. These are fine examples of proud British Columbians.

I have been told by some of these constituents how difficult it is to obtain news from North Korea. I know this kind of uncertainty can be painful for those who are seeking answers. As such, I want to offer my condolences in these troubling times, and I ask the House to do the same.

B. Lekstrom: Today it's my honour to rise in this Legislature to pay tribute to our agriculture industry and all of the farmers and ranchers in British Columbia.

The Ministry of Agriculture has been around, as the minister indicated, for 110 years and is celebrating its birthday this week. I think that shows the commitment of our great province to what I consider the most important industry we have. I've stood in this House many times before and talked about all the different resources we have and the importance of them. In comparison, I think we could live if we took the gas out of our furnaces, if we shut our lights off, but it's very clear that the human race would not be here today without the food on our tables.

I think we've overlooked the importance of agriculture, not just in British Columbia but around the world, for far too long. I'm proud to be part of a government that's bringing that focus back to where it should be, and that's on the importance of agriculture.

We've faced many challenges over the last year, in particular, with the BSE crisis and, more recently, the avian flu. It highlights not so much what government's about but what the people are about in the agricultural industry and what they're about in this province. They're about working together. They're about families coming together to make sure that everybody makes it through these difficult times. It's about communities coming together to support our neighbours in the rural areas. It's about the people, and that's what I want to focus on.

Our agriculture industry is made up of fish farms, our fruit growers and berry growers, our poultry industry, our grains, our cattle industry, our bison industry and our sheep industry. I think we have to look in the broad context at what agriculture is all about. It's not about just putting food on our table; it's about building communities.

I come from Dawson Creek, and I represent Peace River South, of which I'm very proud. We wouldn't be the region we are without our surrounding rural area that contributes greatly to the economic well-being of our smaller communities, and that is likewise for any area of this province.

We have about 61,000 farmers. I know I could go on for some time, and I know I don't have a lot of time. In closing, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, the constituents I represent and the government of British Columbia, I want to pay tribute, as I began my speech with, to the farmers and ranchers in our great province. I want to thank them for the work they do on all our behalf. We're grateful.

J. MacPhail: We are about to enter a very challenging time in the delivery of health care in this province. It has come to our attention that those challenges are growing every day. Can the government confirm that in the four-month period from September 2003 to January 2004, the number of people on surgical wait-lists in B.C. grew by more than 3,500 people — a 5 percent increase in just four months?

Hon. G. Collins: I'll take that question on notice for the Minister of Health.

J. MacPhail: These are very challenging times that we are entering into right now, and it's incumbent upon the government to have answers to these questions before the challenges become unbearable. Since the Liberals took power, 16,000 more British Columbians are waiting for surgery. Up until last September, 450 people a month were being added to those lists. In the last four months that number has jumped to close to 900 people a month being added to surgical wait-lists — a 100 percent increase. Every month the wait-lists grow under these B.C. Liberals, and in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled.

Over there to the government: who is going to take responsibility for this broken promise to reduce wait-lists, and what is the plan to move forward to reduce the wait-lists — as they promised in the last election?

Hon. G. Collins: The member knows, because she's been told previously, that last year the province of Brit-

ish Columbia's health system produced more than 38,000 additional procedures over and above what was there the year before. That is a significant addition.

The fact of the matter is that there are big challenges in the public health care system across Canada. It is the number one agenda item for the Council of the Federation. All the Premiers are working together to try and deal with the pressures that exist in the health care system. It is not a unique challenge to British Columbia nor a unique challenge in the last couple of years, as the member indicates. It's been a challenge for a long period of time — decades — and certainly while that member was Minister of Health under the previous administration, and it continues to be a challenge right across Canada. The Premiers, this Premier, this government are doing everything they can to help address those problems and to lead the nation in trying to turn those numbers around.

J. MacPhail: When this government said to the electorate three years ago, "We're going to reduce surgical wait-lists," they didn't qualify it. The minister now says these challenges have been before us forever, for a long time. Well, that's not what they said during the election. The increase in wait-lists has not only grown by almost 25 percent for their term in office, but in the last four months the rate of increase has doubled. Given that context, why is the government spending millions of health care dollars on ads patting itself on the back?

Let me just give one example of misplaced priorities of expenditure. This week the Fraser health authority, whose wait-lists are growing out of control, unveiled its new logo — looks great. It's an orange heart with a lovely blue swoosh.

J. MacPhail: Can the Minister of Finance tell us how many health care dollars were spent to draw this logo while wait-lists continue to skyrocket and who was responsible for authorizing the expenditures of those tens of thousands of dollars?

Hon. G. Collins: In fact, that's a little difficult to take from that member, because when she was Minister of Health, she ran television ads that featured the great actress — none other than herself — in those ads. We're learning every day just how great an actress she actually is.

Hon. G. Collins: The important point is that this government has…. The expenditure of advertising for the Ministry of Health or all of government comes out of the public affairs bureau. No health dollars are spent on advertising for the health care sector. I might also add that unlike when that member was Minister of Health and unlike the ten years that she spent in government, and about eight and a half in cabinet, the expenditures for advertising in this government are below what they were under the previous administration. They're actually less.

With regard to her question on wait-lists, the fact of the matter is that this year — at the end of year, as well — I mentioned there were 38,000 more surgeries. There was an additional $20 million for one-time funding for health authorities. There are 80 additional open-heart surgeries that were performed as a result, 400 hip and knee surgeries, 3,600 diagnostic procedures, over 500 cataract procedures and 20 deep brain stimulation procedures.

Hon. G. Collins: …went up 14 percent last year from the previous year. We continue to make progress…

J. Kwan: Not only is the wait-list going up; wait times are also going up. Not only is the Fraser health authority spending thousands of health care dollars to spruce up its image, it has also contracted an American polling firm to ask workers if they have a best friend at work.

Seriously now, Mr. Speaker, according to internal Fraser health authority documents, this 11-month employee satisfaction survey is costing taxpayers $115,000.

J. Kwan: How can the Minister of Labour justify this wasteful spending on bogus employee satisfaction

surveys when patients are getting no satisfaction at all from the health care system?

Hon. G. Collins: The reality is that there are big challenges in the health care sector, as well, with regard to long-term disability, stress leave, etc., which cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, and tens of thousands of dollars a day. The effort, I assume, is to try and drive those numbers down, increase employee performance in the workplace, reduce long-term stress leave, improve the quality of service to patients and also make sure that those dollars that we save on disability for staff can be put back into the health care system where they belong.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a further question.

J. Kwan: The minister can spin all he likes, but the reality is this: the health care system is in crisis. Conflict has arisen in the health care system because of the actions of this government. Let us be clear. The B.C. Liberals promised to reduce wait-lists.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. members. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has the floor.

J. Kwan: But since taking power, they have exploded by more than 26 percent in less than three years. In the last four months, the problem is getting much worse. While wait-lists are exploding, the government is spending over $100,000 a year to determine whether health care workers have a best friend at work and for a new logo.

Can the Health…? Well, the Minister of Finance, who seems to be answering questions for everybody, who seems to think that he's in charge all of the time…. Can the Minister of Finance tell us: how high will wait-lists…?

J. Kwan: Is he your best friend? Is there a survey amongst the government asking if the Minister of Finance is your best friend?

J. Kwan: Can the minister tell us how high wait-lists in B.C. will have to go before he orders a stop to this wasteful spending?

Hon. G. Collins: I think the timing of the comments by the members is interesting, seeing as we're talking about friends at work. One of the biggest drivers of spikes in the health care wait-lists was caused by the nurses' strike, which we inherited at the time of the election last year from the previous administration. The doctors' dispute at the….

Hon. G. Collins: Well, check your facts, member — the doctors' dispute as well. We are on the verge, as the member mentioned — because strike notice was given by the health employees union today — of a potential additional workplace activity, which has the potential to affect the workplace and the performance of surgeries and the wait-lists. I'd suggest that those two members talk to their good, close personal friends at work and tell them to get back to the bargaining table. Let's find a solution and solve this problem.

If I can conclude, the member talks about the $100,000 and the costs of that to the health care system. I'd ask her to go back to another one of her close work friends, the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, and get the $200,000 back that they gave them prior to the election, and we'll be glad to put it into health care.

K. Krueger: My question is for the Minister of Education. Various media reports today refer to an order affecting parents who home-school their children and the use of religious materials for the children's education. My impression is that there has been a misunderstanding.

To the minister: what are the implications of this matter for families who want religion to be a part of their children's education?

Hon. T. Christensen: There has been no change in policy or law. The School Act has prohibited public schools from delivering faith-based curriculum for more than a century. In fact, if we look at An Act Respecting Common Schools from 1865, that act says that all schools established under the provisions of this act shall be conducted strictly upon non-sectarian principles. That in no way limits what parents can teach their children at home.

Public schools cannot deliver religion-based curriculum in classrooms or by distance education. That still in no way impacts what parents can teach their children in their own homes.

P. Nettleton: As much as I need to receive an answer from the Minister of Transportation, I am not go-

ing to repeat the B.C. Rail questions raised earlier this week. However, I seek the courtesy of a reply to the issues raised concerning the sale of B.C. Rail and first nations rights.

First of all, I want to remind the Minister of Transportation that I am not a government member and that he does not have to treat me with the same contempt and disdain that he and some other cabinet ministers reserve for their backbenchers. I would caution the minister, as I caution myself, that what goes around comes around, and we reap what we sow. The minister owes both myself and the official opposition either an apology or a proper response.

The minister may wish to take this request on notice, review Hansard and provide this House with an appropriate and informed response to what are, in my view, very reasonable questions.

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, and I'm trying to fathom an answer to a question that I didn't even hear. Perhaps what I will do is remind the member opposite, who I don't believe I've ever referred to as a government member — and if I did, I certainly apologize for that…. I can't possibly imagine how I would confuse him for a government member. But what I will do is, perhaps, pose a question to that member and the NDP. The question I would pose back to them is: what do they have against northern communities? What do they have against…?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm hearing some little noise from the other side over there, and it reminds me of Carole James. What do we know about Carole James? We know Carole James wants to say no to oil and gas. That's really going to help the north. We know Carole James wants to shut down the mining sector. That's a real benefit to the north. We know Carole James…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We will continue when we have order in the chamber.

Hon. K. Falcon: We know Carole James wants to shut down the aquaculture industry. There's 4,000 jobs and a $300-million-a-year industry. We know they want to say no to forest-dependent communities. I guess the question you have to ask…. Of course, that depends on the day of the week…

Hon. K. Falcon: …because some days of the week she may be for it, depending on which part of the province she's in. I guess I would say this. In this province we are proud to stand up for northern communities, and we're proud to stand up for the opportunities that will benefit those communities.

B. Locke: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. Recently I have learned that the government is actively seeking repayment from sponsors of immigrants who have turned to income assistance for support. In my multicultural riding I have many constituents who have recently immigrated to Canada and, in some cases, have sponsored family members themselves. As such, I have heard concerns regarding the ability of immigrants to access income assistance should that become necessary. Can the minister tell me what is being done to ensure that those immigrants that are in need of income assistance in Surrey and across B.C. will continue to be given the support they need?

Hon. S. Hagen: Let me make this perfectly clear. The government is not seeking money from income assistance recipients. What we are doing is actively pursuing repayment from sponsors of immigrants who are not fulfilling their legal obligations and commitments to support the relatives they brought into this province. The majority of people who sponsor family-class immigrants — about 90 percent — live up to their obligations, but 10 percent don't. In fairness to the sponsors who do live up to their obligations and all taxpayers who support income assistance clients, it is right that we hold sponsors who are in a position to support their sponsored relatives accountable for their debt. This means more of taxpayers' resources in B.C. can go to the people who actually need those resources.

The bell terminates question period. Question period was extended today due to the constant disruption during the regular time, and we will continue that practice in the future.

J. Reid: Just joining us in the last few minutes is the school council from McGirr Elementary School with their teacher, Mr. Reis. This is a group of students who have a personal interest in politics because of the actions that they're taking to make their school a better place. I'd ask that the House make them very, very welcome.

In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, they will be continuing the debates on the estimates of the Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

The Society Amendment Act, 2004, amends the Society Act to allow societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of the society and less on completing and filing forms with the government. The amendments also update a number of provisions in the act that are now redundant due to other legislative changes.

The primary focus of the amendments is a simplification of registry requirements for societies and the streamlining of processes at the corporate registry. A number of changes have been made to these ends. First, the amendments give this registrar the authority to establish the forms that a society must use rather than having the forms in the act itself. This will allow the registrar to keep the forms current, relevant and as straightforward and simple as possible.

Second, the requirement that a society file annual financial statements has been removed. Instead, a society will only need to file an annual report.

Third, the amendments also remove the requirements that the registrar review and approve a society's bylaws, special resolutions and annual reports. Instead, the registrar will simply file the documents and acknowledge their receipt.

In order to ensure that documents submitted to the registry are accurate and valid, the amendments also introduce a new section which makes it an offence to make false or misleading statements in documents filed with the registrar. The bill also amends the act in order to align it with recent changes to other legislation. For example, the bill eliminates the prohibition on the awarding of degrees and diplomas, because this provision is now governed by the degree-granting authority act under the Ministry of Advanced Education.

These amendments will reduce red tape for societies, streamline processes at the corporate registry and update a number of provisions of the Society Act, allowing societies to spend more of their time and resources focused on the purposes of the society and far less on completing and filling out forms for the government.

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

Bill 32, Society Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of the Whole for consideration of Bill 19.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 19; J. Weisbeck in the chair.

J. MacPhail: Did the minister receive any legal advice about his comments over the lunch hour?

J. MacPhail: Then I guess his comments will stand for the record as people move into a very complex set of collective bargaining. His comments will stand, and they've been noted with a great deal of interest by people communicating with me over the lunch hour — a great deal of interest. If he doesn't wish to correct the record at all, then we'll proceed to a vote on section 1.

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 2 of this bill provides clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agreement. It's designed to avoid litigation about whether "amended and modified" includes deleted.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. Could the minister repeat that a little more explicitly? I couldn't hear him.

Hon. G. Bruce: Sorry. It provides clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agreement.

J. MacPhail: And there was something about litigation. Could he please repeat that?

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, all I asked him to do was repeat the words that he said first, which included about litigation. What did he say? I didn't hear him.

Hon. G. Bruce: This is to show that words deleted…. So section 2 provides the clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agreement. What more do you want?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I heard the word "litigation." Could he repeat what he said, exactly, when he stood up? It's just a simple question. I heard the word "litigation." I didn't hear the context in which the word was used. Is there something he doesn't want to reveal by just repeating what he initially said?

Hon. G. Bruce: No, I'm sorry, not at all. I was just trying to provide clarity. What this does is try to assist so that there's clarity in the act, so that it would avoid court opportunities or court action — litigation, if that's the word you're looking for.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm telling you what's there — whether it's amended and modified. What this does is very clearly state that the deleted provisions that are in this act are not part of the collective agreement.

J. MacPhail: Well, then I'll just have to rely on Hansard to have the record. Somehow he thinks, because I didn't hear, that his words are going to disappear into thin air. He said, as I recall…. I mean, honest to God, he must be embarrassed about it. All I wanted him to do was repeat the words, and he refuses to do so. What effect will this clause have on litigation?

Hon. G. Bruce: What this does is provides the clarity — all right? So you've deleted a number of parts from the bill, and what this does, within the collective agreements, so that you don't get through a hassle of court challenges and such…. It's very clear that this is deleted.

Hon. G. Bruce: All right. I'm not sure what else you actually want me to say. It is a clarifying bill, a clarifying section of the bill that these provisions are not part of the collective agreement.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll try this then. Clarity is meant to minimize or avoid litigation. Does that help?

J. MacPhail: So can the minister tell us what's being deleted? What is the schedule that he referred to in this legislation? Is it the same schedule he tabled in the House two days ago, entitled Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions?

J. MacPhail: I was asking the minister this morning about how one could proceed through the courts or what legal avenues someone would have to invoke the rights that the minister gave before lunch to renegotiate these clauses. He said LRB would look after it. I asked whether that meant to…. Oh, I'm sorry; he said the matter could be referred to the LRB. Then I asked whether the matter to be referred to the LRB was whether it was bargaining in good faith or whether the

matter could be referred about whether these clauses could be negotiated. He didn't answer the question.

Given the minister's comments before lunch about the ability to renegotiate some of these clauses in this schedule, how does that jibe with what he just said — that section 2 is there to avoid litigation?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. The clauses that are deleted…. That's what section 2 applies to, to provide clarity. They're deleted. In respect to the issues of negotiation for things that are not ultra vires to the School Act, the parties can sit and can, if they wish to, negotiate those particular issues. It takes the two of them to agree to that aspect, but it can't be issues that are inconsistent with the School Act.

J. MacPhail: You know, Mr. Chair, this bill is completely and fundamentally flawed, and this minister is struggling to avoid admitting that. His words are all entangled. You had to see the feedback that we got over the lunch hour about how fundamentally flawed, from a legal point of view and a collective bargaining point of view, this legislation is. And all of those flaws are exacerbated by this minister's words. What litigation is this clause designed to avoid? I'll use the minister's own words — "to avoid."

Hon. G. Bruce: The clauses that have been deleted — this brings finality to it and avoids litigation around them. They're finished. It allows us now to move ahead, for the parties to begin their negotiations. This has been a year and a half, two years. What is it — a year now? What are we — 2004? It was a 2001 agreement. What this does is bring finality to that, and the parties can move ahead and start negotiating their new contract.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So this afternoon — gee, 48 hours since the legislation was in — we have a third version from the minister about what's going to occur.

Yesterday in second reading, here's the version he said: "Oh, the Leader of the Opposition is wrong when she says these clauses in the schedule are illegal. She's wrong. They can be renegotiated." That's what he said in second reading reply.

Then this morning he wouldn't identify which clauses were ultra vires. He said the clauses that aren't ultra vires in this list can be renegotiated, but he wouldn't actually specify, because of course he's getting tripped up on his own words. He said: "Well, Mr. Rice, the arbitrator, said these clauses should be deleted, so we just took his word for it. But don't worry. We think that they can be renegotiated."

Then this afternoon we learn — the minister tripping up on his own words again but telling the truth — that clause 2 says you can't litigate. On the basis of this list, the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions…. They're deleted, and clause 2 is there to make sure that there will be no litigation around this list.

Could the minister tell me, given those words, what the LRB would examine under what section of the Labour Relations Code relating to a challenge brought to the negotiability of the list of teachers' collective agreement deletions? I want the clause in the Labour Relations Code that a party would invoke on application to the Labour Relations Board, as the minister said was available this morning.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure if the member meant the inference that earlier this morning I wasn't telling the truth, but I'd like clarity from the member in respect to that comment.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I said he was telling the truth this afternoon. What more does he need? There's no other inference. But feel free.

Could the minister answer my question, please? On what section of the Labour Relations Code would an application be brought forward pursuant to the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions, as he said was available to the parties this morning?

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I'm waiting for an answer. Is the minister refusing to give me an answer? He was the one who gave me the information this morning that the matter could be brought forward to the LRB. Is the minister refusing to answer my question?

The Chair: Member, there seems to be an issue here that the minister has asked whether or not you have stated whether he has told a mistruth. Sit, member, please. The question is to ask the minister: do you feel as though he…? Are you implying that he misspoke this morning?

J. MacPhail: Sorry. Am I to take direction from the member? I will take direction from the Chair, but I don't understand. Either there is an accusation made or not, and it is the Chair's responsibility to rule. I am not going to be grilled by the minister. Mr. Chair, feel free to make a ruling.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, what is going on here? Is the minister refusing to answer my question? Or is he trying to make up parliamentary procedure as he goes along?

The Chair: Member, are you implying that the minister did not tell the truth to this House?

J. MacPhail: Could the minister answer my question, please? On what section of the Labour Relations Code would an application be brought forward? I hope he is feeling comfortable enough to do that, Mr. Chair.

L. Mayencourt: On behalf of the member for Nanaimo, I'm very pleased to introduce a group from Mountain View Elementary School. I believe that's you guys up here. They're here with their teacher, Mr. DeGear. I would ask that the House please make them feel very welcome.

Hon. G. Bruce: Not knowing the specifics of how the case would be applied, it would more than likely — could possibly — be under section 11 of the code. The parties can go to the Labour Relations Board. It would be up to the parties grieving or the parties applying to decide which sections they wish to follow under the code to make application.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. The parties will take direction from this debate. That's who they'll take direction from.

Hon. G. Bruce: No, they won't take direction from this debate in this respect. This is Bill 19, and it's to deal with the whole aspect of being able to allow the parties to move ahead to negotiate. This isn't about how they're going to go and make their approaches. I'm not about to sit here and try and hypothecate on what steps the parties may take at the table in bringing forward their positions, if they thought they needed to, to the Labour Relations Board. That will be up to the parties themselves to decide if, in fact, they get there.

J. MacPhail: I will repeat my question. What is section 11 of the Labour Relations Code that the minister listed as a potential application that could be brought forward on these matters?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll get the specifics of 11. If the member would like to continue with her questioning, and we'll get that answer for her…. I want to be sure that I've got the right section in my mind. If the member would like to carry on with other questions, we'll dig that up.

J. MacPhail: Section 11 — I found it, Mr. Chair. It's "Requirement to bargain in good faith."

I have trouble with this whole debate. As an experienced legislator, I have trouble with this whole debate — that somehow this minister says the Labour Relations Board is not going to be guided by this discussion, this debate in this Legislature. He is completely wrong. He knows he's wrong. The Labour Relations Board has to be guided by this legislation, because this legislation affects collective bargaining. That's how it works at the Labour Relations Board. When matters of collective bargaining are guided by legislation, then the Labour Relations Board has to take that into account. I can hardly wait to hear the explanation of how that's not the case. I can hardly wait.

They take an application pursuant to bargaining in good faith. Where does the Labour Relations Board have to go to look to see what's allowed to be bargained? Not the Labour Relations Code; they have to go to Bill 19. That's where they have to go. In fact, it's probably the reason why section 2 is here.

Here's what the minister said the first time that he refused to repeat when I asked him the intent of section 2, the matter we're discussing right now. He said: "Section 2 of this bill provides clarification that the deleted provisions are not part of the collective agreement. It's designed to avoid litigation about whether 'amended and modified' includes deleted." Thank God for technology.

This section that we're dealing with right here is to say these sections, deleted pursuant to the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions, are not part of the collective agreement, and section 2, just to hammer it home, says: "Don't try to litigate any aspect of whether those sections are deleted or not."

I was just putting that new information we have as of this afternoon in the context of what the minister said this morning about, "Feel free to renegotiate, and feel free to go to the LRB," if one party has any issue around the negotiability. Those were my questions. The minister says to me: "Section 11. Bargaining in good faith. And oh, by the way, nobody is going to be guided by the words in this Legislature." Really? Then maybe the minister can tell me how a bargaining-in-good-faith application would proceed pursuant to Bill 19.

Hon. G. Bruce: To reiterate, the parties can sit at the table and negotiate. That's actually what we're trying to get to. It's been two years of this past agreement which we've been trying to get through and finalized. Actually, with the passage of this Bill 19 adding finality to the former contract, the parties can then begin their

negotiations going forward. If there are sections of the list that were presented as deletions that are not ultra vires to the School Act and that both parties wish to discuss and put on the table to negotiate, they can do that.

You have it absolutely right. There it is. These parts have been deleted as was the recommendation by Mr. Rice, and with that the parties can move ahead and begin their negotiations. But if there are things they wish to debate or put on the table for negotiation that are in contravention of the School Act, they will be disallowed. If there are things they wish to debate and negotiate that are not and if both parties want to negotiate those issues, they can.

I've been trying to listen to what you perceive to be the inconsistencies of the message, and I've thought it's been pretty clear all the way through in that respect. What we're doing is adding finality. This is what this is — absolutely. We're saying this is the end of all that's gone on around this contract, of what Bill 27 did and then Bill 28 — to bring finality to this.

The BCTF have suggested they would like to get on with negotiating a new contract. You can't get on with negotiating a new contract till the current contract is finished with, and that's what we're doing here. If I had gone back and done the other aspect of appealing, with money and time we would have been another six, eight or 12 months doing that. You couldn't have gone on to the contract.

If I had appointed a fifth arbitrator, having gone through four already, with the British Columbia Teachers Federation virtually rejecting each one of those three and finally with the fourth then not participating at the table…. I had little confidence that by appointing a fifth, they could sit down and go through all of what we're talking about here back and forth and reach an agreement.

Then knowing that the parties had asked me, particularly the BCTF, to be able to begin their negotiations, I looked at where we're at and said: "Look. Why don't we just move ahead? Why don't we just get on with life? We've kind of had this go-round." Here is a man that is the final arbitrator on this, who is now on the Supreme Court bench. I've mentioned this before, and I mention it again because I want people to understand we're talking about four very reputable individuals, the final individual being a person that's now been selected to sit on the bench. We're just actually trying to move this ahead.

I appreciate the fun and games of it all, but this is actually very straightforward. It says: here is what Bills 27 and 28 did. Here are those issues of the 60 contracts that needed to be deleted and were. We have taken that and applied that through Bill 19, and now the parties, with the passage of Bill 19, can get on negotiating their new contract.

J. MacPhail: Actually, this didn't occur to me, but someone e-mailed me over the lunch hour to say that it's the Minister of Labour besmirching the reputation of Mr. Rice. Here's their logic. The minister admits that all he did was take Mr. Rice's list holus-bolus. Mr. Rice declared these as having to be deleted because they were ultra vires to the legislation. I asked the minister for his own view on what was ultra vires or not, and he refused to give that and said that we took Mr. Rice's recommendations. He just repeated it a moment ago.

This person said: "But it's the minister holding out hope that some of these may not be ultra vires. It's the minister himself saying that Mr. Rice got it wrong."

I thought: well, isn't that perceptive? That's actually true. It's this minister who is somehow suggesting the parties can agree or determine that some of these are ultra vires.

This person said: "Why is the Minister of Labour besmirching Mr. Rice's reputation? Either he embraces Mr. Rice's work and agrees with it, or he says it's wrong."

Can the minister, given his analysis that he did of this list of teachers' collective agreement deletions that he is now legislating as final deletions…? He just said that. He's legislating a clause that says no one can litigate about whether it's a deletion or not. Then the minister says that the parties can agree. After having declared that, the minister just said: "But the parties are free to negotiate terms of these clauses that have been deleted to renegotiate them if they're not ultra vires." That must be an informed comment. I'm sure the minister wouldn't just lead people to a dry well.

Could the minister just tell me one clause in here of the pages of deletions that he or his ministry have come to the conclusion could be renegotiated, as he's held out not once but half a dozen times? Just one — that's all.

Hon. G. Bruce: Just for clarification, you know, Mr. Rice, when he wrote in his determination here, said: "I appreciate that deletions of important provisions from the collective agreement doesn't mean necessarily deletion from school board policies. However, the provisions for special needs students, for example, it seemed to me were in some ways worth preserving. It seemed to me that the parties could cooperate and reconstruct parts of the agreement in ways that would not infringe section 27(3) of the School Act, and I would recommend that both parties think about it. " Pretty clear what he said there.

J. MacPhail: Thank you for reading that once again. When I asked the minister the question this morning about where that concept, that recommendation, is now enshrined in a right under the legislation, he said it wasn't. Maybe he would like to rethink it. He did repeat it just now.

Please, could the minister point to the article, the clause, in Bill 19 that enshrines that recommendation? I'm going to stop right then. If the minister says this clause enshrines that recommendation of Mr. Rice's, we're movin' on.

Hon. G. Bruce: I'll be clear again. If the item or the issue that the parties wish to negotiate is not in contravention of — not ultra vires to — the School Act, they

can negotiate it, if the two parties wish to do that. That's the clarity of all of this. It's very specific. They can go to the table. Both parties can say, "Hey, here's part of the issue that we would like to negotiate," and if they're in agreement, they can begin their negotiations on that as long as it's not in contravention of the School Act.

J. MacPhail: Seeing as how the minister won't point to a clause in the legislation that enshrines that recommendation of Mr. Rice — he refused to; I just asked him to — will his words stand as a commitment — this debate, his words right now? Does he offer those as a commitment that the parties can renegotiate clauses? He just said them.

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't know how much more clear I can be. If the items that the parties wish to negotiate are not in contravention of the School Act, they can negotiate those items. The parties have to agree to negotiate and find a way through it, but they can. If the items that they are bringing forward are in contravention of the School Act, they can't.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, I wasn't going to call division on this section, but the inability of the minister to point to any section of the legislation that does anything other than take away rights and the ability to have a judicial process available to either party, including clause 2, makes it absolutely incumbent that these legislators, once again, put their support or disapproval on record for this denial of rights, both judicially and collectively — on record.

J. Kwan: I'm just so eager and excited to see these visitors in our visitors' gallery. I just noticed that school trustee Allan Wong is in the visitors' gallery, and it appears his family might be with him too. I see children. No wonder I'm so excited. Children — and I think his wife is also here. I would like the House to bid a very friendly welcome to trustee Allan Wong and his family.

J. MacPhail: I've got to read this into the record, Mr. Chair. It's one for the history books. This is under Bill 19, the Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, which deletes 400 clauses from collective agreements throughout the province with teachers.

Here's what this section says: "For certainty and despite any decision of a court to the contrary made before or after the coming into force of this subsection, nothing in this section is to be construed as authorizing a board or the Provincial union to enter into a collective agreement that includes a provision that is prohibited under section 27 (3) or void under section 27 (2), (5) or (6)."

Wow. That's a pretty tight clause, isn't it? Forget the judiciary; forget the ability to appeal to the judiciary. This says not only can't you go back retroactively, but don't you dare try to exercise any rights in any court looking forward. It kind of rings hollow, the minister's little fairy dust that he is sprinkling over this bill, that somehow any matter of these 400 clauses can be renegotiated and that there are legal avenues available to renegotiate.

Can the minister explain the necessity for that clause? Is he worried about something?

Hon. G. Bruce: What we're trying to do is bring finality to this contract. I'll go through the steps again, because I'm sure there are other viewers now that have joined us and maybe others in the House, and they don't know all that's gone through with this.

We went through a negotiation. We then went into a strike situation with the teachers in this province through the BCTF. It's not something that was unique to this government. Actually, the same problems were found with the former administration. It's not something unique to British Columbia. In fact, one can check across the country, and you will find similar circumstances with other provincial jurisdictions. It's not something unique to Canada, because you will find this occurrence troubling through most other parts of the world, actually.

In fact, as I tried to work, because under Bill…. Now, I don't want to get them mixed up. I think it was Bill 28 or 27. I forget which one of the two. I also had the ability, the authority to review the negotiating process, the structure of the educational framework in the province, so I embarked upon that. I asked the parties whether they thought the system we utilized today was a good system and was one that was successful.

It's pretty tough, after 12 years of no true, fully negotiated agreements, to be able to claim it was successful. It's pretty tough to be able to claim it was simply us and that it actually had crossed three different types of political organizations and, as I mentioned, right across the country — although different legislation in each one.

Parties did, though, say to me that they were interested in trying to find a new structure. I said to them: "Listen, let's not waste anybody's time here. I won't waste yours; you don't waste mine. This is all the parties. If we're serious about it, then let's go down that road together." Each of the parties agreed that they were serious. We then agreed on bringing forward Mr. Don Wright, who is a former Deputy Minister of Education, to conduct the process. He's currently doing that and trying to see whether or not there is an opportunity to build a new negotiating model which would bring through resolution at the table.

Following that, of course, within this legislation, also because of the fact there were, I think, 62 contracts at the time because several districts had two bargaining units in them — I hope my memory is not failing me — I was given the task of appointing an arbitrator that would then go through the legislation and make sure that there was consistency in all of the other contracts, the other 60 contracts, and bring clarity to that. So I appointed an arbitrator.

The first arbitrator that I appointed was actually on a list that the parties generally pick from, a reputable individual. The British Columbia Teachers Federation objected to that individual but accepted his recommendation of a subsequent arbitrator. I appointed the next individual — accepted the first arbitrator's recommendation and appointed the second arbitrator. Very quickly into it, the British Columbia Teachers Federation took issue with that individual as the arbitrator, and I was left then with having to try and find a third arbitrator. I found a third arbitrator, appointed him and asked him to carry on with the work that needed to be done through all these contracts. It was found by the British Columbia Teachers Federation that they took objection to him because, in fact….

J. MacPhail: Point of order. Debate has to be relevant, Mr. Chair. We're on section 4, and this is completely irrelevant.

Hon. G. Bruce: It's not irrelevant at all. What we're talking about is how we got to this position.

Hon. G. Bruce: I can appreciate the member's anxiety about this, but one has to take the whole picture. You can't just pick out a little piece of it. We wouldn't be here if the parties had actually worked their way through it as they were meant to do. I can't force the parties to sit there and agree to it. After four….

Hon. G. Bruce: It's got everything to do with this entire piece of legislation. What we actually have is a situation where at the end of the day….

Hon. G. Bruce: At the end of the day you had a fourth arbitrator, who brought forward his recommendations. So we've had this very protracted year and a half of shenanigans and interventions, if you like — or what have you — by the British Columbia Teachers Federation, to the point then that after this arbitrator brought forward his recommendations…. Keep in mind that the British Columbia Teachers Federation withdrew from the table when he was finally accepted as the arbitrator. They did not stay at the table, and they left.

He then went about his work. When his work was complete, they then challenged his work in court. I then listed the options that were available for me to proceed with, and I have chosen this one to bring conclusion. What section 4 does is bring finality to it all. We're not then going back through a whole court process on all of this. We're going to say to the parties: "It is done. That last contract is done. You live by it, and now, from that standpoint, you can sit down and negotiate your next contract, which you have asked to be able to begin." Now the BCTF with the parties can do just that with the passage of this bill.

J. MacPhail: Well, Mr. Chair, I'll tell you, based on the comments that this minister has been repeating over and over and over again to justify this legislation about arbitrators…. Here's what really happened. I'll

Here's what really happened on the appointment of arbitrators. The BCTF had a prevailing objection to the legislation and to the process, but they began proposing names before the government even began appointing. In fact, they said, as the minister noted, that they would agree to Don Munroe as arbitrator. In fact, the BCTF approached Don Munroe to see if he would be willing to serve, but Don Munroe declined when he saw what the job would be. How's that not cooperating?

The government then named Colin Taylor. The BCTF renewed their objections to the legislation and to the system of appointment of a contract-stripper, as they called it. The position was that the legislation was bad and that they had an objection to the arbitrator's jurisdiction on that basis. Colin Taylor scheduled time to hear that objection, but then Colin Taylor, the arbitrator, resigned. He resigned before he even heard that objection. But on his way out….

J. MacPhail: Well, feel free to offer another version, anyone over there — feel free. On his way out, Mr. Taylor suggested George Adams from Ontario to arbitrate. The government appointed George Adams. The BCTF explained to him what the process was and then followed up in writing that they thought, the BCTF thought, that he was eminently suitable. He declined the appointment. The BCTF didn't object; he declined the appointment.

The government appointed Mr. Glasner, who was willing to do the job. The BCTF raised the fact that his wife was a teacher, and Mr. Glasner decided to withdraw. The minister impugns motives that they objected to Mr. Glasner on that basis. They just raised it as a point of information for people to consider, and Mr. Glasner decided to withdraw.

The government then appointed Mr. Eric Rice. So stop this balderdash that this legislation results from the intransigence of one side of the parties to the process on the basis of appointment of arbitrators.

Mr. Chair, I have to tell you, I wasn't going to read that into the record. It came before this minister said it for the first time. But his repetition to a question under section 4 of that information that is completely irrelevant to section 4 made me do so.

What is it that the government is afraid of in terms of court proceedings that requires this clause?

Hon. G. Bruce: It's great you got your piece added in there, and I appreciate that. Final analysis, of course, is that there's much more to all of that, and then the parties didn't stay at the table where they could have stayed if they'd had any real interest in trying to resolve this.

What are we afraid of? Absolutely nothing. We're right here, right out in the open. We brought in the bill and told you what we're doing. We're bringing closure and finality to this so the parties can get on to negotiate a new contract. There is nothing behind anything. There is nothing under any rock or in any corner. It is very clear. It states it right there, section 4. You've clearly identified it. It says to move forward, to move on — that this issue is finished. It is not going back and around and around. It is not going to go through challenges. It is there, and it is done.

Now you had asked the British Columbia Teachers Federation of me: could we move on with our negotiations? You can't if you've got a contract that's not finalized. We've finalized it. I have suggested that there were different options I could have chosen to take. I have mentioned that. I have given you my reasoning as to why I decided to do this, and I'll have to stand by that. I understand that. I elected to take this action to bring finality to it because I think that we've gone on long enough in the whole process, and I didn't see the spirit that was there to actually go through the orderly transition that was meant to have happened with an arbitrator. Whether it was the first, the second, the third or the fourth, they never stayed there. So this is finality. Section 4? Yes, member, it's finality. It finishes this.

We're a year and a half, two years now…. We're at the end, within a matter of months, of this contract. It expires on June 30, 2004. They'd like to get on with their negotiations. If they wish to, they can.

J. MacPhail: Here's this government's version of: how dare the teachers not cooperate with the process. We bring in legislation that imposes a collective agreement and takes away your right to strike, teachers. "What is it you don't like about that? How dare you not cooperate with that." Then we impose on boards of education those collective agreements, and we don't fund them. "What is it you don't like about that, teachers? How dare you not accept the layoffs that resulted in that and the decreased education of children. What is it you don't like about that, teachers?"

Then the minister appoints an arbitrator who is a contract-stripper. In fact, that's what Mr. Rice says. His decision says: "All I have the ability to do is to delete. I don't have the ability to modify or amend." He admits it himself.

Then the minister says: "How dare those teachers not cooperate with that." The minister completely misconstrues the appointment of the arbitrators as if it is all the teachers' fault. I guess he will now stop saying that, now that the real version is on the record. He uses that as an excuse to "bring finality." My gosh, those teachers — how dare they not cooperate with all this draconian legislation that affects the children in the classroom, that affects special needs kids, that has fewer teachers in the system because this government imposes collective agreements, strips contracts and then won't fund them. Oh, that is so outrageous.

Then, just in case after all that battering and hammering the teachers might want to seek some legal recourse again, the government says: "Don't you dare go

to court because if you do go to court, teachers or school boards, and the court does something, it is going to be illegal. It is going to be illegal looking backward, and it is going to be illegal looking forward."

Is the minister contemplating using this section in any other area that may affect his ability or his government's ability to go to court?

Hon. G. Bruce: We fish, don't we? First of all, the story is prescribed about the arbitration process. There is much, much more that goes on through all of that. I can go back and go around it again if you want, but the point is that at the end of the day….

Hon. G. Bruce: No, it's still the truth of it. You went through four arbitrators. The fourth arbitrator, the party….

Hon. G. Bruce: Clearly, there wasn't an appetite to be part of the process. Clearly, that was the case. It wasn't actually the teachers; it was the British Columbia Teachers Federation that…

Hon. G. Bruce: …from time to time just has a little bit of a political agenda. I don't know if my memory is failing me, because I'm getting older — I've been here far too long, as the member opposite I'm sure would applaud — but it seemed to me that somewhere in their ten years, the former administration's ten years, they imposed a few contracts. I'm pretty sure they actually imposed some form of contract with the British Columbia Teachers Federation — I think three times, in fact. There is all sorts of revisionist history.

Hon. G. Bruce: Well, it's there. You as a government had the same sorts of challenges there of having to deal with it. Of course, as I mentioned earlier on, it is not unique to British Columbia. It is a situation that goes across the country.

So this, actually, section 4…. You know, the member opposite, the Leader of the Opposition, has made it abundantly clear that this is finality. This is finality. I have tried to explain why I think it was necessary to do that. I've said it on numerous occasions now. I've explained the options to anybody that was interested. Somebody else might have picked option A, somebody might have picked option B, and somebody might have picked option C. But that somebody at this point had to be me, and here I am, so I've done that.

On balance, of all of the information I had to move things along so we can get on with the process of being able to negotiate new contracts, if they want to do that…. To add finality of a contract that expires on June 30, 2004, it was now time to bring it to conclusion. That's what we've done here, and that's what section 4 is all about.

J. Kwan: Visiting us in the visitors' gallery today is a group of students. The Britannia Community Services Centre is hosting visitors from Madawska, Ontario. They're doing an exchange for about a week with each other. There are 18 grade 6 students in the visitors' gallery today, with seven adults accompanying them. They are here, of course, to learn about the parliamentary system in the B.C. Legislature and how it works with government in terms of history, as well, with the B.C. Legislature.

They have been touring around the Legislature today, and I've just greeted them outside in the rotunda. They're sitting in the gallery now. I would ask the House to please welcome them and to demonstrate to them how the finest tradition of B.C. politics works in the Legislature of British Columbia.

J. MacPhail: Mr. Chair, let's be very clear that it is a unique record of these B.C. Liberals that they impose collective agreements that strip collective agreements and that they impose collective agreements and provide no funding for the collective agreements. This is a unique achievement — a dubious, shameful achievement, but nevertheless unique of this government.

Clause 4 says to the world that you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's class size; you can't go to court if you are worried about your kid's safety in fire drills if he or she is a special needs student; you can't go to court if your child isn't getting help with proper designation. That's what this clause says. Don't worry about looking to the future; don't even think about going to court, because you can't do it. That's what clause 4 is about.

I can hardly wait to see the Liberals stand up and say: "Wow, I support that." I wonder if they would impose the same standard on themselves as they challenge the legally won court decisions of families with autistic children. Will they impose the same clause on themselves in that circumstance?

J. MacPhail: Here's another fascinating section. Section 4 was about: don't even think about going to court on anything to do with the deleted clauses of the Teachers' Collective Agreement Deletions. Don't even think of exercising the rights that you may have achieved in court retroactively, but don't think about going…. If you go to court, and some court has the gall to make a decision or matters to that, it'll be declared illegal.

That's section 4. Most of the Liberals voted in favour of that. No, I'm sorry. All of the Liberals voted in favour of that.

Hon. G. Bruce: Perhaps the member could be a little bit more specific as to what she means by that.

J. MacPhail: The section says: "Despite any decision of a court to the contrary…." Does that include the LRB?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not aware and don't believe that there's anything before the Labour Relations Board that's relevant to this and the ruling of Shaw.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry. I don't understand that answer at all. Under section 5(1), there is the word "court" used in the first line. Does the word "court" capture or include the Labour Relations Board — yes or no?

Hon. G. Bruce: This clarifies that the Rice arbitration is the law of the land and that from there whoever is adjudicating would have to be cognizant of that ruling, of that adjudication.

J. MacPhail: Why is the minister refusing to answer my question? It's either yes or no. Does the word "court" in section 5 include the Labour Relations Board — yes or no? Surely, it has been contemplated — that question.

Let me just clarify why I assume it's been contemplated. It is because section 5(1)(b) refers to arbitrations. Arbitrations can be appealed to the Labour Relations Board. That's where you appeal them — not to courts, not to the Supreme Court. So I assume it's been contemplated.

Hon. G. Bruce: Thank you for that clarification. Yeah. If there was a grievance that had been launched relative to the Shaw ruling, as there have been grievances that I have mentioned, this legislation takes effect. This legislation, Bill 19, takes effect.

If you come back to where we were on section 4 — I don't want to go back to section 4, but to section 5 — and the finality of all of this, this is the finality. We're not going to go, then, through a whole array of grievances that had been launched as a result of the Shaw ruling to the Rice award and all the rest of it. We're being very clear. As I said, there's nothing under any rock or in any corner. This is the finality to that contract so that the parties can move ahead. If there were grievances that had been lodged, they wouldn't have standing now if they were utilizing the base of the Shaw report.

J. MacPhail: The minister keeps referring to — I'm sorry — the Shaw report. I just can't hear him at the end. The Shaw what?

J. MacPhail: The Shaw decision is Justice Shaw's decision from the B.C. Supreme Court that overturned the Rice arbitration. Is that all that's captured by this? Is that the only decision that's captured by this clause?

Hon. G. Bruce: I'm not aware of any other, but I want to be clear. What this is saying is that the Rice arbitration, with this legislation, is what is in effect. I'm being very clear on this. I think probably you're wondering, okay, if there were a grievance that would have been lodged…. I don't know what all's going on there in everybody's world, but I do know this is the starting point. This is the basis that you will work from. Now, moving ahead very quickly, you can get on with negotiating new contracts if you want.

I'm trying to figure out where you're going with this, what you're trying to bring to this. The simplicity of it, as I'm trying to understand that, is that if there is a grievance that's been lodged, this is the starting point of how they will be adjudicated. If they had been lodged as a result of the Justice Shaw's report, they won't have standing. This is the law right here. This is finality.

It's the same, relative to 4. We are moving on now. It's the same part. This was closing all of that off so we're not going back and through here and around and around. As I've mentioned, that's actually been the manner of operation for the last while — arbitrator after arbitrator after arbitrator, appeal…. It's right from a work stoppage, going back to how this whole thing first came into place. I'm not hiding anything on that; I'm telling you exactly that's what it is. This is finality. This is it for this contract. There it is. "You've asked to be able to negotiate your new contract; now you can. You can get on with that if you choose to do so. Your contract expires at the end of June of 2004, so it's been three years."

J. MacPhail: Well, I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that the reason why I'm asking these questions is to explain what the words mean. It's a fundamentally flawed piece of legislation — completely. The minister holds out a false hope of renegotiation of these clauses — a completely false hope. I wonder if that's the basis on which these Liberal MLAs are supporting this legislation. I can't believe that the Liberal MLAs are supporting this legislation, the heavy hand of the law that overrides the courts.

The minister says: "Oh, the process has taken so long." Yeah, collective bargaining takes a long time. And when the government intervenes by stripping a collective agreement, imposing a settlement, refusing to fund it, it really does affect collective bargaining, and it affects the relationship between the parties. He's absolutely right.

But I will expect, Mr. Chair, that the parents of the children who are affected by all of this government's contract stripping and draconian laws side with the educators who are dismayed by this and not with this government. The minister says that he wants to get on with negotiations. Really? I can imagine what kind of negotiations those are going to be with this government's record.

Government takes great pride in no strikes. Well, they don't allow people to strike; they impose collective agreements. They don't allow people to take job action; they bring in legislation. Mr. Chair, I predict that Bill 19 has actually made the next round of bargaining more complex and has frustrated that round of bargaining. This government has skewed collective bargaining in favour of the B.C. public sector employers association. This minister has not only done that, but he's now held out a completely false hope to people that they can renegotiate some of these clauses.

I hope people will take him at his word in this Legislature. I hope people will table this whole list and renegotiate it, because that's what the minister said they could do. That's exactly what he said they could do.

Mr. Chair, I note that there's no sunset clause in this legislation — none. In section 5(1)(b), the words say this: "(b) those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provisions must not for any purpose, including any suit or arbitration commenced or continued before or after the coming into force of this section, be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002." What effect does this language have on a renewed collective agreement?

Hon. G. Bruce: Section 5(b) doesn't have any impact in respect to going forward. I want to be clear that contracts negotiated going forward, of course, cannot be in contravention of the School Act. That's the guiding basic principle. But 5(b) doesn't have any impact on a new contract being negotiated. You know, it's interesting too. The member opposite in a few comments here sort of implies that the only people that would ever be interested or concerned for the students and the educational system are…. I take it it's the executive of the British Columbia Teachers Federation. It all has to be done in the contractual aspect of things. There are many, many people: moms, school trustees, dads, principals, vice-principals, counsellors.

J. MacPhail: Why don't you ask them whether they support you? Why don't you ask them?

Hon. G. Bruce: I don't need to. On May 17, 2005, that'll certainly happen. I know that. I don't have any argument with you about how popular I am or not. I understand that.

We're making some tough decisions. We're making some decisions that have had to be brought about mainly because of the former administration's decade of decline in this province. I know that, and so do the general public. When you make difficult decisions, it's not often that people cheer you. It's human nature. They're not going to. It takes time to work things around and to rebuild.

You know, there's no doubt about it: the former administration left us a huge mountain to climb to be able to get this province turned around and back on its feet. We all knew — with the leadership of the Premier of this province — it was going to be a challenge, but we weren't going to win the day on popularity. We know that.

There's nothing surprising in any of these numbers and such that come out today. We know that. When you make tough decisions, your popularity is not going to go up. When you make the right decisions, you've got to work your way through that, and you've got to work through with the general public. The general public will make their decision. That's a year from now. You and I know that. It's a fixed date. They'll all get that opportunity.

Also, with all the processes in there, this agreement that we were talking about…. Sort of sometimes it im-

plied the rush to bring in legislation, whether it's this part or Bill 27 or Bill 28. I mean, it was after, I think, 80 days of negotiation. There were three issues that had been settled in this particular dispute back in 2001 — three issues after 80 days. The facilitator of those discussions, Stephen Kelleher, a respected individual, also now a justice…. It's been a difficult, prolonged harangue. What we're doing here is saying to everybody: "Look, this is over. It's done. This contract is finished." There's finality through this. It expires on June 30, 2004. By putting this over here and finishing it, the parties can then, if they choose to, carry on with the negotiation. That's what all this does.

J. MacPhail: Can the minister walk me through the legislation and demonstrate how the future collective agreement is not affected by this legislation? The legislation deletes 27.1 from the School Act. The only clause left that refers to any collective agreement is this retroactive clause, and it says it cannot be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002. There's no sunset clause to this legislation. Could the minister demonstrate to me how it is that that July 1, 2002, has no meaning if there's a new collective agreement agreed upon?

Hon. G. Bruce: This refers to this collective agreement, the one that we're in.

Hon. G. Bruce: It says right there. It says: "those deleted words, phrases, provisions and parts of provisions must not for any purpose…be considered part of that collective agreement on or after July 1, 2002." This is the collective agreement that we're in.

As we stated through the beginning and the body of this in negotiations, you can't negotiate those things that are in contravention of the School Act, so that's that part going forward. Anything else you can go ahead and negotiate. This particular act is clear on what those items were as it applied to the contract as it was stated — taken out. They're fixed, and now, going forward, here's what you're faced with. Then this contract that they're in right now expires on June 30, 2004.

J. MacPhail: I'm actually thrilled about that, because then this clause becomes meaningless on June 30, 2004 — completely. I'm thrilled about that. This clause has absolutely no meaning as of June 30, 2004, then. That's the effect of this minister's words.

Hon. G. Bruce: Mr. Chair, I move that we rise and report completion without amendment.

Bill 19, Education Services Collective Agreement Amendment Act, 2004, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker: We'll pause here for a few minutes while the minister's on his way.

In 2001 under the leadership of our Premier, we made a commitment to spur economic growth and increase competition in the commercial transportation sector. It is with this commitment and this strategy in mind that I propose Bill 30.

The current Motor Carrier Act was introduced in 1939 and has not been significantly changed since. Yet we all know that the world has changed very dramatically since 1939. Commercial transportation companies tell us that the current act does not allow for innovation

The legislation presented today will replace the Motor Carrier Act with the new Passenger Transportation Act. This legislation places a focus and a priority on safety. It ensures that service to smaller communities in the heartlands of our province is maintained. It allows the commercial transportation industry to respond to market forces, and it gives operators the flexibility needed to meet the needs of their customers.

This bill, to summarize some of the key points briefly, ensures continued public safety. It protects and enhances transportation services. It continues regulation of the industry to ensure that the public has access to transportation services, and it allows the commercial transportation industry to be more innovative. It also allows operators to quickly respond to changing market conditions, something that is becoming increasingly important as we move into a more competitive world.

Industry has been telling us that they want better enforcement measures to deal with illegal, unlicensed operators and to continue to be governed by provincial legislation. We will maintain provincial regulation of taxis. We will streamline the application process. We will also be increasing penalties against illegal operators, and we will require dispatchers and brokers to use licensed taxis.

I would like to offer an example of the restrictive nature of regulation under the existing Motor Carrier Act. Some wine tour companies could take passengers to one winery but not to another only a short distance away. The Passenger Transportation Act will remove the area of operation restrictions for these kinds of operations. That was a very common restriction under the old Motor Carrier Act.

In addition to providing greater flexibility, this act will ensure that service to communities is protected and maintained. Under the Motor Carrier Act, charter buses have to prove a need for service, which could result in a lengthy application process, and are granted licences often with many restrictions. The new act will remove licence restrictions that forced charter bus operators to work in a certain area. It will remove restrictions on the type of service or market and provide greater flexibility so that they can meet their customers' needs.

Under the new act, intercity buses will be able to meet the needs of customers by having the ability to adapt to changing market conditions. Intercity buses will continue to be regulated by the Passenger Transportation Board to ensure adequate service to our heartland communities on low-usage routes.

This bill will eliminate the Motor Carrier Commission and replace it with the Passenger Transportation Board. The new board will be smaller. It will be streamlined, and it will be more efficient. The act also creates the position of registrar of passenger transportation. The registrar will process new applications, investigate complaints concerning illegal carriers and have the ability to impose sanctions and recommend regulatory amendments.

Under the leadership of our Premier, we are opening up the commercial transportation industry to more competition and are providing more flexibility. It's about keeping public safety a priority and ensuring that service is maintained and improved. The Passenger Transportation Act is about letting business do what it does best, which is operating its businesses. It's also about keeping yet another of our new-era commitments.

J. Reid: I'm proud to stand and support this piece of legislation. The Motor Carrier Commission, as the minister has stated, was encumbered with many outdated regulations and requirements. While they were able to address that in the last couple of years in some reform, a lot of what was required was embedded in legislation, which made for frustration on the part of those who wished to streamline what they were doing, as well as frustration with the Motor Carrier Commission.

Knowing that things do change and times do change, it's important to look at what the basis of the legislation was, what it was trying to accomplish, and to see whether there is a way of doing that in a friendlier fashion to still comply with the original intent. As the minister has stated, the original intent was around safety, to a large degree, and around security of service.

Looking at the safety aspects in this piece of legislation, it is embedded with safety all the way through to make sure that the requirements so that people travelling in transportation vehicles provided from someone else, from a different business, could feel secure, could know that their interests had been looked after and that the government was upholding its duties in regulating their safety in these vehicles…. The act is able to address that in a very straightforward way, making sure that people can comply easily and that as long as they comply, it won't impede their time in order to get permission to operate their vehicles. Safety has been maintained all through this act to the highest standards — to the same standards that everybody has to operate under today. That certainly has been important.

Some of the changes that the government was encouraged to take a look at…. Some of the frustrations that were faced were the inability of many carriers to respond fairly quickly and to prove, before they even started their business, that their business was going to be successful. This was for all of us, faced in our constituencies with people who had ideas and innovations and who wanted to start a business around transportation, an incredible frustration. How do you prove a business is going to be successful before you've even attempted it? It was also frustrating for the Motor Carrier Commission to have to accept what that proof might be and, indeed, how that would be put before them.

We certainly believe that people should be able to start a business and be able to look to their own experiences and have innovations that would then…. They

would be allowed to succeed or fail without having this burden of proof in advance. We know that many wonderful innovations in business have been preceded by some business failures initially. As long as the safety aspect is always maintained, we believe that people should have the right to take on a business venture and risk their own capital in that business venture and, certainly, provide innovations to the motor carrier industry.

We've also looked around the province at different changes in society. One of those changes, as we know, is an aging population. An aging population has different transportation needs. While right now we have taxis, limousines and the bus system, we need to let the private sector react to changes in demographics and come up with ideas that will serve the needs of new customers.

We are certainly aware of challenges facing people who can no longer keep their driver's licence. We certainly want to maintain safety on the road, but those people are put in a very difficult position in accessing the transportation they might need at a cost that they might be able to afford.

We believe that the taxi industry is a good and sound and stable industry in this province that serves people well. We want to support that industry, and this legislation continues to do that. In fact, it actually enhances the ability for the taxi industry to maintain itself at a very high standard, which, again, I believe we do have in this province.

One of the frustrations of the taxi industry was pirate taxis. Those were the taxis that were not getting properly licensed and, therefore, did offer a safety hazard to people who might choose to ride in them. This piece of legislation enables those operators who were not having to comply…. With more direct challenges, with more direct intervention and with quicker punishment for people who were not going to be complying with their safety requirements, we believe that it is indeed a very positive aspect of this legislation and has been much needed.

We know that lines are blurring in the industry — for example, between taxis and limousines. As limousines shrink and taxis might become more luxurious, there has to be a way of being able to meet the future needs. There has to be a way of putting flexibility within the legislation so that the people who are responsible for licensing have the ability to make decisions wisely. We believe this legislation will also do that, which will be a positive aspect to those two industries and, again, be helpful to consumers, who ultimately are the ones that end up benefiting from this type of legislation.

We do know that intercity buses are very important to people in this province and very important for transportation in rural areas. We looked very hard at that industry to look at how we can improve it and at the same time allow the operators to be as efficient as possible and still allow the integrity of that industry so we're not going to lose routes in rural areas. This legislation accomplishes that as well, making sure that those intercity bus operators have the flexibility that they didn't have before — for example, to lower their rates. Before, if they wanted to lower their rates on routes, they had to go through a very cumbersome process. Now they can lower the rates if they want to in order to attract customers. We believe that will be beneficial for the industry. At the same time, it maintains the integrity of the industry so that, again, people in rural communities can be assured that they'll still have the same bus service as they have today.

This legislation addresses many of those concerns. It's a practical piece of legislation. It is responsive to the needs of business. At the same time, it holds safety at the absolute highest standard and in the highest regard. I believe this legislation will go far in meeting future needs, encouraging innovation and looking after the consumer. I will certainly be supporting it.

R. Nijjar: I felt it was very important to rise today and speak on this act. There is a great significance in the lower mainland. I represent the riding of east Vancouver — Vancouver-Kingsway. Throughout the lower mainland we know that many of the taxi drivers live in our communities. In many cases, they're immigrant class. They are new Canadians, families — a culture where there is a great importance on mortgages, saving money and paying for our children's education, as the onus is on the parent.

There's this commitment within the taxi industry, of those that drive taxis, to working as hard and diligently as they can for the families. We all are aware and know of that type of thinking. As we know, many taxi drivers are in our communities. We have been in discussions with them over the last three years and even beforehand, as this government was then in opposition.

We know that taxi licences throughout the lower mainland even — across British Columbia but in the lower mainland — could be $300,000 or $350,000 for a licence. It is like buying a home. The investment is basically the same thing. The commitment and the necessity to be able to manage to continue to pay down what is really, in effect, a mortgage while you're taking care of your family and putting your kids through school and trying to pay off your mortgage on your house is a very difficult and very trying thing.

It is important, then, that government, when making changes, bring about changes that recognize what is already there — what system is already there, where families and individuals have invested greatly in the system. When this government looked at making changes, I as the member for Vancouver-Kingsway and many of my colleagues, especially those from Surrey — Surrey–Green Timbers, Surrey-Tynehead and Surrey–Panorama Ridge — and even my colleagues from the rest of Vancouver, like Vancouver-Fraserview, worked very hard to ensure that the voice of the taxi industry was understood by the government and that the needs of the public interests represented through the gov-

ernment were understood by the taxi industry. There was a real discussion and compromise to be had. The public policy was put in the forefront.

We were able to come up with a decision that allowed us to, in effect, not destroy the lives and the investment of the individuals in the taxi industry but yet pull forth from them and work with them to establish some directions that would strengthen not only the taxi industry ultimately but, more importantly, the service to the public — for example, increasing penalties to those that take advantage of the taxi industry for their own use and try to bypass regulations, bypass licensing and try to act as taxi drivers, etc., and going after them, much like a lot of things that we have done in other regulations when it comes to environment and forestry. You have to go after those that break the law and violate regulations and not then put this black cloud over the whole industry and say that everyone is punishable and everyone is going to be a victim of someone else's wrongdoings.

The taxi industry is a good industry. The taxi industry has worked well. They ask that government continue to regulate. We have done that. We have done that to protect the taxi industry, but at the same time we work with them to work at the larger picture — the public interest. Those discussions are not easy. It's very easy for government to have come in and said: "Well, it makes absolutely no sense for government to regulate to this extent." This could very well be seen as the type of thing a government would be doing in a different era. But that's not reality. Reality is that there are investments there.

My hat goes off to the ministry and the Minister of Transportation who was willing to not only listen but, more importantly, to then take that information from the MLAs that represent those communities — the information and the views of the taxi industry — and bring that together and bring forward to them things that they could live with, such as certain penalties and so forth. It is a good compromise. It is a good direction for the public interest.

You know, there is now going to be greater safety in taxis, with cameras. That is important for the taxi industry. They wanted that. It is good that they have had an ability to…. What we've seen over the last six to eight months have been several incidences that have made the front page of the paper, with taxi drivers being stabbed and attacked.

The public is assisted; the industry is assisted; tourism is assisted. The taxi industry is assisted through other things that government is doing. Bringing in 2010 and bringing in the convention centre are two things that…. When I and all my colleagues drive in taxis, as we do when we go back and forth from ferries and airports trying to move around the province to hear views, taxi drivers say all the time what an impact they look forward to from the construction and then the use of the convention centre. Even they see more investment and more tourism happening after 9/11. Of course, there was a great impact on the taxi industry.

We're doing the best we can to revive the economy for everyone in British Columbia. Obviously, the taxi industry benefits from it when they see more people coming, more people investing and more people moving around because there are more jobs, more interaction and more trade.

The Olympics are one prime example of bringing people to British Columbia. But then it's countless things — the World Junior Hockey Championships and World Firefighters Games, which are the second-biggest games of the sort in the world. These are great things.

I'm very proud to have worked on this file. I'm very proud, as are my colleagues from Vancouver, Burnaby, the lower mainland and Surrey, especially, that participated. I'm very proud of the work of both the former Minister of Transportation, who started all this and led the way, and the current Minister of Transportation, who was able to basically close the deal on this.

Hon. R. Harris: I want to say a few words around this bill because I do support it, and I think it is a great step forward in terms of evolving the transportation industry. I want to talk a bit more about its impact in rural communities, because I think that is a major feature of this bill that certainly works for me, and I know it works for a number of MLAs that represent other rural communities.

I think the first thing, though, about this bill that is important for everyone to get and to understand is that it does, in fact, still focus its primary energies on protecting the safety and integrity of the transportation system and the operators that work within it. That's fundamentally, I think, what most people are concerned about. We want to know that the vehicles that are on our streets and our driveways are in fact operating in a safe manner, that they're maintained in a safe manner and that those standards are really at the highest level. This bill in no way impacts negatively the standards that were in place prior.

As a previous trucker who used to deal in the motor carrier world and certainly had some experience trying to navigate through that maze of regulations and requirements, I can appreciate the need to modernize this act. It is interesting when I hear that the original act was from 1939. I didn't know that. But I can tell you when you sort of tried to work through the maze and tried to make things work for yourself as a businessman, it became very apparent that there were a lot of hurdles and a lot of obstacles to try and get a business going and to operate within the motor carrier world.

I will say, though, that over the last couple of years there certainly had been attempts, as the member for Nanaimo-Parksville pointed out, by the motor carrier board itself to become more flexible and to operate and be a little more — I guess, from an operator's perspective — customer-friendly. There were some inherent challenges. Certainly, its inability and lack of flexibility in how it issued licences and moved forward just continued to create a barrier to new business and new opportunity.

We do talk about things like tourism in the north as the emerging business. For us, we don't see it as emerging, but we certainly see it as one that is going to grow significantly. I can remember from the times that I lived in the Queen Charlotte Islands and the member for North Coast's riding, as well as even in the Kitimat-Terrace area today, that the limited ability to actually get public transportation if not any transportation between cities is difficult.

An even greater challenge has been how, in fact, if you had an idea that you wanted to start up commercial bus transportation routes that started to take in some of the spectacular dynamics of our region of the province, the motor carrier became a very large hurdle, mainly because of that requirement that you needed to provide proof of success before you could even get going. You had to actually have a business that started at the top end rather than a business that you started to put into the marketplace and would build and grow, and success would build upon success.

This bill finally starts to put in place some of those flexibilities, some of the abilities of people who want to go from Terrace up to Bell II or want to bring in folks, especially with the cruise ships coming into Prince Rupert this season. I think we're going to be seeing 32 of the large-class cruise ships. That's over 60,000 visitors. We know that a large chunk of those folks are going to come back to the northwest two to three years out.

There are people already planning how they will start to move those people around the regions — the kinds of tour operations they want to put in place, the businesses and the opportunities. We need a modern Motor Carrier Act that, in fact, reflects those dynamics of starting up those businesses to be successful so that those folks can actually plan today with some certainty that they're going to get through a process quickly, that it's going to be a process that allows them to, quite frankly, react to the clientele and the market they have.

Part of starting up a business is, in fact, that whole unknown. One of the members talked previously about the changing demographics of our communities and how transportation needs need to change to fit those new needs. Certainly, as we look at creating centres of excellence around health and with an aging population, there is a need to find ways to make sure that we have carriers. Actually, there are tremendous business opportunities about setting up transportation systems that meet those kinds of clientele so that we have those transportation systems that actually fit well with the clientele, that those business proposals match well with the objectives of the individuals putting them forward.

This is a good act. It's one that people who work in the motor carrier world have been asking for, for a long time. It protects the integrity of the taxi business, which I know has had concerns, by maintaining that structure. What it also does is put in place some flexible regimes that allow — especially in the rural part of this province — the opportunity for businesses to step forward, to establish themselves, to get up and running, to build a successful business and to operate.

It provides the flexibility of being able to react to the marketplace, which is even more important, quite candidly. I think anyone who has been in business knows that once you've started up, things don't always work out quite the way you wanted them to, and you need to be able to adapt and to change. That's very important in today's society.

This actually fits very well with our government's role of not, in fact, putting in place rules and structures that are one-size-fits-all. This actually provides that kind of flexibility and mobility within the community, and certainly within the motor carrier world and the transportation world, so that we can have businesses that can react to that.

At the core of it all, at no point do we compromise safety in this. We maintain a standard in the province that I think is probably the highest in the world. I can tell you that the people I know that work in the transportation sector are of the highest integrity. These are folks that are proud of their equipment; they're very proud of their operators; they're very proud of their businesses. That's what we're trying to build in this province — people that are proud to be in business and want to be successful.

I think it is a very good piece of legislation. I'm pleased to be able to stand here to support it. I think it is exactly the kind of thing we need to continue to do in this province as we attract business and continue to build on the successes that I believe we've already started to make.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 30.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the bill be moved to the Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Passenger Transportation Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

The Mineral Tenure Act is the legislative authority for mineral titles acquisition and title maintenance. With Bill 29, government is making significant changes to B.C.'s system for subsurface title acquisition and management. It is a modernization of the mineral titles acquisition process first established in the mid-1800s.

I'm pleased to announce these changes, which will enable a new Internet-based system for acquiring mineral and placer claims in the province. It will be called

Mineral Titles Online. The new on-line system will be simple and straightforward to use.

This is only one of the steps that we are taking to improve and enhance mineral exploration in British Columbia. You will recall that our Premier has a vision for mining in the province of British Columbia. He laid out that vision very clearly during the election in the New Era document. He laid it out to all British Columbians, and we are fulfilling those obligations to the people of the province to actually make the mineral industry an industry that will continue to grow in British Columbia and provide all the great resources that it does.

To facilitate that kind of growth, to continue to facilitate the kind of growth that we have seen since being elected in 2001, we knew that we had to actually modernize some of the systems we use for registration and claim-staking. Although claim-staking is part of the history of British Columbia — as I said earlier, from the mid-1800s there has been mining in this great province, and it has been done by the two-post claim system — there comes a time when you have to start moving to a system that actually is more accurate, more responsive, easier to manage by government and easier to do by the prospector and those that are out there making claims on the land base.

We have done a number of things. I just want to basically recap a little bit, because this is in a greater vision for this province and for the mining industry — and what benefits it brings to this great province of ours.

When we initially took office, mining was almost extinct in the province. I can only say that having spent a decade here with the NDP, ten years watching them actually discourage mining in the province, it was very disheartening for me and I think very disheartening for those that do this kind of work — prospectors that go out on the land base and prospect for minerals to provide jobs and economic activity in all parts of the province and specifically the rural part of the province.

Immediately on coming into office, we initially reduced taxation for the industry to encourage it, to foster it, to actually get some confidence back in British Columbia in the mining industry. As I said earlier, we know it waned hugely, and so we knew we had to build on that. The Premier knew we had to build on those kinds of things and that it would take a while. It would take a lot of hard work.

Mineral Titles Online is just one small part of that whole procedure to bring that confidence back, that gusto, that zest that those miners bring to British Columbia in doing what they do so well, and that's going out on a huge land base and actually finding minerals. So we did the taxation issue. We reduced personal taxes. We reduced or eliminated sales tax for mining equipment used on mine sites. We eliminated the corporate capital tax — a tax on debt. We reduced the corporate tax. We did a number of other things along with that. The taxation was just one part of it that was used by the previous administration to drive industry, and specifically the mining industry, out of the province.

We knew we had to do some other things. We had some pretty long consultations with the mining industry about things we had to do to rebuild this great industry in this great province of ours. We went out, and we talked to them and actually got from the mining industry some of the things that they wanted done. They came forward with a mining plan for British Columbia with a number of suggestions — I believe, five or six of them. We've slowly been working at implementing those requests to actually bring back mining into the province here.

I would say that the two-zone system that we initiated a year ago for mining said there are two zones in British Columbia — one for mining and one where you can't go mining. You can't go mining in parks and ecological reserves and those places that are set aside for other purposes for people in our great province. So we retain that environmental, and very good environmental, need to actually have 12 to 13 percent of our province set aside in parks for future generations. We've done that. That was just one of the steps we wanted to do to make sure people in British Columbia could enjoy the great natural beauty that this province has and always has had. But we still wanted to encourage mining on the rest of the land base, so we put in a two-zone system which clearly laid out where you can mine and where you can't mine. We've done some other things with coal leases — can you imagine, to actually allow coal companies to use gravel on their site to gravel their roads, for all roads? — all those kinds of easy things to do that actually encourage more investment in the province.

We know that mining is important to each and every one of us, regardless of where we live in the province. You know, from the time you get up in the morning — in fact, even before that; from the time your alarm clock goes in the morning…. When you look at your alarm clock, and it's made out of metal, you know or you should think about how that came out of the ground in some form of rock. Then it was actually processed and made into metal and steel. The phosphorous that's on the hour hand and the minute hand so that you can see them in the dark — all part of the mining industry. That's just a simple thing from when we first start.

When we started thinking about that, when our Premier was thinking about a vision for mining in the province, we thought about some of these things that we have to do to encourage it back again. You know, another simple process takes place in the morning. Most people — or, I would imagine, all people — brush their teeth. There are four different kinds of minerals in toothpaste. I'm not sure which toothpaste, but on average there are four different minerals in toothpaste. It's amazing when you think about it how we just take it for granted that all this is here for us all the time.

Then when we started working towards doing some of these things like Mineral Titles Online, like the two-zone system, the tax breaks to encourage the in-

dustry back into this great province of ours so they can provide well-paying jobs — jobs that waned under the NDP, jobs that went away…. The NDP, I guess, didn't care about those good jobs — average jobs that paid about $90,000 a year for working in the mining industry; good, family-supporting jobs that each and every one of us wants in our communities. Regardless of whether you live in Vancouver or you live in Smithers, you want those good jobs.

The folks in Vancouver depend on the mining industry more than they probably realize. If you look at the port and you look at all the minerals that go out of the port; if you look at the shipments, the coal, the copper concentrates — you name it…. On and on and on, it is all part of that great port system that we have in British Columbia in the lower mainland and, I should say, on the north coast.

We wanted to encourage that industry to actually come back and start producing those jobs. We have mineral wealth like you wouldn't believe in this great province of ours — absolutely unbelievable. All we need to do is encourage the industry to come in, develop it — the private sector — create the well-paying jobs that I just spoke about for each and every one of us that will be family-supporting jobs, taxation that will actually support communities, support community growth wherever it happens to be in the great province of British Columbia.

You know, what we've done so far and are continuing on with Mineral Titles Online, a system that will change the way we do things, actually is starting to show some really good signs. I want to use a few statistics. If you go back to the year that we were elected, year 2001 — appointed to government, actually, June 5…. The previous year saw $25 million of exploration money spent in British Columbia. That's a pretty miserable, small amount when the industry tells us we need a minimum of $150 million a year and upwards to actually have sustainable mining in British Columbia. That means that mines do close because the ore is depleted, and you need new mines coming on stream to be able to continue to have this industry in our province. Those are some of the things that we were faced with when we came into office.

Since we came into office, since we started making the changes immediately, since we moved forward with changes to actually encourage the industry in the province, we've seen nothing but an increase, an incline in dollars spent on exploration and the amount of claims that are staked. We knew that when the dollars were going up on the exploration and people were actually going out there in the province, they had faith in British Columbia. They had faith again that the mining industry was wanted in the province of British Columbia. We moved to this Mineral Titles Online so we can actually facilitate that industry to a greater degree. It's just another part of the process, another cog in the gear.

We saw that $25 million grow to $55 million last year. In three short years it grew from $25 million to $55 million. Now, let me tell you, it is pretty hard to go out there and encourage that industry to come back to British Columbia in two or three years after having been made the villains for ten. It took a lot of work, not just on my part. Every member that is in this House, regardless of where they're at, has actually invited the mining industry back.

They're the safest heavy industry in Canada and in British Columbia. They have a great environmental record in the province. Since the mid-1800s, since we've had mining in British Columbia, they've only managed to actually affect about 1/10 of 1 percent of the land base. To put that in perspective, that's smaller than the city of Surrey. I know we've paved Surrey — the streets, the parking lots, levelled the trees that were there.

It's a great part of the world, but one should think about…. When you think about the billions of dollars that are created from natural resources, from the mining industry in British Columbia, from the thousands and thousands of jobs that are produced — well-paying family-supporting jobs, jobs that support our ports, our infrastructure, our rail, our transportation, our trucking industry — we should be happy that those things are happening. When we only do it on 1/10 of 1 percent of the land base, that's pretty phenomenal.

Their environmental record is great. All you have to do is go to some of the mines that have been closed. As I said earlier, you find the mine, you mine it, you run out of ore, and you have to go to another place. The reclamation bonds that that industry has in place are huge. The reclamation that they have to do is also very stringent. In fact, it's pretty tough. But you know what the industry says to us? "We're fine with that. We want those tough regulations in cleanup, because we want to show to the world and we want to show to British Columbians…." They want to show to British Columbians that they can do it environmentally and sustainably in this great province of ours.

We have this opportunity with Mineral Titles Online to move through to another new step, and it is going to be a tough step for some. There has been consultation across the province to a huge degree over the last two years on building this bill that will move us to the e-commerce world. Both e-commerce and staking will be more accurate. It will be quicker. It will be better for industry. It will be better for the prospector. It will be better for the mining companies, and at the end of the day it will also be better for government, because we'll be able to adjust the lease sizes to what's required for that person who wants to stake that claim. They will be able to do that electronically. They will be able to amalgamate leases. They will be able to put them together, take them apart. They will actually be able to go on line and see where they're at. It's a wonderful system.

Computerization has changed the world and all of us — how we live, how we operate in our businesses and how we operate in government. I'm going to tell

you a little story. There was a time when I said I would never get a bank card because I didn't want to trust them when they first came out. My goodness. Actually, now I wish sometimes I didn't have a bank card because I take too much out of my bank account.

But let me tell you, when you talk about convenience, it is absolutely convenient. I was in London last year on a mission to actually encourage investment in British Columbia because of the great things we're doing here for the mining industry, and I needed some cash. I went up to a bank machine, and I put my credit card in, and I got some money. It was amazing. In fact, a while ago — before I got this job, actually; I haven't had the time since then — I was on a cruise ship for a three-day cruise — a real long one. I put my bank card in the machine, and I got some money — out in the middle of the ocean.

You know, that's the kind of thing that happens when you look at computerization and e-commerce and how it moves us forward in this great province. We've said that through our 58 government offices, I believe, across the province, where prospectors and folks will be able to go to use their computers, we'll help them in those places to actually be able to do their staking on line. On top of that, we're going to hold a whole bunch of sessions around the province to develop the regulations with the industry.

So a good part of this bill authorizes the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to make regulations. They're not developed yet, because we actually want to go out with the industry, to work with them in different parts of the province — that's not just here; that's around the province of British Columbia — to talk to the industry, to actually get their feedback. We've already done that for two years, but now we want to develop the regulations so that we can actually put this new system in place on January 1, 2005.

That's a target. That's not an absolute; that's a target. We want to work with the industry. We want to work with those miners who are actually in the field, who do this kind of work, so that we can — the sooner the better — put this into place. I'm sure you would understand, Mr. Speaker, because I know you're a great fan of e-commerce and those kinds of things, and you've held some technology conferences in the Okanagan to actually pursue this kind of thing further in the province. You should be commended for that.

We will take the time with those who may feel a little nervous sitting down at a computer to actually do their claim-staking, but I think — and it's been shown to me — that once they get accustomed to it, once they get used to it and once they do it a number of times, they're going to be pretty happy with the way the system works.

We're not pioneers in this area in all of Canada, but we are one jurisdiction in Canada that's doing it. Alberta does it now — Nova Scotia and, I believe, Newfoundland and Quebec. They've all used more or less the same process. You go out and talk to the industry at length about how you can move this process forward, reduce red tape and a whole bunch of paper trail, and actually move to e-commerce.

From what I understand and what I have been told, it's actually working very well in those other provinces. This system changes nothing with where mining is allowed in the province of British Columbia. It's no different than it was before. As I said earlier, you can't mine in parks or ecological reserves or those areas that are set aside for park purposes or recreation purposes. It changes none of that.

It changes nothing in the way that it actually was done before, other than we go from the two-post system to a new system that's called Mineral Titles Online. I think it's a great thing for us in British Columbia to move towards that and to actually encourage this industry back here in the province so that we can continue to enjoy that great industry, the jobs it produces and the economic value that comes to the province from mining and mining alone.

It has been a mainstay for British Columbia since the mid-1800s, and it will be a mainstay well into the future as far as we want to see it and as we continue to desire those things that the mining industry produces. And they're huge. If you just look around the room here and you think about what mining has contributed to this room — the metal that's in this room, the aggregate, the rock, the slate, the columns…. No matter where you look in here, there is something to do with mining.

It's a great part of our history, and we want to be able to maintain that. I think there is one other member that wishes to say a few words about Mineral Titles Online.

D. Jarvis: I am rising to speak on Bill 29, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004. Like the Minister of Energy and Mines who spoke before me has just said, this is going to be of benefit to the province — especially to the mineral industry and to the people as a whole.

Let's put it this way. It was 1991 when I first arrived in this office and looked around and saw what was going on. My leader at the time asked who had ever been in a mine, and I said I had been in a mine once. I used to work in a copper mine underground, so I became the critic for energy and mines. The previous government that was in there…. For day after day after day almost, I got up to speak about mining as I watched the mining industry in this province just diminish and diminish. Where we had 20,000-plus workers, we eventually went down to somewhere around 5,000 people that were working in mining.

I watched the mines close one after another — very little prospecting or developing going on. As a result, the mining industry slowly collapsed within. It was definitely due to not only the world economy at times but the philosophical attitude of the government at that time, which did not turn around and try to assist this industry that needed help and create a lot of wealth in this province. As the minister before me said, the average job in the mining industry in this province is ap-

proximately $60,000 a year, which is not bad for a man, say, driving a coal truck — making $60,000. It's a shame to have to see what happened over the years.

Here I am, an urban individual, talking about a rural industry, but in my own riding of North Vancouver–Seymour…. In fact, North Vancouver is probably the largest mining town in British Columbia in the sense that we have more people in the management end of it. In my own riding — or adjacent to my riding — I see the trains coming in carrying the potash, sulphur and coal. As I say, mining is of benefit to everyone in this room and everyone in this province. In fact, it's a benefit to everyone in the world.

The critics say that mining is bad for this province. Again, as was mentioned before me, 1/10 of 1 percent of an imprint has been left on this province by mining. That is slowly starting to change, because in the last two years this government has taken the attitude that since 2001, we were going to improve this industry and create more work and more wealth for the province. Subsequently, we have done so. It's starting to grow. You can see changes occurring all over the province and especially in the rural areas, which are now starting to see a chance of growing. It was a shame that over the years, these small towns would look around and see there were no jobs left. They'd have to leave these rural areas, and their children would have to leave. It destroyed the rural area of this province to a certain extent.

In any event, this bill that I'm talking to now is called the Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004. Basically, I guess it's the mineral titles on-line act, and it's going to bring a lot of clarity to the prospecting aspect of British Columbia.

I don't know if you're aware of it, but in the old days a prospector used to go out with his axe and walk through the bush with his tape and his axe. They had a system in those days called — they still have it, but it's going to be changing — a two-post and a four-post. A prospector would walk out there and start slashing away, set out a claim. On the two-post I think they would mark a tree and put a tag on it and then walk 1,500 metres in a direction which they thought would be either north or east or west, and then they would mark another post. On either side of that line that they walked on were ostensibly 1,500 metres, and that was their claim. The four-post was, I think, 500 metres that they had to mark off.

Then when the minister decided to go with this program, he had the mineral task force, which I'm a member of, get briefed on it. They were showing us on the screen how all these mineral tenures on these grids…. They have what they call these grid cells, and they are about 20 hectares in size. You would see the overlay of all the claims that had been registered before in one cell, and there'd be angles and overlapping and all the rest of it. It was really a confusing effort, because in most cases when a prospector went out to make his claim and walked down that line to register or to put the post in, he usually took the least resistance to go. Consequently, it wasn't always as uniform as one may expect.

This new system they've got will just straighten everything out. You have to look at the pictures of the overlays of where the province has gone out — the mineral department has gone out in the province — and ostensibly photographed the whole north, east and west areas and put it into a grid system. Now it's going to be very uniform, and it's going to be quite a unique situation. A lot of old prospectors…. There are a few of them that aren't happy with it, but on the whole, all the mining industry and most of the prospectors are happy with this situation.

That's one of the benefits that is being made by this government not only to help clarify the claim system but to help the mining industry get another advance again. The new world is upon us; the electronic world is upon us. Regardless of how people feel, this system here and in this bill, Bill 29, is going to, as I said, not only put clarity but also help advance mining in this province.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the question is second reading of Bill 29.

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

Bill 29, Mineral Tenure Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

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

Deputy Speaker: The House stands adjourned until 10 o'clock on Monday morning.

Hon. M. Coell: This morning there was one question that the member asked with regard to the Nelson District Community Resources Society.

Hon. M. Coell: Before we broke for lunch, there was a question that I said I would have some information back on with regard to the Nelson and District Community Resources Society. They approached B.C. Housing with a plan to purchase an existing apartment building in Nelson that's 38 units with 12 short-stay beds. B.C. Housing did help facilitate the placement of low-cost mortgage financing of $1.1 million and reimbursed the society for legal and other transition costs — approximately $10,000.

Other contributions at the time were $90,000 from the Columbia Basin Trust, $40,000 from the supported independent living program and an HRSD grant of $258,000. The Resources Society has requested operating funding from MHR for the short-term-stay beds — those are the 12 — and the rest of the building at present is occupied. The society is hopeful that they'll be able to secure both HRSD and MHR funding for the shelter in the near future.

J. Kwan: That is to say that the project is still alive and that provincial…. What is the provincial contribution, then, towards this project?

Hon. M. Coell: It would be the placement of the funding of $1.1 million and then the $40,000 from the supported independent living program. Then B.C. Housing paid about $10,000 for the transaction costs and other legal costs for the society. The society is still waiting to hear from MHR and HRSD as to the ongoing funding for the shelter.

J. Kwan: After 30 years of service, earlier in March 2004 we received notice from the Lower Mainland Community Housing Registry society, which has closed its doors now. The society provides services to people in search of housing. The society is dependent on government funding — funding that has been reduced to the gaming allotment, which is not enough to fund the society for a year.

The society has written a letter to the minister voicing their concerns. The closure of the society is going to have a huge impact on, be a huge blow to, those agencies that depend on them to help their clients — such as B.C. Housing itself, the Ministry of Human Resources, the mental health sector and various other social agencies, shelters and transition homes. They say:

They wrote this letter to the minister with these concerns. What I put on record is just part of the letter from the society. Could the minister please advise: why is the society not being funded?

Hon. M. Coell: My understanding is that this particular group was funded for a short time in the nineties for about a three-year period but hasn't received funding from B.C. Housing. It may have had funding from other sources in government but not from B.C. Housing. Our latest information is that the society has received some short-term funding and is still pursuing other funds for the long term.

J. Kwan: It'll take me just a few minutes to find the documentation here. I believe they were getting money from B.C. Housing. Let me just look for that.

The minister says that they did get some short-term moneys in the meantime. Where did the short-term moneys come from? Is it provincial government money?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure. That's just our understanding at this point. I can't confirm that.

J. Kwan: Given that the government itself uses this society for referrals — B.C. Housing being one of its largest client bases, actually…. B.C. Housing refers all kinds of clients to them. My information is that the society has run out of funds. If that's the case, where are individuals being referred to seek alternate forms of housing while they wait on the wait-list of B.C. Housing?

Hon. M. Coell: At present it's my understanding that we're not making referrals to this group. We do refer to other non-profits in an area or a sector where an applicant might be.

I would go back. We discussed at some length this morning the new registry so that people can have one-stop shopping, and also the B.C. Housing link, where you can get on and find out all of the available housing in your area or region. We're concentrating on those two issues, but to the best of my knowledge we're not referring to this group at this point.

J. Kwan: No, the function of the registry is very different in that they don't get, necessarily…. While they do provide support to get people onto wait-lists and so on, they provide other services, as well, of course, one of which is to get the individual families into housing while they wait — whether it be through the rental market or through some other options. It's active advocacy, if you will, in assisting the families or individuals into actual housing and not just getting them onto a list or finding out where some of the affordable housing units are that exist across the province. That's a very different function than that of the centralized list the minister talks about.

That's only one part of the function. They do other things, as well, in my understanding. It seems to me that they actually get a variety of funding dollars from different areas within government. Of course, the only source they can turn to now is the gaming allotment. Perhaps that's where the minister's understanding comes from, and that is that they might still have some gaming money that will last them a small period of time. I also understand that on the gaming allotment side, those dollars are dwindling and being spread thinner and thinner with more and more societies and groups wanting to get access to that. Even with that, that funding alone is not going to be sufficient to keep the registry operating — hence the problem.

Although one of its biggest clients before that, as they state, is B.C. Housing…. B.C. Housing does assist people to get on the list, but if they can't provide housing to families or individuals right away, they try to assist, I know, by referring them elsewhere to see if they could get assistance. The housing registry was one place that, according to B.C. Housing, was one of their biggest clients. Now, without that — and even though B.C. Housing might have stopped referring clients to the housing registry — outstanding issues still remain. Those are: where do people go to get housing? Where do they get assistance to get housing for the immediate term and not for the long term? Without that resource, I'm afraid that families who are in great need would be left without assistance. That's the issue.

That might be an issue which the minister may be able to look into across government, because as I understand, the registry is funded across government by several different ministries. I think MHR is definitely one of them, because again, MHR is another government agency that sends a large number of referrals to this registry. Perhaps the minister will undertake to talk with his colleagues about the demise of this registry and the need that is out there in the community. With that understanding, I take it that the minister will undertake to do that.

I'd like to ask the minister some questions about Independent Living B.C.. The government made an election promise to build 5,000 beds for people who need nursing home care, if you will — extended housing — and following the election, the government shifted the responsibility for fulfilling this promise onto B.C. Housing under the program Independent Living B.C. The responsibility for people in need of such nursing home care used to lie under the Ministry of Health, but now B.C. Housing is footing the responsibilities and costs for housing people the government has called "frail elderlies."

How much of the funding for people in need of nursing home care is coming from the Ministry of Health Services to supplement the work that this ministry is doing in this area?

Hon. M. Coell: The ILBC program is a partnership between B.C. Housing, the health authorities and the federal government through Canada Mortgage and Housing, as well as private and non-profit sectors. ILBC is really, when you look at it, delivered through an innovative P3 model. The Independent Living program is going to create 3,500 new independent housing units with support services and assisted-living units across the province.

The Ministry of Health picks up the cost of the health support services, and they provide the dollars for that. B.C. Housing subsidizes the units, and Canada Mortgage and Housing, of course, is part of the long-term funding as well. So it's an innovative process.

I can tell the member, and she may have visited some, that I have visited a number of these units that are up and running and have found that many of the seniors, many of them in very frail condition, are very happy with this process. It gives them the support they need. Also, it gives the families of those people security in that they know their loved ones are being looked after. They have people around them but still have as much independence as they can as they grow older.

J. Kwan: Yes, I know that's the line of the government, and the Minister of Health and others have given

that line as well, but that's not what I'm interested in. I'm interested in how much money the Minister of Health actually puts into this area of housing. Formerly, under the previous administration, housing dollars for low-income housing, for co-op housing, were funded out of the housing program. Supportive housing, assisted-living housing, extended care, intermediate care: those kinds of housing came primarily out of the Ministry of Health, as an example.

We now have a complete shift, where the ministry of housing has undertaken the burden that the Ministry of Health has shifted to housing with the area of assisted living, etc. I'm interested in knowing: is there any assistance for this ministry from the Ministry of Health in this area, and if so, how much?

Hon. M. Coell: We have actually in the province, if you go back probably 15 or more years, been doing the same sort of supportive housing environments, where the Ministry of Health and now the health authorities will pick up the funds necessary to deliver the health supports within the facility. Then B.C. Housing, through its partnerships with Canada Mortgage and Housing and other non-profits, pick up the cost of the housing.

We really don't have that breakdown of what the different health costs per supportive unit are, but they are picked up by the health authorities now, whereas in the past 15 years they would have been picked up by the Ministry of Health.

The staff inform me that on average, you'd be between $50 and $75 a day per unit for the Health portion of the seniors subsidized health units, and that does have quite a history in the province. As I say, it goes back at least 15 years.

J. Kwan: …for the Health portion, and there are no dollars for the Ministry of Health on the capital side of things.

J. Kwan: So basically, it's very limited support from the Ministry of Health, really, and the burden has really been shifted. The subsidy dollars for these units is now undertaken by housing — right? Formerly, if it was under the Health arena, the Health budget, that would have been paid for by Health.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the model isn't any different, in that we have…. As I say, if you go back 15 years, there are literally thousands of supportive subsidized units where the Ministry of Health would have been paying the $50 to $75 dollars a day for those units and B.C. Housing would have subsidized the building costs. But the health costs have always been either Ministry of Health or, now, health authorities who pay that over and above the cost of building and subsidizing the long-term cost of the building. They provide the $50 to $75 a day in health-related supports.

The model really hasn't changed. I think what has changed is that we want to spend a greater amount of money and effort on seniors supportive housing as a priority. Basically, there has been a shift in the emphasis on number of units but not a shift on the type of program that funds those units.

J. Kwan: Before, the programs were such that assisted living–type units — extended health–, extended care–, intermediate– and long-term care–type units — actually came out of the health care budget. Capital dollars, too, came out of the health care budget, for capital renovations and the like. Now the majority of this kind of funding for this kind of housing — actually, in fact, all of it — is coming out of the housing budget, so there is a major shift in that realm.

I know that when we were in government, as an example, the funding for extended care home facilities that were to be upgraded or expanded came out of the Health ministry budget and didn't come out of the housing budget. Now the budget for those kinds of things, assisted living and the like, is coming out of the housing budget, so there is a major shift. That's why, because of that shift, the housing budget is such that it has no more moneys available to do the traditional kinds of affordable housing that had been done and is so needed. Some 11,000 people are on wait-lists.

There is a major shift in terms of that, which is why I'm trying to get a sense to see how much money is coming out of Health for that. Maybe that's a question I could ask Health as well. I mean, I tried to ask some of these questions during the Health estimates. The Minister of Health says, "Oh yeah, the housing stuff is being delivered by housing," so the referral was to ask housing about it. The Minister of Health also committed that I could write to him subsequent to that, after different sets of estimates, and say: "Well, okay. It appears that I couldn't get any answer here, so how much is Health putting toward the housing component?" Maybe I can find out from the Minister of Health on that.

The Ministry of Health is still building extended care beds, and they totally fund those. Where the difference with the ILBC is that they are more residential in nature, with support. What we do is that if we were just building a seniors unit in the past, B.C. Housing and Canada Mortgage and Housing and a partner would build the unit, but it wouldn't have any supports in it. What we've done is say to the health authorities: "Now you come in and provide the supportive services." They bring in those costs, and you have, basically, a transformed building from an apartment

building or condominium-type setup to one that provides meals, provides services, provides some access to nursing care 24 hours a day. There's a new partnership there.

When we took office, we felt that of all the groups being served in British Columbia, that was one we should focus on, because of the aging demographics. I suspect that whoever is elected in the next 20 years will be focusing on seniors in British Columbia just because of that age demographic.

One of the areas I think is new and innovative is the supportive type of living unit. It's definitely a partnership between Health, which used to just build extended care or nursing home…. People went in and stayed in. There were some of these done. I think literally thousands have been done over the last 20 years, but we wanted to focus more on those residential products.

As I said, of the ones I've been in, people seem very pleased with the setup, in that they feel they're as independent as they can be as they age. The reality is, across Canada as well as in B.C., that the sort of campus-of-care facility, where someone can move from no support to some support to extended care, needs to exist in our society and undoubtedly will for as long as we're here.

J. Kwan: The Health ministry, it's true, used to pay for upgrades or extensions or new extended or intermediate care facilities, but they also pay a portion toward things like supportive housing and that continuum of housing options for seniors. There was a move toward building more of those and to extend the continuum.

The continuum would be, on the one hand, that you would have affordable housing–type options for people who didn't necessarily need health care supports — for people who just need safe, secure, affordable housing. That continuum would be extended to individuals or to families who needed some sort of health support — supportive house, assisted living and the type. Then further to that continuum would be intermediate care, long-term care, and so on, so that there's a full continuum of options available.

Since the government took office, there has been a truncation of the traditional affordable housing options, because those dollars have now been taken away and primarily redirected into supportive housing–, independent living–type options. On the one hand, this full continuum that was planned to be built is no longer there, because we've significantly lost the traditional-form-of-housing side.

The Ministry of Health used to pay for the health-related type of housing options, Now, aside from extended and intermediate care housing, the real question is whether or not they put any funding into assisted living and independent living, beyond some of the operating supports the minister has talked about. That's what I was trying to get after, in terms of the question.

I don't want to get into a big debate about whether or not the government…. Let me just make this statement: I don't believe the government is providing the full continuum of housing options that are required and needed in British Columbia. It's fair enough to say there are people who are aging and who need the seniors housing option. It's fair enough to say that. That was foreseen by the previous administration as well.

The other issue at hand is that there are those individuals and families who need safe, affordable housing without necessarily being tied to health care supports. Those options are no longer available, primarily, under this government, because there are no more dollars allocated toward those kinds of housing programs. I don't support that. I just want to lay that out clearly and would urge the government to reinvestigate and reinitiate an affordable housing program with a full continuum for British Columbians.

There was and continues to be a call for the federal government to come in with what's called a 1 percent solution. I'm sure the minister has heard about that. That's for the federal government to dedicate 1 percent of its budget toward a national housing program. Is the minister in support of that campaign from the community?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm aware of the suggestion that it go to 1 percent. I believe their budget is about one-half of 1 percent now for housing in Canada. We're going to be working with them on the new deal for cities, and housing is one of the areas. I know the UBCM has already talked to Mike Harcourt and his group about what the provinces want out of the new deal, and I know housing is one of those issues. We hope to work with them to see that increase.

I think we would welcome the federal government to come back into housing in some way or another. They have come back in with the homeless strategy that Claudette Bradshaw has been the minister responsible for. We've partnered with them in many instances, but it would be nice to see them come back in. We'll work with them through the new deal for cities project.

J. Kwan: It would be more than nice for the federal government to come back in, let me tell you. It would alleviate, I think, a lot of pressure across our communities. I would deem those federal dollars to be critical in addressing the homelessness issue. I raised it with Minister Claudette Bradshaw when I was in government — and when I'm not in government — on this issue as well.

It's very well and fine for the government to do a homelessness initiative to put forward shelters primarily — and that's what the homelessness initiative is about — but we actually need permanent solutions. If we want to eradicate homelessness, we actually need to move beyond shelters. Shelters are a short-term, temporary stopgap from the street. Beyond that, we need housing so that people could actually have stable housing over time.

In fact, I just made a pitch to that effect recently to the federal Minister of Finance and to Minister Stephen

Owen, as well, on two announcements that they made over the break a couple of weeks ago. They were in my riding. I also made a pitch at these events. For the 1 percent solution, I'm calling on the federal government to come back and move beyond the homelessness initiative in the way in which they're doing but doing it in a sustainable way. So this 1 percent solution for permanent housing, and going toward our subsidies and the like — and then, hopefully, with that, maybe the provincial government will come back to the game of housing in that way for the traditional forms of housing. That way we really can have a stab at addressing the homelessness issue in a more effective way.

The Chair: Members, we will take a short recess while we adjourn to the other House for the vote.

J. Kwan: Just before we went to the big House to have the vote, I was finishing up with some comments about the need for the federal government's involvement in a long-term affordable housing program, most notably in what the community calls a 1 percent solution — that is, for the federal government to contribute 1 percent of their budget to housing. I hope that in these negotiations the minister will be engaging in with the federal government, he will call for a 1 percent solution from the federal government so that we could get strong assistance for a national housing program in Canada. I trust that the minister is in agreement with that.

J. Kwan: He says he wants to have more. Okay, I'll support you. At a minimum, a 1 percent solution — I could live with that. I could live with a 1 percent solution to start off with.

I just have a few more questions to ask the minister in the housing area around the cost of homelessness. A 2001 report that was undertaken by the B.C. government entitled Homelessness — Causes and Effects: The Costs of Homelessness in British Columbia concluded that the costs of homelessness in government services far outweighed the costs of providing decent, affordable housing. Housing, of course, drastically reduces government's expenditures in areas around health care, policing, the jailing system, the court system and social services.

When you consider all of this in addition to economic costs, there is of course a human cost, as well, that impacts individuals and their families because of homelessness. Given that that's the case, what work is the minister now undertaking to…? Are there any plans to bring back your traditional affordable housing–type initiatives that were underway prior to this government coming into office?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member makes some good points. When I look at homelessness in, I think, every part of British Columbia as well as in Canada, there are two aspects that are over and above housing, and they are addictions and mental health. There needs to be…. I know we're going to talk about the Vancouver agreement later and some of the concepts that are in that agreement.

There are many people who are the very hard to house — people with severe addictions or severe mental illness who are homeless not out of choice, I believe, but out of the conditions that affect them. I think it's important for us to work within ministries, and with the federal government as well, on that issue. I'd be open to any suggestions from other members on how you cope with addictions and mental illness and supply housing at the same time. I'm aware of that issue, acutely aware of the issue. In MHR, for instance, they supply shelters, transitional housing. In B.C. Housing, we have for the most part supplied a range of housing for the last probably close to 25 or 30 years in British Columbia.

From time to time, there's an emphasis put on a type of housing. I can remember when I was on the Capital Region Housing Corp. in the mid-eighties. The emphasis was on family housing. Pretty well every project we built was family housing. In the late nineties and into the two-thousands, I think, there has been a shift to seniors housing, supportive housing. There was obviously a recognition by the federal government that homelessness was an issue they needed to spend some energy, time and money on. They have done that. We've partnered with them. We'll continue to do that.

I think there needs to be continued partnerships with the traditional providers. I look at people in Vancouver like the Salvation Army and Lookout, those types of providers, to tie in with federal government–provincial government initiatives. I don't think there is one level of government, including local government, that is going to get a handle and be able to provide the types of housing that people with severe addiction and severe mental illness have and need.

There have been some interesting concepts. There was one open in Victoria here for the hard-to-house that we were part of. There was Hyland House in Surrey last month. Those are relatively small projects for the number of people that are requiring specialized housing to get off the street and to start moving up that ladder of housing.

I'm probably rambling a bit, and if the member wants me to stop, I will. There is the continuum of housing needs that go with training and job needs that you have to match as well, so I think there's lots of work to do. As I said, the member made some good

comments. I'm trying to show that I understand the issue and where we need to work in the future.

L. Mayencourt: I had the great opportunity about two weeks ago to work with the Lookout Aid Society to present them with some funds to allow them to put a support worker inside an SRO in the downtown east side. We received that money through B.C. Housing, and that was very much appreciated by, well, not just Lookout Aid Society and myself but also by the 70 people that are going to live in that building. It's a really great program, where we put a support worker in there and help to stabilize the population. Some of these people are very hard to house.

My question is: as the lead minister on the Vancouver agreement, where we made a very significant financial contribution over this past year, is this a program that you might see expanding through the Vancouver agreement to some other SROs in that area?

The Chair: Members, we'll have to recess the committee for the vote, and we'll resume thereafter.

Hon. M. Coell: With regard to the question from the member, with the SRO and B.C. Housing's contribution, that is something the Vancouver agreement is looking at. They'll be evaluating this one and other projects. I think you'll find this is very beneficial for people who are hard to house. If they're in an SRO and there is someone brought in with a professional background that can help with anything from meds through to just solving disputes, I think you'll find that the SRO runs better and, more importantly, that people's lives who are living in those facilities are improved. We will be looking at that under the Vancouver agreement.

J. Kwan: During the estimates debate last year, on April 1, 2003, the former minister said: "It is estimated that around 167,000 people in British Columbia expend more than 30 percent of their income on housing needs. It's been more recently estimated that some 65,000 British Columbians have rental costs that eat up more than half of their income." In that context, we also have the Residential Tenancy Act changes that were brought in by this government, which really, in my view, did little to alleviate the larger problem surrounding the availability of affordable housing.

The changes under the Residential Tenancy Act include that the landlords can now increase rents by 4.6 percent a year. Renters have no avenue for appeal. Landlords can apply in arbitration for increases of more than 4.6 percent. Rents can be increased even higher if tenants agree in writing — and once signed, again, with no avenue for appeal.

In that context, there of course would be additional pressure, I think, on the need for affordable housing. Has the ministry done any studies on the impacts of the Residential Tenancy Act on the already hugely pressured demand for social housing in British Columbia?

Hon. M. Coell: No. Neither B.C. Housing nor the ministry have undertaken any studies with regard to that legislation at this time.

J. Kwan: Will you be undertaking any studies? I expect that there are going to be huge ramifications with this kind of change.

Hon. M. Coell: It's something I'll consider. I'll take that suggestion under advisement, for sure.

J. Kwan: In terms of the demand for affordable housing, of course, I think that would also place demands in communities where the housing stock is low and where government is using rent supplements to provide for some support in terms of housing options. As rents keep on going up and up and up and without some measure to deal with this, I think the pressure is going to be untenable — I really do — particularly in large centres around the province. I would urge the minister to do a study in this area.

Let me now turn to some questions around housing in relation to the Vancouver agreement — I think that we were talking about going into local governments afterwards, so I'll hold off on my Vancouver agreement questions until later — to get a quick update to see whether or not there's anything going on, on the housing side, with respect to the Vancouver agreement. Prior to the election, there were 600 units of affordable housing allocated and funded to the Vancouver agreement, but since the election, I believe those units are now gone. I'd like to get an update from the minister on what the status is on the housing side with the Vancouver agreement.

Hon. M. Coell: Since June of 2001 there have been seven non-profit developments consisting of 490 units that have been completed in the downtown east side —

estimated annual subsidy of 3.63 — and there's actually 100 more units still allocated for Woodwards that haven't been built.

J. Kwan: So 490 units. Could the minister break that down for me, please? When and where were the units, and with what society?

Hon. M. Coell: I've got the complete list for Vancouver. I could break out the downtown east side and get that list to the member, or just a copy of the complete list, if she wishes.

J. Kwan: Yes, thank you. The latter would be good. I'd be interested in more than just the downtown east side community.

Are there any housing projects slated under the Vancouver agreement beyond the ones that have already been committed?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, the member is correct. Housing is available under the $20 million. Groups would make application for it. The 490 have been allocated and built, and then there's the additional 100, but there's still, through the Vancouver agreement, the ability for non-profits, for the most part, to make application for those funds to be used for housing.

J. Kwan: How much money is set aside for the Vancouver agreement for the purposes of affordable housing?

Hon. M. Coell: The notional allocation targeted is $5 million, but there is the ability to use other funds if approved by the management committee.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's one-time funding and would probably be used for capital.

J. Kwan: Are there subsidy dollars that are set aside to support the Vancouver agreement for housing?

Hon. M. Coell: What we'd be looking for is that groups who would be using that $5 million would form partnerships and lever other funds as well. You could use B.C. Housing; you could use CMHC for long-term funding after these dollars were used for capital or one turn.

J. Kwan: What is the process for community groups, I presume, to access these dollars? Is there a proposal call-out? How does one access these dollars?

Hon. M. Coell: The staff agree that it would be more a continuous proposal call. It's open ended. There will be groups coming forward over the next couple of years, and they'll be evaluated by the management committee using, I guess, the same terms that we would for B.C. Housing or CMHC to encourage partnerships, as well, when they come forward.

J. Kwan: So there's not really an open proposal call, but groups will just come up and seek interest from the government under the Vancouver agreement to be a partner?

Hon. M. Coell: The housing task team, which has all levels of government represented on it, is coordinating, and they're working with local groups in the downtown east side. I guess you'd probably compare this to sort of a rolling proposal call until the funds are expended. That task team will work with the groups that are already on the ground in the downtown east side as they see areas where there might be gaps or a need that isn't being met. They would bring that forward to the management committee for approval at that point.

Hon. M. Coell: The team consists of Jill Davidson from the city of Vancouver, Monica Jako from B.C. Housing, Greg Steves from the ministry and Steve Hall from CMHC. And there is someone from the Vancouver health authority, but we believe that person has just changed.

Hon. M. Coell: The management task team would recommend to the management committee, which is three levels of government.

J. Kwan: The criteria for projects to be considered — is there a list of criteria for consideration, or does it just vary as projects come up?

Hon. M. Coell: There is a list of criteria. I can read it into the record or just pass it over.

J. Kwan: Thanks. If the minister could just pass that over, it would be great. I expect that it would probably be a fairly lengthy list to put on the record.

Hon. M. Coell: It's a combination of federal-provincial money. What could happen — I can give an example — is that a group may lever more provincial money from B.C. Housing or more money from CMHC through the process — and/or, possibly, municipal land that could be used. This is, in some respects, if you view it as seed money to start a project going…. But they would pull in partnerships from other areas that might be significantly more than that and might have municipal or regional or health authority land as well.

J. Kwan: Yes, I understand that five million bucks…. By no stretch of any imagination could I

imagine that a project could be developed with that kind of money. It's just simply not feasible. The idea, of course, is to use that money for some minor capital upgrades, I would imagine, or something related to the project. Then, in that process, whoever's coming forward must have a whole bunch of other partners in place, otherwise they wouldn't be able to access the money. I would imagine that's how it works.

The $5 million in this fund to be accessed — is that provincial moneys, or is that federal moneys?

J. Kwan: Okay. The 50 percent from the provincial government then — I presume the money comes out of the B.C. Housing budget. Or what budget? Then the other 50 percent from the federal government comes out of what program under the federal government? Is it the SCPI program, or which one?

Hon. M. Coell: It would come out of the $10 million that the province has put forward. For the federal government, I believe, it is the urban aboriginal strategy. Their funds would come from there.

J. Kwan: Okay. So that's a special allocation for the Vancouver agreement — the $10 million, of which $2.5 million has been allocated towards housing initiatives. Is that all the housing dollars, under the Vancouver agreement, that are available? Is there some other component to it?

Hon. M. Coell: I think you asked if there was any more housing money, other than the $5 million. That's it. There isn't any more.

J. Kwan: Let me turn to homeowner protection issues for a few minutes. Could the minister update me, please, on the homeowner protection office? Have its areas of responsibility changed at all since the office came into being?

Hon. M. Coell: The areas have not changed. They're still licensing financial assistance for people with leaky condos and then research and education, so that remains the same.

J. Kwan: I understand that the homeowner protection office is currently looking for a CEO. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's correct. The board has initiated a process, a search for a new CEO.

J. Kwan: The former minister last April suggested that a new board for the HPO would be appointed in the fullness of time. Has a new board been appointed, and if so, who are the members?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, there has been a new board appointed. Ken MacLeod is the chair. He's the former deputy minister, retired from the B.C. Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Maureen Enser, executive director of the Urban Development Institute; Eric Gerrits, immediate past president of the Canadian Homebuilders Association of B.C.; Antonio Gioventu, executive director and strata property adviser for the Condominium Homeowners Association; Don Goedbloed, senior vice-president of Stuart Olsen Construction; Joe Redmond, vice-president of UBC Properties Trust; and Peter Schultze, president of Peter Schultze Construction and former president of the Canadian Homebuilders Association — that's the new board that was appointed, I believe, since the last estimates were debated.

J. Kwan: Quite a change from the original board and quite a change, as well, with its makeup of members, I should note, with a very strong emphasis from the industry side. Isn't that interesting.

The homeowner protection office, the office administrators of the no-interest loan program and the PST relief program — what has been the takeup for the loans? Could the minister give me an update on that?

Hon. M. Coell: To date the number of homeowner loans approved are 9,368, to a total of just over a quarter of a billion dollars — $254,895,900. With cooperative housing loans where the cooperative applies for the loan, there have been 54 buildings. The total is just over $100 million, at $101,168,222. That's as of January 31, 2004.

J. Kwan: Since the program came into existence, has the volume gone up or down, or has it steadied and flattened out? What's the trend?

Hon. M. Coell: The volume has flattened out, and the number has been decreasing over the last year as well. I think that's probably to be expected.

J. Kwan: Last May the previous minister said he was trying to convince the federal government to provide a GST equivalent to the PST rebate. I know that's been an ongoing effort for some time. I'm wondering, has there been any action from the federal government, any progress made in that area?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm sorry to report that we haven't made any progress, but we continue to try.

J. Kwan: Could the minister update me on the warranty program — which companies are providing warranties now and what the breakdown is of that warranty market in terms of market share?

Hon. M. Coell: There are six home warranty insurance companies now supplying insurance. That's Commonwealth Insurance, represented by Willis Canada; St. Paul Guarantee Insurance Company; Royal and SunAlliance, represented by Marathon Warranty Corporation; and Royal and SunAlliance, represented by National Home Warranty. And Residential Warranty Company has come back into the market. That makes six.

J. Kwan: Okay, that's good, actually. A number of them have come into play here.

J. Kwan: Okay. Now, what is the breakdown of that in terms of…? No, that's okay, actually; I don't need that information.

In order to have the building envelope repairs done, one must actually go through the warranty company — right? That was established as a criterion. Is that still the case now?

J. Kwan: What is the minimum requirement for the warranty? Is it five years, ten years? What is it?

Hon. M. Coell: The warranty on repairs includes two years on labour and materials for all building envelope repairs that meet the threshold requirement. Where all or more than 60 percent of the cladding surface is replaced on any wall, the warranty must also provide for the coverage of five years for water penetration. This two-tiered approach to warranty insurance permits targeted repairs as opposed to the complete wall replacements.

Hon. M. Coell: For new, it is two years against labour and material defects, five years against building envelope defects and ten years for structural defects.

J. Kwan: Who established the guidelines for the repair warranty criteria? Was it the insurance companies themselves that came forward with it, or did the HPO come forward with some suggested recommendations?

J. Kwan: I remember, actually, at the time when we were in government, we were in the process of setting that up. There were some questions in terms of how you protect against — they have yet to be resolved, actually — repairs from fly-by-night-type companies, who might come in and do a repair, and little do we know, later on the problem re-enters the lives of leaky-condo homeowners. To my recollection, some of those issues aren't fully resolved yet. I presume that the registry exists for the repairs as well, that one has to register with the homeowner protection office as a repair company in order to provide repairs — or how does that work?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, the member's correct. Building envelope renovators have to be licensed in the province.

J. Kwan: I just wanted to see what changes, if any, have taken place in that area.

Last year we raised concerns about the effect of warranty companies' responsibility for directing strata corporations to certain companies for repairs. Has the homeowner protection office examined the issue of competition since, and is there any tracking of the effect this is having on pricing?

Hon. M. Coell: There are more than 3,300 licensed builders in the province, and there are 63 licensed renovators.

J. Kwan: The issue about referring warranty companies — directing strata corporations to certain companies for repairs — has that problem been looked into by the HPO?

Hon. M. Coell: We're not aware that's an issue today. I think that with that many licensed builders and the 63 companies that are licensed for renovations, the market is probably taking care of any competition issues that may have been there. Also, with five insurance companies, you've now got a good mix there with all those numbers.

J. Kwan: Those concerns were brought to our attention last year, so we wanted to get an update on whether or not those concerns still exist and how the government tried to rectify this problem. Then is it fair to say that more companies have come on stream since last year and more warranty companies have come on stream since last year?

Hon. M. Coell: I don't have the exact numbers. There are more licensed builders but about the same number of warranty companies.

J. Kwan: I should just finish off on that issue. Maybe the minister can look into it to see whether or not that problem still exists. Maybe that problem has resolved itself since last year. If that's the case, great,

but if not, could the minister advise, then, on what other outstanding issues need to be addressed and how the government's addressing those issues?

On a different track, what is the status now of B.C. Housing buildings that have been affected by the leaky-condo building crisis?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member may know, there was a study done. Actually, in 1998-99, 278 buildings were studied — various degrees of modifications needed. To date there are 34 buildings that have been repaired. A total of $28.5 million has been spent, and there are 58 buildings that have repairs underway. Repairs to the most serious water-damaged buildings will be completed prior to 2005-06.

J. Kwan: What is the status of a B.C. Housing lawsuit that was launched last year, and what is the budget for that legal fee for the '04-05 year?

Hon. M. Coell: We have approximately 90 active legal recovery actions underway, and the bill for that will be between $1 million and $1.5 million in that year.

J. Kwan: When does the minister expect that those lawsuits will be completed?

Hon. M. Coell: We're exploring all reasonable avenues to find innovative and creative ways to be paid rather than through litigation. There have been a number of agreements reached through mitigated settlements at this point, and we'll continue to work through that way. That is probably the quickest way. Once you're in the court system, there are variable times in that.

J. Kwan: The 90 or so court cases that are outstanding — are they mostly launched by non-profit societies? Who are the people, generally speaking, who have launched these lawsuits?

Hon. M. Coell: The non-profit has the right of action, but they have assigned…. B.C. Housing has taken an assignment of damage claims for the non-profit sponsors in all of the cases.

J. Kwan: Leaky-condo owners, advocates, have been suggesting that what is needed to permanently solve this kind of problem is legislation to ensure that there is tracking of construction and performance of multi-unit residential buildings within the province by the provincial building associations and associations of professional engineers and geoscientists. Has the minister been lobbied for these changes?

There's also been a push for the Canadian Standards Association guidelines on durability in buildings to be adopted within the B.C. Building Code by leaky-condo advocates, and I'm wondering whether or not the minister has been lobbied on that issue, and if he has, what is the minister's response?

Hon. M. Coell: The federal government is developing a new national, objective-based code that they intend to bring in, in 2005. Issues around durability are being considered. We have had approximately 1,200 submissions on changes from industry and the public that our staff will review, and then, of course, we will review the federal code before any changes are made provincially.

J. Kwan: Thanks very much to the minister and his staff on the section on housing and the leaky-condos questions. I have completed my questions in those areas, and if the minister would like, I'm prepared to move on to another area. Is it local governments that would be most preferable? Okay.

When we were discussing the issues around local government, we were discussing Quinsam Coal mine, more specifically. I'd like to ask the minister a question about taxes for this.

Currently, the company pays about $100,000 in taxes, approximately $30,000 of which goes to the regional district. Following the change, the boundary extension, how will the taxes be allocated? Would the figures change? Would the allocation to the regional district also change? If so, what is the change?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not sure exactly what taxes the mine would have been paying. I'll take the member's word for it that it's approximately $100,000. In the past the district of Campbell River wouldn't have been receiving any funds from the mine. Now they would receive $30,000, and the regional district would receive the balance of that. That would probably be for hospital, parks and general government, so they would still be receiving the $70,000.

I think we talked about it before. What we were trying to say is that Campbell River would only be receiving that $30,000, but there is still taxation that the regional district can tax and receive from the mine. That would be, as I said, for hospital, parks and general government.

J. Kwan: I wouldn't mind getting the specific numbers. My information is that the company now pays about $100,000 in taxes, approximately $32,000 of which goes to the regional district. The minister's information seems to be different. He seems to indicate that there is $70,000 going to the regional district with this move.

Maybe my information is incorrect; I don't know. I wouldn't mind getting the exact numbers on what it was before the change, on who was getting how much and for what purposes, and then, since the change, on who is getting how much and for what purposes.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, we did a full financial assessment. I don't have it here with me. The $30,000 was for the electoral area property taxes, which has now shifted. I will make sure the member gets the full assessment, so she can see what shifts and what areas of taxation the district and the municipality still have.

J. Kwan: One of the issues that was identified by the director from area D, aside from the local government autonomy point of view…. There were issues, of course, and ramifications in terms of taxation impacts. That was another issue that people were raising in terms of the boundary change. I expect there would be significant ramifications for communities in this instance.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe those assumptions from the local community are wrong. Maybe at the end of the day it all actually works out to be just the same. That's something I'd be interested in getting the information on.

The move that took place with this boundary extension was exercised under the Local Government Act. Am I right?

J. Kwan: All the provincial government legislation that would apply to the coalmine for regulations, and so on and so forth, would still apply.

J. Kwan: From that point of view nothing has changed other than boundaries, with potential taxation ramifications.

J. Kwan: The coalmine itself — I should say the coal power plant itself — are there issues with…? No, actually, I think there have been community issues with respect to it moving locations, and there are ramifications for that, I'm sure. Which piece of legislation would those issues be weighted against?

Hon. M. Coell: I think that if, in the future, the mine is expanded — or a power plant, whether it be coal or gas — it would go through all of the federal and provincial regulatory bodies. There would be no change because of the boundary extension. All of those acts are still in place, and they would still have to go through all of them.

J. Kwan: I couldn't remember. I'm sorry; I might have canvassed this question with the minister already. On the boundary extension question, did that trigger a rezoning process for Campbell River?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, you did canvass that question before, but it was a while ago. There is no change, no rezoning.

J. Kwan: There's no rezoning requirement with the boundary change. What is the zoning, then, of this new coal area that has been moved into Campbell River?

Hon. M. Coell: The regional district zoning bylaws continue, unless there is a change by the district of Campbell River.

J. Kwan: Presumably the Campbell River district adopted the boundary extension with the coalmine area as industrial. Is that the reason why you don't need rezoning?

Hon. M. Coell: It's an industrial zone, and it would continue whether it was the regional district or the district. Both the regional district and the district of Campbell River could rezone it. If the mine's complete, it could be zoned into something else in the future, but that would be a long way in the future, I would think.

J. Kwan: Because there are no rezoning requirements, did the public at any point in time, either from Campbell River or from the regional district, get the opportunity to express their opinions about this boundary extension?

Hon. M. Coell: We did receive letters from the public — letters from within the regional district as well as from within Campbell River. That was taken into consideration by staff. There was, as the member well knows, quite a bit of debate in the community about the issue prior to the decision to extend the boundary.

Hon. M. Coell: Under provincial requirements, the city posted an advertisement in the paper asking for people to write both the city and the ministry, so that was done as part of the government process.

J. Kwan: I'll just close with this on this issue. Given that the government had brought in the Community Charter with much fanfare and especially highlighted the notion of local government autonomy, on the one hand, then on the other hand the government turned around and exercised an overriding power, if you will, in imposing in this instance a boundary change onto the regional district with an OIC, I would argue that is contrary to the spirit of the Community Charter, albeit the Community Charter does not apply to the regional district.

I fully understand that, but one would assume that the spirit of the Community Charter applies to local governments irrespective of whether they be a regional district, a municipality or otherwise. The principle and the spirit of it ought to apply, but in this instance, it didn't. I think perhaps that's one of the central points that the regional district had brought to our attention

by way of complaints. It does in some ways make the regional district feel as though somehow they're second-class citizens, that somehow their authority can be easily undermined. Yet in the whole of the Community Charter provisions that were brought forward by the government, the whole thrust behind that, much of it was about the notion of local government autonomy.

I would just highlight that for the minister's consideration and for future decisions relating to such matters. As I mentioned, certainly, in my former role as Minister of Municipal Affairs I worked very hard to respect the local governments' wishes and not override their decision-making powers as such. I just want to point that out for the minister's attention and would certainly urge the minister, as well, to bring about a revised act that would apply to regional districts, with many of the concerns they certainly brought to my attention in my capacity as minister and, no doubt, to this minister in his capacity, as well, now.

I'd now like to ask some questions around the Community Charter more specifically. Part 1, section 2(2)(b) of the Community Charter states: "…the Provincial government must not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfill the responsibilities." This means that sufficient resources must be in place before a transfer of services can be undertaken, and this is referred to as protection against provincial downloading onto local governments.

How have issues surrounding capacity specifically been addressed in the interim off-loading of responsibilities to local government?

Hon. M. Coell: I think I need the member to clarify the question, because we're not off-loading responsibilities to local government through the charter.

J. Kwan: The local governments would disagree insofar as this. I'll just use one recent example. The municipalities are impacted by closures and reductions of services across the province. One example would be women's centres, an example that would impact municipalities as women's centres funding has ended on April 1. Their core funding from the provincial government has ended. That would have ramifications for local governments. In fact, at the UBCM they actually brought forward a resolution relating to that matter in terms of off-loading services and demands onto those municipalities. The municipalities will now have to cope with these demands that are no longer being provided for by the province in their own communities. That's one example.

Another example would be in the area of child care, actually. I know that the city of Vancouver, as an example, had to come in to provide some child care subsidy supports as a result of the provincial government's change in policy in child care subsidies and its impact there. The provincial government changes in programs and eliminations in programs have a direct impact onto local governments and have a direct impact, really, of downloading services onto local governments. That's what I'm talking about. In fact, I know that some municipalities have done studies or evaluations of those off-loading impacts as a result of provincial government cutbacks.

Hon. M. Coell: We're not asking local governments to provide any services. If local governments choose to…. Local governments choose to provide a range of services throughout the province, but we're certainly not asking them to take up where government has chosen not to go forward with programs.

J. Kwan: Well, with exception, that is not quite as simple as the minister would have it, and it's not quite as clean as the minister would have it. I'll use another example in the city of Vancouver. There is a thing called "tent city." Some people are now talking about setting up a permanent tent city in the city of Vancouver. Why? Because there is no more affordable housing available.

We just finished canvassing housing issues, and insofar as that, the province is no longer providing for housing initiatives to address your traditional affordable housing needs, because most of those dollars have shifted into assisted living and the like. Your traditional housing needs are no longer being met, so in the city of Vancouver the impact is such that people are now setting up makeshift tents to cope — impacting directly the city of Vancouver with that.

I don't think the city of Vancouver has made a decision on how to deal with this, yet they've actually had to deal with it quite a bit of late. There were a number of different tent cities that were being set up in the city of Vancouver. The latest one is now in Victory Square. People were talking about setting up a permanent tent city in Victory Square.

These are off-loaded impacts. Whether or not the minister would like to say, "Well, the city of Vancouver can decide not to do anything about it," at the same time, the city of Vancouver has no choice but to do something about it, because it's impacting their city directly. So these off-loading impacts have a direct impact on local governments. That's just to use that as another example.

While the minister may say, "Well, they have no obligation to do anything," what does the minister expect those communities and those municipalities to do? What are they supposed to do in light of those kinds of situations?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, when the charter was developed, the UBCM was a partner in the development of the charter. The UBCM agreed with the principles and thought they would be effective.

I think the member needs to look back at the ten years that she was in government. I was a municipal politician in those days. They eliminated the revenue-

sharing fund, which was $300 million to local government, in their first term. In their second term they reduced funding to local governments by over $100 million. So we can talk about women's shelters or a number of things, but you're talking $400 million that the previous government cut from revenue-sharing to local government. I mean, you can't have it both ways.

J. Kwan: I expected the minister would bring that up. But you know what? That's a completely different kettle of fish. Let's be clear about that in terms of conditional and unconditional grants. Yes, the previous administration actually did cut local government in their grants. But you know what? This is completely different. It is completely different insofar as this: the government now has brought in the Community Charter, which says they will not off-load onto local governments. This government might say they're not off-loading on local governments by municipal grants and such. They might be able to get away with that, but they're off-loading by cutting other programs that have a direct impact on local governments. That's exactly what's happening.

I think the cases I highlighted for the minister's attention are very real today in the communities. As we speak, Vancouver is trying to grapple with this situation with tent cities. They're impacting local governments because of provincial government off-loading — off-loading in the area around housing. You might be able to say that this government is not cutting local government grants, but you're downloading to local governments by cutting these programs. Make no mistake about that.

The UBCM, of course, agrees with the principle that has been set out, but the UBCM does not agree to the cuts in the programs. In fact, there was a unanimous resolution at UBCM about women's centres, and there were resolutions at UBCM around housing cuts — anyway, a long list of resolutions. They are not in support of this kind of off-loading, and that's what they're calling it.

I don't want to engage in a philosophical debate here with the minister, because that could take hours. That, hopefully, is not our intent. There's a real problem here that I wanted to put to the minister's attention, and that is the net effect of downloading. There is a net effect of downloading. I hope the minister won't dispute with me about that. When you cut housing programs, there is a net effect that we now see happening in our communities with increasing homelessness, with tent cities sprouting up.

Let's just use the city of Vancouver as an example of where tent cities have been sprouting up, the latest of which, as I mentioned, is the Victory Square situation. What is the minister's suggestion to the city of Vancouver in trying to cope and deal with those kinds of off-loading impacts?

Hon. M. Coell: There has been — and we discussed this earlier — an increase in social housing budgets since we became government. It's gone up by almost $40 million. We also have a Vancouver agreement. The province has put in $10 million, plus $3.5 million from Human Resources. We're not asking, through the charter, for municipal governments to initiate any new programs that they wouldn't in their normal course of activities.

J. Kwan: You know what? The line the minister just used about the housing dollars increasing doesn't wash. As the minister well knows, those housing dollars go to a completely different program, what the minister and the government now call assisted-living-type programs. They don't support the traditional need for affordable housing. We just established that, so I don't want to go back to rehash housing issues. That's what we had established in these estimates debates with the minister. The housing dollars go to a completely different need. It doesn't provide for addressing homelessness, homeless requirements and traditional housing requirements.

The minister well knows that the budget increases with B.C. Housing, aside from the assisted-living components, are because the subsidies with non-profits are 35-year terms. Each year the term accumulates. That's why the number keeps going up until those 35 years expire. The minister had already acknowledged that.

It was under the previous administration that the commitment for affordable housing…. It was the previous administration that made those commitments, by and large, with the exception of 700 units that this government announced in projects that were already approved by the previous government but were being reconsidered by the government when this government took office. Then 700 of about 1,900 units were chosen, and the rest of them were cancelled. If you look at it in that context, there were really only 700 units that this government actually provided in terms of your traditional affordable housing needs.

I don't want to go back to talk about housing stuff. I would certainly caution the minister to not play that numbers game with me, because it's not going to work. The budget and where those numbers come from…. One might argue that I have far too much knowledge about that for the minister to try to play that game. It ain't going to work.

I want to get back to the real problem at hand here. The minister says: "Well, okay, municipalities are not required to do anything when programs have been cut from the province." They have to deal with the fallout of these program cuts in their community. In Vancouver there is a real situation with respect to tent cities. I was just talking to a particular city councillor in Vancouver about that. I would like to seek the minister's genuine advice as to what the city of Vancouver should do. How should they deal with this? The tent cities exist in the city of Vancouver — they are popping up here and there — as a result of lack of affordable housing and as a result of the provincial government no longer providing for your traditional…. There are no more new programs for traditional affordable housing.

Hon. M. Coell: I think the city of Vancouver has a long history of providing social housing in conjunction with the federal and provincial governments, and I think they're going to continue to do that. I think we have an innovative project through the Vancouver agreement that we'll continue to work with, and I think there's a commitment there from the federal and indeed the provincial government to work with them.

J. Kwan: Fine. I mean, yes, the city of Vancouver has a long history of trying to do something around housing — absolutely — and trying to work with the different partners about that. That's also true too. The reality doesn't change from the point of view that there are these tent cities going on in the city of Vancouver. The most recent one is Victory Square. People are now talking about erecting it as a permanent tent city. What is the minister's advice to the city of Vancouver in trying to cope with those kinds of situations as a result of the lack of affordable housing?

Hon. M. Coell: As I said before, no one level of government is going to solve homelessness — because of addictions, because of mental illness. I'd love to go on and talk about it for a long time with the member, as we did earlier today.

I think the city of Vancouver, through the Vancouver agreement, is going to make some great headway in dealing with people who are homeless who have addictions and severe mental illness. There is a great challenge there, one which we're willing to work on with them. I know the federal government is. I know there are literally hundreds of agencies in the Vancouver area who are anxious to work on this problem. It is a problem that I believe plagues our country, not only our province. I look forward to talking at greater length on this issue with the member.

Noting the hour, I'll move that we rise, report progress and seek 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.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

Lee	Thorpe	Hagen
Collins	de Jong	Harris
Christensen	Neufeld	Anderson
Nebbeling	Mayencourt	Johnston
Belsey	Krueger	J. Reid
Locke	Nijjar	Wong
Halsey-Brandt	Bloy	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Stephens

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton


	YEAS — 26

Coell	Bruce	van Dongen
Bray	Lee	de Jong
Harris	Christensen	Neufeld
Jarvis	Anderson	Nebbeling
Mayencourt	Johnston	Krueger
J. Reid	Stephens	Locke
Nijjar	Wong	Suffredine
Hamilton	Sahota	Hawes
Kerr		Manhas

	NAYS — 3

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger


	YEAS — 25

Coell	Bruce	van Dongen
Bray	Lee	de Jong
Harris	Christensen	Neufeld
Jarvis	Anderson	Nebbeling
Mayencourt	Krueger	J. Reid
Stephens	Locke	Nijjar
Wong	Suffredine	Hamilton
Sahota	Hawes	Kerr
	Manhas

	NAYS — 3

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger


	YEAS — 24

Coell	Bruce	van Dongen
Bray	Lee	Harris
Christensen	Neufeld	Jarvis
Anderson	Nebbeling	Johnston
Krueger	J. Reid	Hayer
Locke	Nijjar	Bhullar
Wong	Suffredine	Hamilton
Hawes	Kerr	Manhas

	NAYS — 4

MacPhail	Kwan	Brenzinger
	Nettleton