Hansard -- Thursday, April 29, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 8 (HTML)

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10681

Tributes		10681
	Rudolph Sieg
	R. Hawes
	Kerrie Sieg and Herman Cheung
	R. Hawes

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10681
	Crime Prevention Awards
	A. Hamilton
	Lyme disease
	B. Kerr
	Youth Week
	K. Manhas

Oral Questions		10683
	Retroactivity clause in legislation on health support workers
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. C. Hansen
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Arbitration option in legislation on health support workers
	R. Hawes
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Financial assistance for post-secondary students
	S. Orr
	Hon. S. Bond
	High-speed Internet access in Kootenays
	W. McMahon
	Hon. J. Murray
	Impact of legislation on health support workers
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Hansen

Tabling Documents		10686
	Workers Compensation Board, annual report, 2003
	Workers Compensation Board, service plan, 2005-06

Committee of Supply		10686
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Bond

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10705
	Estimates: Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
	Hon. G. Abbott
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. S. Santori
	K. Manhas

Hon. R. Harris: It's actually not that often we have someone from Skeena coming down to visit. I can't seem to find her at the moment, but up in the gallery we have a very good friend of mine. She happens to work in the district forest office up in Terrace. She's down here in Victoria just basking, I think, in the lovely weather and enjoying herself and having a great holiday. Would the House please welcome Heimke Haldane.

J. Kwan: Visiting us today is Warren Kline. Warren is a fourth-year engineering student at the University of Victoria, and today is the second-to-last day of his co-op program with the Legislative Assembly, computer services branch. In addition to taking on a full load as a student, Warren is also a dedicated foster parent to two teenage boys, and he and his wife are expecting their first baby this October. Would the House please welcome Warren to this Legislature.

Hon. C. Clark: On behalf of the Premier, I am delighted to be able to welcome to the chamber today a group from Queen Mary Elementary School in Vancouver. There are 76 grade 5 students here to observe our proceedings. They are joined by their dedicated teachers, Ms. King, Ms. Dixon and Mr. Carpenter. I hope the House will make them welcome.

Hon. G. Plant: I am delighted to have the opportunity today to welcome to the precincts and the gallery two constituents of the Minister of Health Services. They're actually connections and friends of my family: Marjorie and Reid Mitchell. Marjorie will be well known to many west-side Vancouver people for her work in the real estate business. Reid is, along with my father, a member of the UBC Thunderbird Hall of Fame for the 1948 UBC Thunderbird basketball team and was an Olympian. He was a member of the 1948 Canadian Olympic basketball team and went to London to play on behalf of Canada. In addition to all those other many good things, Marjorie and Reid Mitchell are the parents of my ministerial assistant and longtime assistant, Joan Dick. For all of those reasons, I'm very glad to see them here today. I hope members of the House will welcome them to the proceedings.

A. Hamilton: Visiting us today are four of my constituents. They are Ron Boyce; his father, Murray Boyce; his mother, Tracy Bryant; and his grandmother, Jeanette Bryant. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

R. Hawes: Two nights ago Rudolph Sieg passed away in Kelowna. He's the father of my constituency assistant Wilson Sieg and the grandfather of Kerrie Sieg, who works in the Premier's office. I would ask that the House send condolences to both Kerrie and Wilson.

R. Hawes: I would also like to note that Kerrie will be leaving. I think today may be her last day working for us here. She will be leaving with Herman Cheung for Ottawa to take up a position with the Conservative Party there. Herman, of course, is our computer wizard. I'd like to also ask the House — all of us — to wish them best of luck in their new positions in Ottawa.

J. Bray: On behalf of the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection, it's my pleasure to introduce four hard-working staff members from that ministry who are down visiting Victoria for the weekend and have chosen to take in question period today. These staff members are Patricia Marsh, Diana Gallacher, Lisa Paquin and Kelsey Selbee, and I'd ask the House to please make these hard-working public servants very welcome.

B. Kerr: I'm going to be making a statement to the House in a few minutes. I'd just like to introduce the two people that introduced me to this topic. Pat Cooley is a Lyme disease awareness and support group for Vancouver Island, and Lee Haines is a biochemist specializing in vector-borne diseases. Would the House make them feel very welcome.

M. Hunter: It always surprises me that people would leave Nanaimo on a beautiful day like today to come to Victoria, but two people in the gallery did. I had the pleasure of having lunch with them today. They are Wendy Smitka and Gord Halkett. Would the House please make them welcome.

A. Hamilton: Every year the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General hosts an awards ceremony to recognize individuals and organizations across the province who have made outstanding contributions in the field of crime prevention and community safety.

Selected for their commitment, perseverance, innovation and contribution by representatives of the safe communities working group, these award winners are exemplary members of our community and should be congratulated by all.

I was quite proud to learn that one of my young constituents had been nominated for one of these awards. He was later given a youth leadership award along with only one other young person in B.C. Ron Boyce, who I introduced earlier, at 13 years old is a fine example of how young people can make a difference in our community working side by side with adults to encourage community safety.

Over the past summer Ron volunteered with the Rock Solid Foundation to help develop and promote methods of dealing with violence and intimidation among youth. With the help of people like Ron, this organization has already communicated with over 500,000 young people in the greater Victoria area.

Ron has also been an active and eager participant in phase 2 of the Trackside Art Gallery project. This project is one that I find particularly interesting. He has helped with other Rock Solid volunteers to transform a dangerous urban corridor into a safe, clean and beautiful community space that all residents can be proud of. Every year new works of art are unveiled, painted by local young artists, sponsored by local businesses and organizations. The track site art project is now a positive place for gathering to associate with positive community togetherness instead of drugs and violence, as in the past.

In keeping with this focus on community involvement projects, Ron has the admirable career goal of one day becoming a community police officer. This is a path I can, from experience, assure him will be both rewarding and beneficial throughout his life.

I congratulate Ron on his success, and I urge him to continue playing an active role in the community. I urge all young British Columbians to get involved and discover the rich rewards that come with volunteerism. I would also like to congratulate all recipients of the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Awards who have worked hard to make a difference in the community. You are leaders of a much larger movement to improve the health of our neighbourhoods, and I commend you on all your efforts.

B. Kerr: When I first moved to the Island, we took our son's dog, a beautiful malamute husky, for a romp in the woods. When we arrived home, I was shocked to see a number of black marks on Kimo. Upon inspection I discovered they were deer ticks. Upon further investigation I found that although ticks do carry a number of pathogens, my area of Vancouver Island carries the most dangerous pathogen, called Lyme disease.

Lyme disease has only been recognized since 1975. Left untreated, late-stage Lyme disease is a debilitating arthritic and neurological illness that may mimic many of 200 other diseases such as MS, ALS, chronic fatigue syndrome, reactive arthritis, Lupus or Crohn's disease. Vancouver Island supports the right combination of environmental factors to facilitate the proliferation of ticks. Tick season begins in spring and goes through to the end of June.

Studies have shown that up to 6 percent of ticks will carry this debilitating pathogen. Because of the type of testing currently used in B.C., many patients are not being diagnosed with Lyme disease. Consequently, the treatment is not always appropriate for the circumstance.

This begs the question: what percentage of chronically ill patients of Vancouver Island actually have undiagnosed tick-borne infections? With recognition and treatment, many chronically ill patients who actually have Lyme disease could be brought to better health and lessen the burden on our social and health care systems.

Some tips that should be followed at this time of year are: always wear a hat when you're in the woods, particularly when you're looking for your golf balls and, if possible, wear a hat with neck protection. If you have a tick….

If you have a tick, send the tick to the Centre for Disease Control, and they can determine if it has Lyme disease. If you are experiencing symptoms after being infected with a tick, see your doctor, but be sure you have your blood test before taking any antibiotics. The test for Lyme disease is based on antibodies in the body, and taking antibiotics will undermine the value of the tests.

In essence, we must recognize on the Island the prevalence of Lyme disease and recognize the latest and most appropriate testing techniques. My understanding is that with a proper diagnosis, health care dollars can be saved and patients' suffering reduced. Thank you very much for allowing me the opportunity to bring forward this rather esoteric but nonetheless important risk that we experience on Vancouver Island.

K. Manhas: Yesterday I had the wonderful opportunity to speak to a group of kids from across the lower mainland, including kids from the Coquitlam area. It was a gathering of the Student Street Squad in Burnaby along with Barb Stegemann, Coquitlam's director of tourism, who talked about challenges she overcame in her life and gave an inspiring talk on visualization. It was an awesome start to what's in store in the week ahead.

Next week marks International Youth Week, May 1 to 7. Youth Week is an international celebration of the efforts, energies and positive contributions that youth

put into their communities all year round. It's an opportunity for people around the world to learn about and from young people. To kick off B.C.'s Youth Week, I'll be joining local youth in my neighbourhood where they'll disperse around the city to dispense random acts of kindness.

Leigh Square will be the stage for the youth festival in Poco, while Teen Idol, a showcase of youth talent, will take the stage. I'll be watching precariously from the cage filled with water where I'll be the dunk-tank target. Carly Travers and the Youth Matters! group — an initiative I started last year to build assets, empower youth and build relations amongst teens and the rest of the community — will be hosting Bring in the Noise, Bring in the Peace, a battle of the bands on the main stage, and a run-up version to the bigger Rock City Coquitlam concert. The kids will be involved with planning through Youth Matters! On Sunday there will be a scavenger hunt at the request and inspiration of a local reporter and events throughout the rest of the week.

Youth Week is a great opportunity for everyone, no matter their age, to get up, have fun and connect to youth in the community. Young people will inspire you, teach you about yourself, introduce you to all kinds of different things — music, poetry, art, movies, sports and things that you may have never found on your own. Adults are welcome, too, at Youth Week events.

You know, it only takes one adult that shows interest and faith in a young person to help that young person succeed, and I'm sure we can all remember those few who helped us and shaped our lives. This Youth Week, be that change for a young person you would otherwise not have met. Come out and celebrate at events around the province. Events can be found in your local community newspaper or by logging on to bcyouthweek.com.

J. MacPhail: Earlier today the member for Peace River South said that had he understood the implications of the retroactivity clause in the legislation rammed through the Legislature yesterday, he might have rethought his support for the bill. A few minutes later, the Health minister insisted there was no retroactive compensation takeback to April 1. It would be nice if the members of government had read and understood their own legislation before casting their vote.

To the Health minister. He has probably had a chance to read the bill he rammed through last night. Will he now stand up and tell health care workers how this retroactive stripping of wages will work? Will health care workers be required to cut a cheque to the government, or will this minister require them to work for free until they've paid off the debt to the company store?

Hon. C. Hansen: The member is misquoting me. I never said in any interview this morning that there was no retroactive component to this bill. What is important is that there are options for the workers, and that is set out clearly in the bill. They can go the route of the arbitrator that gives them more flexibility around the mix of wages and benefits, and once the workers understand the details of this, I think they will realize the fairness of the approach we've taken.

J. MacPhail: Unbelievable. I don't know what's worse — the vicious attacks on working families and patient care in Bill 37 or the fact that the members of this government caucus and apparently the Minister of Health had no idea what they were voting for but stood in blind obedience to the Premier and made this law.

There is no option about retroactivity. No matter what this government does to these workers, their wages and compensation are retroactive to April 1 — a minimum of one month full retroactivity.

We understand the government caucus received a briefing today on Bill 37 — a bit late, but at least they finally got one. Now that the Minister of Health and the member for Peace River South have been briefed on the bill they voted for already, can the Minister of Health explain to this House how he can possibly justify forcing health care providers to pay back the wages they've received for work they've performed in good faith throughout the month of April?

Hon. G. Bruce: The contract expired at the end of March of this year. The unfortunate thing is that we had been able to fashion an agreement between the parties during the course of last year. It was called the tentative framework agreement. Had the parties at that time accepted and understood what it was all about…

Hon. G. Bruce: …they would have — and had the leadership of the union gone and tried hard, vigorously to sell this deal — found a situation…

Hon. G. Bruce: …where much of the anxiety that had been displayed during this past while would have been mitigated, and you would have had peace in the labour field right now. Quite frankly, we canvassed

this for hours last night, and you're continuing along a path that is spewing misinformation.

J. MacPhail: What misinformation? The bill has a retroactive clause on wages and compensation. There is no misinformation. It's here in writing. Working people who have given their time throughout the month of April to care for the patients are going to have to cut a cheque or work for free. That's the truth.

Over and over again the Premier told health care workers they had nothing to worry about. He said he valued them. He said he wouldn't rip up their contracts. Now he's cut their wages, taken their jobs away, and they're either going to have to work for free or cut a cheque to this government for the wage reduction for the month of April.

Laura Ferguson has worked as a health care worker for 17 years as a pre-admissions clerk. She's a single mom. She has two children. She's trying to pay for her daughter to go to college. Her son requires special medical care. With this legislation she's worried that she's going to lose her job as well as have to take a huge pay cut for the time she's already put in. Why did the Premier not tell the truth to Ms. Ferguson when he said she had nothing to worry about?

Hon. G. Bruce: I think it's very important at this point that people understand there is an election that the members of the union can take by asking me to appoint an arbitrator.

J. MacPhail: What has that got to do with my question? You can still contract out the jobs regardless. Did you read your legislation?

Hon. G. Bruce: What's important about this is in respect to the reduction of wages, if an arbitrator is put into position.…

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Minister, we'll continue when we have order, and we'll add the time on at the end of question period. Would you like to start again, please.

Hon. G. Bruce: What's important to understand is that there's an election the members can take — the union. They can ask within the next 14 days…. This concerns me greatly. While there are different things taking place, they don't take the action that's necessary. What will happen with an arbitrator being asked….

Hon. G. Bruce: With an arbitrator put in place, they then can take the entire package of both wages and benefits….

Hon. G. Bruce: The reduction required in respect to the dollars and cents would be greatly mitigated. In fact, if a person had eight weeks or seven weeks and decided through the contract and the negotiation — the arbitration process — that they wished to reduce that by a week, then the amount that would actually have to be reduced in real dollars to income would be much smaller. So it's very, very important that the person you were speaking about understands that their union has to make a decision here. My concern is that during the last go-round with the tentative framework agreement, the union didn't understand the full component, and they've put themselves in a difficult position. I do not want to see that happen again.

R. Hawes: I've already had a couple of phone calls, and I want to ask the Minister of Skills Development and Labour about Bill 37. My question is on that topic as well, and it covers some of what I think he was just trying to answer. But I couldn't hear the answer, so I don't think the constituents who are asking me questions could hear it either. If the members of the opposition could try to be a little bit polite…

R. Hawes: …and understand the world isn't revolving around them…. There are workers in this province who want to hear these answers. My question, then, to the Minister of Skills Development and Labour would be…

R. Hawes: …around the arbitration option. The workers that have called me want to know: exactly what is their option here with respect to the arbitrator, and what does that mean to their paycheques? Depending on which way they choose to go, what is the impact here? If my constituents could be allowed to hear the answer. If you could ask them to just….

Hon. G. Bruce: That's very important — that under the legislation, it is written that at this point the reduction of wages is 11 percent off direct wages. If the union asks me to appoint an arbitrator within the next 14 days, that arbitrator then can, with the parties, work through whether some of that reduction comes out of benefits such as vacation time and things like that. Perhaps if they had five or six weeks' holidays, they might decide they want to give up a week's holiday, and then that reduction against wages would be substantially less.

Also, there's a difference in the total sum. Instead of an 11 percent reduction, which is as the bill is written right now, it would be a 10 percent reduction, and it would have the ability to be over both salaries and benefits. It's very important that union members of the HEU understand that component, because it represents to them a very substantive amount of money.

S. Orr: My question is actually to the Minister of Advanced Education. In a riding like Victoria-Hillside, I have many young people with financial challenges, so getting a post-secondary education is often dependent on the availability of government scholarship or bursary money. I have received a lot of phone calls and letters from students who are worried about the elimination of the B.C. student grant program. Will the minister please explain how my constituents on low incomes are going to be able to access post-secondary education without this source of funding?

Hon. S. Bond: On budget day this year we did announce that we were converting the grant program in the province. What we did was create a loan program instead so that….

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Madam Minister, we'll continue when we have order in the chamber. Please continue.

Hon. S. Bond: We converted the grant program to a loan program. Students, particularly those most in need, will continue to have access to the number of dollars; they simply will be in the form of a loan rather than a grant. At the same time, we announced the fact that we are working to redesign the program and will be working on a program that will look at a number of options, including remission and course completion grants.

We're doing consultation at the moment, and we'll hopefully be able to announce that in the near future.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, if the members of the opposition will conform to the rules of the House…. They know very well that they will be able to ask a question in this House. If not, then I assume they don't wish to.

W. McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Management Services. High-speed broadband digital Internet access will be delivered to 11 regional Kootenay centres through a province-facilitated agreement between the Columbia Mountain Open Network and Telus. We have a huge need and a desire for this service. A number of communities will now be able to access high-speed Internet for the first time, thanks to this partnership.

To the minister: what impact will this have economically and educationally for my constituents, and when can we expect high-speed broadband access to be delivered to those 11 regional centres?

Hon. J. Murray: This was a huge announcement for 11 communities in the East Kootenays. Revelstoke, Invermere and Golden are three that are in the member's riding. They will have the high-speed Internet access by either the end of October or the end of November of this year. All 11 will receive those connections this year.

This is one of the biggest things I've heard in terms of good news in those communities, and why is that? It's because parents who would like to stay at home with their young children and continue to work from home will be able to. It's because we will be able to have a level playing field where people in remote communities will have the same opportunities that I enjoy in New Westminster and others enjoy in urban centres to access high-speed Internet and be able…

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Would the Leader of the Opposition please try to get herself under control. Please continue.

Hon. J. Murray: …to take courses, to be able to use teleconferencing opportunities to be able to manage their own health care by accessing high-speed Internet. So all of those kinds of opportunities that we are beginning to take for granted but we actually really need for our quality of life will be available in those communities too.

J. Kwan: You know, Mr. Speaker, what is important for this government to understand is that the Premier

made a commitment to not rip up collective agreements, and then the Premier ripped up collective agreements.

Marianna Juras works as a housekeeper in a Victoria hospital. She's an immigrant from Croatia and has been working as a health care worker since she came to British Columbia. She has a mortgage and a son in grade 12 who wants to become a respiratory therapist. Her last day of work is on September 17. She doesn't know how she will pay her bills as a result of Bill 37.

Again to the minister: why did the Premier tell Ms. Juras that he valued her work? Why did the Premier tell her that she had nothing to worry about when he knew that isn't true?

Hon. C. Hansen: I think when the members want to see the root cause of the challenges that we're facing, they should actually go look in the mirror. During the 1990s when the NDP were in office, we saw the sweetheart deals that were signed between the Premier's office and the Hospital Employees Union, which took money out of patient care and diverted it instead into making the support staff in this province so much higher paid — 20 to 40 percent higher than any other province.

What we are doing is bringing those costs into line, because we have to put patients first. We have to make sure that we get costs in line with what other jurisdictions are facing, and that is exactly what we are accomplishing through this legislation.

Hon. G. Bruce: I have the honour to present the 2003 annual report and the 2005-06 service plan for the Workers Compensation Board.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply for the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management. In this chamber, I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, it will be the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

J. Kwan: Tuesday morning, when we last discussed the ministry's estimates, we were on the issues around the cancellation of the student grant programs by this provincial government. The minister says that there is a remission program, loan remissions, and post-degree grant programs being looked into by the government.

Notwithstanding, a student reporter tried to access the minister after the information was out through the budget. The minister didn't return phone calls in spite of repeated attempts by the student reporter to get hold of the minister. Of course, the government's communications person said that there is no plan for the existing grant program to be replaced.

Now, the government says they are going through a process of consultation, and through the estimates, the minister admitted that the consultation took place after the article of March 11 — the Martlet article where the issues were raised with respect to the plans for the loan remission and completion grant programs.

The minister says they are in the process of compiling the information. I'm asking the minister whether or not she would release the information that she's received through the consultation on the cancellation of the grant program for students.

J. Kwan: There are three guests sitting in the gallery today. I would like to introduce to the House Beni Lopez. Beni is originally from the Philippines but came to Canada 23 years ago, where he has since raised five children. Beni has been a building service attendant at the Victoria General Hospital for 17 of those 23 years, and like so many of his co-workers in the HEU, Beni has received a pink slip. Beni is a father of five, struggling to make ends meet, and someone very concerned over his future.

The Chair: Member, there's a time limitation on the amount you can say about people in introductions. I just ask you to limit that, please.

J. Kwan: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I will certainly follow the traditions of the House with respect to introductions.

Also here today is Laura Ferguson. Laura has been an HEU pre-admission clerk for 17 years. She's also a single mom with two children at home, one of whom has ADHD. Laura came down to the Legislature last night to watch the debate but was not allowed into the building. I'm glad to see that she's made it here today.

My third guest is Valerie Flowers. Valerie is a housekeeper at the VGH, where she has worked for the last 14 years. Valerie is first nations, a mom of three children. She, too, is facing difficult changes in the days ahead.

Beni, Laura and Valerie came down to the House to watch today's proceedings. I would like the House to welcome these three special guests.

Hon. S. Bond: Firstly, I want to go back and correct the record. I think the impression's been left that I did not contact the student reporter. I did. I certainly take responsibility for the fact that there was a series of communications between staff and e-mail before that interview took place.

However, I did do the interview on April 1, and in the article that was subsequently printed by the Martlet, which was not quoted by the member opposite, I said very clearly that we are consulting our stakeholders, including students, to make sure we create a program that works for them. So, in fact, I did speak to the student reporter.

To further clarify, after the first article in the Martlet appeared, my communications director contacted the student reporter immediately to point out that the comments in the article were not direct quotes of hers and did not reflect the complete discussion that took place. For the record and to clarify that, it's important to me that that does take place, and I do take responsibility for the gap in terms of the time that the calls were made to me. It was followed up, and a report was done. It's interesting. It was a lengthy interview, and I think I'm quoted in about three sentences of that interview.

More important to me than that, let's go back to the budget and fiscal plan announcement that was made, because there seems to be some skepticism on the part of the member opposite that we're actually doing the work to create the program. That's unfair to students in this province. The Finance minister said: "The Ministry of Advanced Education will be working to adjust its programs to assist those students most in need and determine how best to harmonize its student aid programs, and they will also be considering options, including completion grants and loan remissions."

Budget day was in February of this year. That commitment was made publicly. We continue to work on that, and we will soon be receiving the information.

J. Kwan: I'll tell you what is unfair. It's what this government is doing to workers in British Columbia. What is unfair is what this government is doing to students in British Columbia. The government is cancelling student grant programs, and then they claim that there is better access.

You know, the minister claims that she did return the call to the student on April 1, and yes, she did. Subsequently, on April 8 the article was printed. But you know what? The first contact for the article, when the student tried to get hold of this minister, was on March 11. "After 17 phone calls, 12 e-mails, four faxes, three assistants and two offices, the minister still had not gotten back to me to comment on the promised student loan remission and post-degree grant programs." That's a direct quote from the article itself.

Gee, I wonder: if Keith Baldrey is trying to get a hold of the minister, would he actually have to go through 17 phone calls, 12 e-mails, four faxes, three assistants and two offices to get access to the minister? No. This government in fact actually brings forward legislation just so they can make it on the 6 o'clock news, like they did yesterday with Bill 37. Talk about access and fairness.

Then, you know what? The minister says the communications director was not quoted properly. Well, the article writes this, and it's not a direct quote from the communications director. The point is this. I actually trust the reporting of the student rather than the word of this government, because the student has actually put this information forward, and I trust this information to be factual.

It reads, from the article: "I was referred to" — it actually names the minister's name — "the minister's communications director, Karen McDonald, the same assistant who told me she could not officially comment two weeks earlier, when I sent her a list of questions about the promised programs, and who refused to return numerous calls and e-mails." A list of questions were sent to the minister. Good grief. Even then, after 17 phone calls, 12 e-mails, four faxes, three assistants and two offices, the reporter was not able to make contact until April 1.

The article goes on to say that what McDonald did know, however, was that no solid plans for the student loan remission and post-degree grant programs were in the works. According to McDonald, B.C. student loan remission and post-degree grant programs will not be in place this year, and no details on who will be consulted in the making of the programs have been set.

I trust the information that has been put forward by the student any day, compared to members' — and particularly government members' — information.

J. Kwan: Exactly. Maybe the government members should remember the word "honour" to see what it means. Maybe they should put it on their foreheads so that every morning when they wake up and look at themselves in the mirror, they may actually reflect on what they did the day before — like yesterday — and see whether or not the word still shines on their foreheads.

I just want to remind the member that we are dealing with the Ministry of Advanced Education. I'd like to keep her remarks and her questions confined to that ministry, please.

J. Kwan: The April 8 Martlet article reads: "Students shouldn't hold their breath awaiting the grant replacement program promised by the B.C. Liberals in their

February 17 budget announcement, according to the Advanced Education minister." Again, it names the minister. "The minister assures students a grant replacement program is in the works, but implementation is still far off. 'My staff is looking at the other grant programs across the country to see what works. I can't say for sure when the program will be in place.'" That's a direct quote from the minister. Then the minister goes on to say: "'We're consulting our stakeholders, including students, to make sure we create a program that works for them.'"

How's it going? The government knew in February that they were going to cancel a critically needed program for students, and then they cancelled the program. Then it was almost as if they had forgotten they promised a degree completion program or a grant remission program. It's almost as though they had forgotten until people got on to the minister's case and this government's case. Then all of a sudden they remembered they had better go and do some consultation.

To date: February, the announcement came out — program gone; April, the end of April — April 29 today — no information on when the program will be out. The minister claims that they're working on consulting across the country with respect to this new loan remission program and completion grant program. When exactly will this program be in place?

Hon. S. Bond: I've answered that question several times, but I'm happy to do it again.

I just want to make one comment about how disappointing it is that when we're working hard to put a program in place that I am absolutely certain the member opposite would be supportive of when we're trying to assist students, we're casting doubts about a process….

In fact, I should also clarify the record. I said yesterday that I didn't have the dates in terms of the beginning of the consultation. The letter to stakeholders to be consulted went out…. We believe the date was March 16. So those meetings have been underway since just a month after the budget was delivered in this province. Since that time we've met with a significant number of groups, which we think is a great idea. Before we design the new program, we thought we should actually talk to people about that.

My goal is to have my staff…. I have said to them: "I want you to be inclusive and thorough." I also believe that…. You know what? Other people in other parts of this country do things well as well. So I've asked them to look at models across the country. I've asked them to talk to people within this province, and that work is underway.

I've said more than once that my goal is to have a program in place by the end of the school year, the academic year 2004-05, so there is no gap in the provision of service.

J. Kwan: You just don't know what version of the minister's story to take, because in the Hansard of Tuesday, April 27, the minister says: "We are working hard, and to clarify the member's concerns, the consultation did take place in April. From that perspective, the point is that the Finance minister made that commitment on budget day." So they cancelled the program in February. They did the consultation, as the minister said she did, in April. That was as of Tuesday morning. So now the story changes.

It's sort of like many of the stories of this government. They keep on changing. You kind of have to have an Energizer Bunny to follow the minister to see where things are going, because at every turn on issues it changes. And here we are — yet another change. But you know what? We'll just leave that for a moment.

What's really important is this. The minister claims that she cares about students. She is so caring about students that she thought: "Okay, here's a bright idea — budget day. Oh, let's go and announce that we're going to cancel a grant program for students. Then let's do that cancellation without any consultation with the students who will be impacted by the cancellation of the program. But because we care so much, we're going to consult with them to see what program should be in place afterwards."

Well, if you really did care, one might have actually put the consultation in place before this government cancelled the program. If there are genuine intentions from the government to put a better program in place, well then, do the consultation before you cancel the program and have a replacement ready to go before you cancel the program.

No, not so. Not this government. Why? Because their intentions, in my belief, are not in the best interests of students. That is a laugh. What this government cares about and what this minister cares about is the bottom line. What they care about is their own ideology. They don't care about access to education for students. They don't care about low-income people who are trying to get better access to programs. That's why they cancelled the student grant program.

The minister says: "Okay, we're consulting now." I suppose it's better late than never. If they had done it right, they wouldn't have cancelled the grant program to begin with. They would have done consultations to see if there was a way to enhance the program with students and others impacted by it and those who have knowledge in the field — would have done that and then had a program ready to go. But no, not so.

Now, what is the minister's rationale for creating a new loan remissions and completion grant program? What caused the minister to think that is better, by cancelling the grant program that existed prior to budget day?

Hon. S. Bond: Just in terms of the comments about my changing stories, I went back yesterday to clarify the information for the member opposite so I could be as accurate as possible in the House today. It has nothing to do with changing a story. In fact, consultation has continued throughout the month of April. The let-

ters of invitation — the actual date I was given — were sent to the stakeholders on March 16. I didn't have that at my fingertips yesterday, so I was happy to provide that information to you. Consultation did continue throughout the month of April. As a matter of fact, it hasn't finished yet. We're still working on that.

In terms of the rationale, first of all, virtually no other province in the country has an upfront grant program any longer. One of the things we looked at was the practice across the country. Second, the other issue was that we wanted to be able to send as many dollars as possible to the institutions to help benefit the 300,000 students across the system. So what it enabled us to do is while we make the shift to the remissions and completion grant program, we were able to restore funding and, in fact, add additional dollars to institutions across the province.

What we've seen as a result of that is exactly what we knew would happen. We wanted to make sure we could mitigate some of the tuition increases that impact every student in this province. That's precisely what happened. We have, as a matter of fact, Vancouver Community College — an institution the member opposite is well aware of — having a zero percent tuition increase. So all of the students benefited from those additional dollars.

There was a series of reasons for doing it. It's always a balancing issue. It was not an easy decision to make, and I made that clear yesterday in my comments. But the good news is that this is a government that is actually adding 25,000 seats to the post-secondary education system by the year 2009-10, probably the most significant addition in terms of access for students in decades in this province. So to suggest that we don't care…. We made a difficult decision. We're trying to balance very difficult circumstances, but we intend to put together a loan completion or a remission program that will meet the needs of those students most in need.

J. Kwan: It's unbelievable when you hear the minister's answer. She says: "Oh, we looked across the country, and virtually no other province is providing a grant program." Well, then let's just adopt the practice of racing to the bottom and taking away grant programs for students, why don't we? That's what this government has done.

If you apply that logic to another area, like retroactive wage rollbacks, maybe the government will find that virtually no other province is doing that. Why are they doing that now — leading the charge? Where things are good for students and good for communities, you'd think that this government would lead the charge to support communities. Absolutely not. Where it is damaging for communities and students, the government wants to lead the charge on that to make sure they're on the bottom of the list. They are leading the charge exactly. That's what this government is doing.

To hear the minister's answer is just baffling when she claims that she supports and wants to be there for students, that she cares very much about students. I tell you. Then the minister says: "Well, you know, we made these tough decisions, and we had to make these tough decisions, and we didn't like them, but we had to make them anyway." The minister knew full well what the government was doing when they lifted the tuition fee freeze. When the government lifted that, they knew exactly what was going to happen, and, yes, tuition fees skyrocketed.

For example, B.C. university tuition increased by some 70 percent. College tuition increased by some 150 percent. In fact, increases are still taking place in some of the universities and colleges in British Columbia this fiscal year. As I said, I will get into the tuition fee issue in full detail in these estimates.

The claim and suggestion that the government took this $80 million grant program away from students who are in need so they could mitigate tuition fee increases…. The government could have mitigated tuition fee increases by funding post-secondary education adequately. The government also took this $80 million grant program away to give to academic institutions for the spaces the government announced in the throne speech. The Finance minister actually said that a large portion of the $80-million-a-year grant program will be given to academic institutions to increase capacity and mitigate tuition fees. So we know from the minister's own words that students are carrying additional burdens for these new spaces.

Government, as we established earlier in the estimates debate, is not funding the increase in spaces adequately, so institutions will have to look elsewhere. Part of that would be from the grant programs this government took away. I would like to canvass the minister if she has some specific numbers about how much this government would put into these remission and completion grant programs.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I just want to…. Again, the member opposite heard something I didn't say. The member opposite implied we were cancelling grants because nobody else had grants. The key words are "upfront grants." We're moving the program to the back end of a student's career, just as every other province in the country does. So to imply they don't have grant programs is incredibly…. Well, that's just inaccurate, and it's not what I said.

Having said that, we don't have a number. That's because I've asked the staff to find as much money as possible to be able to put back into the loan remission or grant program, and it will depend on the model. We're looking at a variety of models. We might look at incentive grants. We may look at those grants for students most in need. It also depends on our interest rates. We also have to look at our bad-debt experience in terms of how we balance all of those things.

As frustrating as it might seem to the member opposite, we're actually trying to do a thorough job of

figuring out a model that works well for students, finding the maximum number of dollars we can come up with. The good news is a program will be in place. It will reflect the needs of students, and it will also look at what's best in terms of what's happening in Canada right now. That's actually prudent management, as we sort out how to do this as best we possibly can.

L. Mayencourt: There are 132 young people that have just come into the gallery. They are in grades 2 through 7. They're from Bayview Community School in Vancouver–Point Grey. They've come here with a big song in their hearts. They were in the rotunda just a little while ago, and they performed magnificently. Everybody that walked by was just thrilled by their appearance here. They're accompanied by 26 of their parents, too numerous to name. But I do want to recognize in particular their choir director, Gail Hause, and the school coordinator, Brenda Devine. Would the House make these children very welcome.

J. Kwan: Prudent management — that this government, this minister, cares about students…. Well, there's the caring, and there's prudent management. The government cancelled a loan program that works for students before they did any consultation with students, before they have a replacement program in place for students and before they even figured out how much money they would set aside for this program. There is caring. There is prudent management. It's almost as though the caring is overflowing off the side of the minister's desk — that it fell off into the wastebasket — until someone said: "Wait a minute. We did say that we were going to look into a remissions program and a completion grant program. Better pick that up off the side of the desk and carve a little space for it."

If the minister was genuine in her assertion that she cares about students and this was a priority within government, then a minimum budget would have been set aside for the grant program. In fact, I would venture to go as far as to say more than that. The government would have had a replacement program in place and would have done the consultation before the grant program was eliminated, if the intent really was to look for a way to improve the program and ensure it provides maximum support for students. No. That isn't what the government did, so one would have to observe that the government's priority in helping students in greatest need is on the bottom of the list of things to do.

The minister says she has told her staff to find as much money as possible. I have been a minister before. With budgets in ministries, usually on budget day you are given X amount of money. It goes into whichever program. Generally speaking, you know how much money you have got and what programs it goes to. There aren't a lot of slush dollars lying around. One can only assume, given that there's no line item for this remission program, that there's nothing dedicated towards it in terms of dollars set aside for the program. One has to wonder about the government's assertion that they actually care about students.

If the minister says they'll try and find as much money as possible, can one assume that it will be at least $80 million — at least the same amount of money that the government took away — for the grant program?

Hon. S. Bond: If I might digress for a moment, I have the pleasure of having an office very close — actually, on the second floor of the rotunda — and I want to say to you that my assistant deputy minister and I were out there and that you did an absolutely wonderful job. We all came out and listened, and you made part of our lunch hour much happier today. On behalf of my staff and I, who were getting ready, we just want to say thank you. You did an absolutely tremendous job, and it was a delight to have you here in the precinct today. Thank you for that.

In terms of the amount, as I said earlier, I don't have the amount of money that we would be using, but we did make a conscious decision to redistribute some of those funds to institutions to try to bring benefit to the 300,000-plus students that are in the system. Currently, 5 percent of students benefit from the pool of dollars that were allocated to that program. We're trying to balance very difficult needs here. We're trying to create a loan program or a remission program that will meet the needs of students. We're trying to find as much money as possible to do that, and we're also sending more money to institutions to try to help students across the sector.

J. Kwan: I, too, want to pause for a moment to welcome the students. You know, with them bringing a song to the Legislature from their hearts, all I can think about is Raffi's notion of a song that he wrote for the UN. To quote just a couple of phrases from the song, it's: "All you really need is a song in your heart, food in your belly and love in your family."

When I look at children, I believe that really is the essence of children — the essence of what we need to provide to children so that they have opportunities to flourish and grow. Of course, educators in our community do that day in and day out, and I want to thank them, as well, for the good work they do every day. To the students: welcome to the Legislature.

For the student grant program, the minister says they don't have a figure set down. The minister wouldn't commit that it would be at least $80 million, and I think that tells you something. The minister claims they are trying to redistribute. She calls it redistribution of the

funds, and they use all kinds of fancy terms. At the end of the day, it comes down to this. The grant program is now gone, and there's no replacement program to date. We don't know when a replacement program would be available, and we don't even know how much money would be set aside for this replacement program.

Prudent management? No. Caring for students and access to post-secondary education, particularly for students who are low-income? No. I would say not, given the actions of the government. The minister says she is going around checking with other provinces to see what programs they have in place. What sorts of remission programs is the government looking at? What jurisdictions have they looked into, and what have they found?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, not only have we looked at provinces, but we've actually looked at countries. We've looked at Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, the United Kingdom, the United States and the Republic of Ireland. We found there are some very radical programs, actually, and some that probably won't work for us. Also, we have looked at programs in Alberta, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. We actually even looked at Nunavut to see what kinds of programs were in place.

We mean business. We want to do a good job at looking at how we take these dollars and best apply them. The staff is doing an incredible job of the research work that they're doing, in combination with consultation with as many stakeholder groups as we can fit. We're still doing meetings, as a matter of fact, so we're trying to be as comprehensive as possible as we look at other models in existence.

J. Kwan: Oh, I have no doubt that the staff and the minister are very competent and doing an excellent job. They only do what the political masters tell them they have to do — absolutely. But you know what? They might have actually begun that excellent, competent work prior to the programs being cut if that was the wish of the political masters. But no, that is not the wish of the political masters. They wanted to cancel the program. Afterwards, they say: "Okay, go and look out there and see what's available. We don't actually have a budget yet or a time line, but hey, go ahead and do that work."

I have never doubted the public service in the good work they do provide to politicians, no matter what stripe. I don't challenge that at all. What I am challenging is this government's intentions and this minister's intentions from the start, when she claims that she actually had something in place and in mind and that they are working very hard and are very caring about students. Then what they do is actually go and cancel the program that is critical to students. They don't have a replacement ready to go and haven't even begun the consultation prior to cancelling the program. There are some what I call credibility gaps going on here, Mr. Chair, with the minister's words.

So the minister says she has gone out there, and ministry staff has looked at all kinds of jurisdictions in terms of what exists. What exactly did they find?

Hon. S. Bond: As I indicated yesterday, incredible amounts of work are being done. You saw my assistant deputy minister haul out just two of the books. We have lots of information. I have not received the report back yet. But we did learn one thing, in terms of the principle that we're looking at. Upfront grants, which is the program we are moving away from, are not used in most jurisdictions anymore. The reason is that there is little or no budget certainty when you deal with a grant program in that way, because it is dependent on things like how…. We have debt costs, we have interest rates, and there are a number of factors.

The answer is that I have not received the report on my desk; my staff continues to do the research. As the member opposite and I would agree, we have an incredible staff in my ministry and in many of the other ones. They're continuing to do their job, and I anticipate receiving their report in the near future.

J. Kwan: Well, isn't that interesting? The minister says that they are eliminating…. They've made a decision to eliminate upfront grants for students in the post-secondary education sector because she says that virtually no other jurisdiction is doing that.

I wonder if the minister consulted with students to see what they think about grants. Would upfront grants be better than remission grants, as an example, or completion grants, as an example — and what students had to say before the minister cut the upfront grants, $80 million worth of grants to students?

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said a number of times, making a decision like this is based on a complex set of circumstances that we're trying to balance. The biggest issue I hear about is access. Students want to get a seat in post-secondary education. Another significant concern is the grade point average. Actually, we believe that if you work hard in British Columbia and get a B, you should get a seat in a post-secondary institution. That's the goal we're working towards.

Yes, it took a complex balancing of looking at those circumstances and looking at the issues related to the grant program. I think the most important part from our perspective is that we continue to meet the needs of those students most in need.

I want to say that institutions also are partners with us in this. There are institutions in this province — and I have statements from three of them — that have policies where students, if they qualify to get into the institution academically — the University of British Columbia is a perfect example — will not be turned away because of financial need.

We're balancing a complex set of demands, but the biggest concern we have is getting students into seats and making sure that by the year 2009-10, we add 25,000 more seats to the system to make sure that

young people like the ones sitting in the gallery today get a chance to get into an institution. That's important.

J. Kwan: Yes, I don't deny that making seats available for students — like today, who are visiting the gallery — so they have access to them would be important. Absolutely. Spaces are absolutely critical.

What this government is doing is off-loading another form of access in order to gain capacity access by way of spaces. Yes, capacity is important, but the government is jeopardizing access for low-income students by taking grants away. There are students who would not be able to access post-secondary education. Why? Because tuition fees simply are out of reach for them. They're simply out of reach and not a consideration for them to even contemplate going into post-secondary education, because they cannot afford it. Access needs to be looked at from different perspectives. It is about providing access in a variety of senses. One is about availability of space. The second is about affordability. Both of those aspects are equally important.

You do not, as this government has done, choose one over the other. What this government has done with this budget is off-load affordability access — forgone affordability access — because the government took money away from grants to put into the creation of spaces. It's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

It kind of reminds me, as I look at the young children around the Legislature today, of what this government has done in the education sector. They took $3 million away from students in Vancouver for the Community LINK program — which supports hot lunch programs and counselling, the involvement of parents and support staff in the school system — to give to other students in other communities. The government says there's a need in these other communities. I don't dispute that there's a need in other communities, but you do not take from one needy community to give to another. If they really valued education and equal access and quality education for all, what the government would have tried to do is provide and support those programs where there is a need.

Here we have, in the advanced education sector, the government taking exactly the same approach as they have done in the education K-to-12 sector — rob Peter to pay Paul. Then they say that they needed to do it because we needed to create space, and in the process, to heck with students who actually need grants and who actually need to address the issue of affordability.

The minister says she has a variety of programs that they're looking into. She has not yet received a report on this. The minister says across the province…. They've looked at Alberta and even Nunavut, she said. Has she looked at Ontario?

Hon. S. Bond: In a word, yes. I haven't; my staff has. I want to go back to a fundamental disagreement we're going to — I'm assuming — continue to have over the next number of months. You simply can't choose one or the other. Putting students and allowing them the opportunity to get into a post-secondary institution is a complex issue. Access is incredibly important, and making sure that low-income students that come from low-income families find spaces is absolutely critical.

You have to put together a strategy. We have a strategy in place to add 25,000 seats to the post-secondary education system. How did we do that? We looked around the province and said: "Where are the areas where the need is growing the fastest? Let's put seats there." You know what? If we can allow students a seat closer to where they live, something happens as a result of that. They save money. As a matter of fact, studies would show us that on average, you can save $6,000 a year as a student if you are able to get a seat closer to where you live. So it is not as simple as choosing one over the other.

I'm not prepared to go and say to students: "We choose this path." No, we're going to look at a strategy; we're going to consider all of the options that we can find. We have put together a strategic investment plan to add seats that are unprecedented in this province in more than decades. So, in fact, we're working on exactly the concerns the member opposite has, but it is not as simple as choosing one or the other.

J. Kwan: That's precisely my point. It shouldn't be chosen one over the other, and that's exactly what the government has done. The government chose to forgo grants for students. Therefore, in this budget year they eliminated the grants program for students. Then they took that money and put it elsewhere in the post-secondary education system. Most notably, the minister claims that they put it into decreasing tuition fee increases and to space capacity building.

The government made a choice when they tabled the budget to eliminate the grants program. My point is that the government shouldn't choose one form of access over another, for affordability access is equally important as access in spaces for students. That's exactly my point, and that's exactly what the minister doesn't get. If the minister does understand that you shouldn't choose one form of access over the other, then the government would not have cancelled the grants program for students before they had a replacement program in place.

The government made a decision. Just like when the government came to office, they made a decision before they even looked at the books that they would give tax cuts. In fact, the largest tax cuts were to big corporations and the highest-income earners of British Columbia — some $2 billion worth of tax cuts.

The government made a decision. Yes, being government is about priorities, and it is about making choices. You can't have it both ways. You can't say that you didn't make a choice when in fact you made a choice. You can't say that you value students in terms of access on the issue around affordability when you actually just cut programs and grant programs to support students.

The minister says she has looked at the Ontario model. Now, there are differences. Based on the information that the minister has received to date on these different models, there are different kinds of remission programs. For example, the federal loan remission model, the federal program, is based on a primary income table which is set, in my view, at absurd levels. For example, if you have a $30,000 loan and you make, let's say, about $35,000 a year…. On that basis, under the federal government program, you don't qualify for loan remission. You maybe qualify for some interest relief and the like, but you don't qualify for the loan remission program. You pretty well have to be destitute to qualify.

The federal program really is in name only. It doesn't really work for students. When the federal government announced their program, they promised to help some 12,000 students. It turns out only about 1,000 students were able to access that program. So the program is not effective.

Now, the reason why I want to bring this up is that I want the minister to know that some remission programs don't work. Would the minister agree, in that instance, that the federal loan remission program is one that actually doesn't work for students? It certainly doesn't work very well for students.

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I want to just make the point that — and I'm going to continue to clarify the language — we are not forgoing a grant program. We are redesigning the grant program. The member opposite can continue to call it forgoing; that's not accurate. We are re-creating and redesigning, and part of the design….

The member opposite has also been a minister, and you don't snap your fingers and overnight have a new loan program. We're actually doing due diligence.

I appreciate the member opposite's comment about that particular loan program. I don't know the details of it. My staff is working, and they have a stack of models about that high. We are going to look through them. I'm sure there are some that are successful, some that would better meet the culture that we have in British Columbia. But in fact, it takes time. We want to get it right. That work is being done as we speak.

Also, I want to just remind the member opposite that this ministry's budget has been protected for the entire term of this government. In fact, we have received $105 million that will be added over the next three years, and we actually increased funding $15 million to institutional operating grants in 2004 and 2005.

J. Kwan: In the 2002 and 2003 budget years, the government actually froze the post-secondary education budget. In fact, in the midst of all of that, with increased pressures once again, institutions…. That's why the institutions have to increase tuition fees at a rate that is unbelievable — unmatched by any other province in terms of increased tuition fee rates.

The minister says that they're doing their due diligence and that they're only converting this program. Well, maybe it is a different approach from different governments and a different approach for different ministers.

In my instance as a former minister, if I valued a program, I wanted to see the benefits of a particular program continue. If I thought there might be another way of delivering the program that would actually yield better benefits for, in this instance, students — let's just use that as an example — I would have gone to do the work to see how you could bring forward a program that would have benefited students more than the existing one and would have had that ready to go before the old program was converted away — conversion, as the minister calls it.

In reality, the grant program is gone. It doesn't exist in this budget year. Students can't get access to grant programs because there is no such program. The minister says: "Well, maybe at the end of the school year they might have something." Well, that's not going to help the students. It's not going to help the students who need that program now. How is that helpful?

Notwithstanding that, the government doesn't know how much money they have set aside for the grant program, and they don't know when they will necessarily bring this program in place. The minister says she doesn't know about the federal program, doesn't have very much information on it. Well, according to students who I've been in contact with, they tell me the federal program doesn't work because the threshold for access to the loan program is simply impossible, generally, or very difficult to meet. You pretty well have to be destitute in order to access that program. Therefore, even though the federal government goes around claiming that it wants to target 12,000 students, only about 1,000 students actually qualified for the program.

How many students is this minister trying to target with this new loan remission or completion grant program?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, there will be no gap. Students this year got the grant. We are continuing to pay grants this year. We will have another grant program in place by the next school year. So that means we didn't discontinue. We are redesigning, and that will continue.

In terms of the number of students, we don't have a specific number because as we look at the model, we have one principle: to support those students most in need. I haven't targeted a number of students.

Depending upon whether you do completion grants, whether you…. There is a variety of models, as I have explained. The model will change in terms of the number of students, but the most important principle is that we will support those students most in need.

J. Kwan: How many people now have access to the grant program that is being converted away?

Hon. S. Bond: Last year 23,378 students qualified for the B.C. grant program. Of those, 15,989 were at-

tending a public post-secondary institution. But according to our head count numbers, both full- and part-time, you should know that there were 300,000 students in the public post-secondary system last year. Of those, 117,000 would have been full-time students, so in effect, discontinuing the student grant program will affect 5 percent of the total student population attending public institutions.

J. Kwan: Yes, it impacted 23,378 students who access the grant program. That's how many people would be impacted.

Hon. S. Bond: We will get that number for the member opposite as quickly as we can. It's here in this large stack of papers, so we're working to find the exact number. I don't want to have to come back and clarify once again.

J. Kwan: Okay. While the minister looks for the answer, maybe she can also find the information — aside from the average — on what the maximum is and what the minimum is. Maybe she has that information already.

Hon. S. Bond: The average grant was $3,200. We will continue to work to find the minimum and maximum, but that will hopefully move us forward — $3,200.

J. Kwan: Is it anticipated that this new program that would replace the old program — or the old program that's been converted away — will, in the minimum, provide the same kind of support to the students that qualified for the old program?

Hon. S. Bond: Not necessarily. It depends, again, on the model. It also looks at the package of benefits we're providing to students, which includes institutions closer to home, more seat availability. We're looking at a total plan as we look at how to provide opportunities for students, so no, it's not necessarily the same average.

J. Kwan: Does the minister expect there will be more students who could access this grant, or fewer?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, we haven't determined that. As we look at models, we can look at completion grants. We can look at a number of models that address student needs. As I said earlier, the main principle we will apply is looking at those students most in need.

J. Kwan: Just by way of comparison, the Okanagan University College's tuition jumped from $1,170 to $1,650 in the year 2003 — a 65 percent increase in 2002. If we just use that as an example in terms of tuition fees that students are faced with, a $3,200 grant provides for less than three years of tuition for a student. If you actually look at programming — degree-granting, as one example — you're usually looking at a four-year program, so the $3,200 is anything but excessive. Other tuition fees are actually higher, depending on what university or what institution you take it from, and there's a bit of a range.

Anyway, just using that as a benchmark, if you will, as a base for measurement, if the government says it will somehow enhance the programs for students in terms of a grant program with a loan remission program or a completion-grant program, then let's use the numbers of the existing program as a benchmark to see whether or not whatever this new program is that the minister comes out with really is better at the end of the day.

We'll use that as a base for measurement. We'll use that as a base to measure the targets in terms of how many students and how much support students would be able to access. I would say that the stats that the minister had provided should be used as a minimum baseline for measurement.

I was hoping, of course, that the minister would confirm that the federal program, which really has not been very helpful for students, is one that the government would not adopt as a model. Now, the minister says she doesn't know very much about the federal program. But is it safe to say that for such programs, with a history where with a target of 12,000 students, only 1,000 students, approximately, reached and were able to access the program…? Is it safe to say that such a program has not been successful in supporting students?

Hon. S. Bond: I have said countless times that I'm going to look at the models that are available. I'm going to look at what's best for students in the province. Most particularly, in the grant program that we redesign, we will look at those students most in need.

I also need to go back, and perhaps the member opposite would like to adjust her chart in terms of Okanagan University College. As of a few months ago we made an incredible announcement about UBC, the Okanagan and Okanagan College. We're creating two institutions there so we can increase access for students. Because we did that, in fact, Okanagan College, which will look at university transfer programs and maintain and enhance regional programming, is actually reducing its college-level tuition fees by $1,000 for every full-time student. That's what I'm talking about when you balance needs and put together a strategic plan.

We're not simply going to rely on a grant program to help students. We're going to do a good job of that too, but by adding new seats and creating two institu-

tions, students in the interior of the province, in college-level courses, will receive a reduction in their tuition fees of $1,000.

J. Kwan: I'll get into the tuition fee issue, as I said in the estimates. The minister need not worry about it. I'll actually get into the Okanagan University College university issue as well, so the minister need not worry about it.

It is interesting to note the minister's answers so far, though, on the federal government program. Even though the minister may not have all of the details around it, based on the information she has received to date, the minister can double-check this to make sure the information is correct. If a target of 12,000 students is to be targeted in terms of providing grant programs, remission programs, to students under the federal program and only approximately 1,000 access them, I think it's safe to say that the program is not successful. And the government won't even commit to that.

I actually start to worry about what the government is planning in terms of this new program. Maybe they're going to pull a federal Liberal approach to remission programs — put forward a program and then set the threshold in such a way that pretty well nobody can qualify for it, so it is underutilized and the government can say: "Great. We have a program in place, but there is no need for it." Maybe that will be the line. I will reserve my judgment until I see the provincial government's new program and see what that looks like, although so far the answers I have canvassed from the minister have not been comforting, to say the very least.

I have a last question for the minister in this area. The provincial grant program that the minister is in the process of converting and phasing out — were there any unspent dollars within that grant program? And if so, how much?

Hon. S. Bond: It is a demand-driven program. The dollars were not left on the table. As a matter of fact, at the end of the fiscal year we had $1.6 million left in the entire ministry after we did the work we did.

I want to just answer one of the questions so we can take this one off the list. The minimum grant is $100, and the maximum grant is $5,720.

J. Kwan: Sorry, did the minister say there were no dollars left in the provincial grant budget at the end of the fiscal year?

Hon. S. Bond: It is demand-driven. We spent what we forecast, and dollars that are available after that are redistributed to the institutions. It is forecast, it is demand-driven, and the rest is sent to institutions or other purposes.

J. Kwan: Demand-driven and forecasted in terms of the amount. What was the forecast?

J. Kwan: So $75 million in grants was provided to support students. Was the full forecasted amount spent?

Hon. S. Bond: There was $75 million spent on B.C. grants, and the member needs to be aware that those are unaudited numbers.

Hon. S. Bond: No one actually applies for a grant. They apply for student financial assistance, and typically they get a combination of grant and loan.

Hon. S. Bond: No one who met the criteria was turned down. In fact, we had 95,000 applications, and we had 77,000 students that actually were served in the province. I'm sorry. I want to make sure we get the terminology correct — 77,163 applications that met the criteria.

J. Kwan: That's for the last fiscal year. Earlier the minister gave a figure of 23,378 people that actually got the grant. Now it's 77,163? I'm sorry. I'm confused about those numbers.

Hon. S. Bond: Students don't apply for grants; they apply for student financial assistance. They typically get a combination of loan and grant. The number of students that met the criteria for a grant was 23,000. The total package of students who got assistance was the larger number.

J. Kwan: For the purposes of this discussion, we're talking about the grants. The number of people who actually got the grants is 23,378. The 77,163 included students who actually got a loan. That's a different kettle of fish in terms of loans versus grants. The minister says that nobody who qualified for the provincial grant was turned away. What is the qualification?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of the criteria…. First of all, I just want to go back over this territory one more time, because the member opposite sounded puzzled. Maybe it was my explanation. No one applies for a grant. They don't say: "I need a grant." What they say is: "I need some help with student financial assistance."

The good news is that the ministry has done a fantastic job of modernizing how students apply. I do want to mention this, because I want to give my staff a plug. They've done a fabulous job. You can actually apply on line now. It's got an incredibly quick turnaround period, so students aren't waiting. They actually just do all of their information on line.

In terms of criteria, they're based on the assessed need of students. That includes a number of things. The easiest way to check that is to go to the website

and have a look at that. It includes income; it includes assets. There is a basic principle in student financial assistance, not just in British Columbia but globally, that student financial assistance does not replace family support. That is part of the assumption that is made when an assessment is done, so family income is also part of the consideration.

Student applications look at a number of factors, but again they apply for student financial assistance as a package.

I think we also have to add the context that this isn't the only way students get assistance. Institutions around this province do an extraordinary job of providing dollars from institutions to supplement student incomes through bursaries in a number of areas. Government assistance is one piece of the package.

J. Kwan: Yes, bursaries are also available, but usually they're very small in amount. They are a few hundred dollars — $500 and such. The dollar amount is very little, although it does help — make no mistake about that — in terms of a continuum of support. Student financial assistance, for all intents and purposes, is grant programs for students. I should also say that it is true…. In fact, all the students I know who got the grant program also got a loan program. The grant program in and of itself is not sufficient to pay for all the expenses associated with the education costs and living costs as well.

So yes, it has therefore always been a combination, and that certainly was the case when I was going to university. Things haven't changed that much, with the exception that tuition fees are a lot higher than what they used to be when I was in school.

I don't know whether or not the grant program, in terms of the criteria for qualification, has changed since my time. Fair enough. I will grab that information from the website. Then we'll use that by way of a benchmark to measure against this new program to see what the government is doing and whether or not the government is actually enhancing the program or going in the other direction.

Am I right to assume that of the $75,000 the minister said is available for grant programs…? Does that include the loan portion as well, or is it just the grant portion or student assistance portion?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm assuming the member opposite means $75 million. If that's the number, then that number is grant dollars.

J. Kwan: Yes, my apologies. I mean $75 million. I think it is the lack of sleep I've suffered. It's a good thing I haven't seen stars yet — not just yet. I do mean $75 million. So that's the grant portion.

Now, could the minister explain to me…? In the reference in the throne speech, the Minister of Finance actually talked about an $80-million-a-year grant program, not $75 million. Where does the discrepancy come from? Maybe there's another $5 million somewhere else in some other program.

Hon. S. Bond: We're still waiting for audited numbers. The fact of the matter is that that was a February number. We are more accurate now than we were at that point in time in terms of that number. The number is $75 million.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Finance's number is wrong then — the $80 million. Okay. How much is the loan portion of the program?

Hon. S. Bond: I want to make sure we clarify. We have said all along that we forecast numbers in student financial assistance, both grant and loan side. It is demand-driven. There are interest issues. So the Minister of Finance number was a conservative forecast. We are months past that now. We are able to look at fiscal year-end and give you the $75 million number. I want to make sure that we're aware of this. The forecast that we have for 2003-04 numbers in terms of lending is $139 million.

J. Kwan: Then the $139 million for the loan program…. With 75,000 students accessing a combination of loan and financial assistance and 23,000 accessing financial assistance, is it fair to say that about 52,000 students qualify for the loan program?

I think I put that wrong. I think I heard the minister say that 75,000 students qualify for both the loan and financial assistance programs, approximately 23,000 qualify for the financial assistance program, and all of them also qualify for the loan program at the same time. So then about 53,000 only qualified for the loan program. In addition to that, 23,000 qualified for the loan and financial assistance. Therefore, those who access the loan program — one could say it's a total of 75,000. Am I following the numbers correctly? I think that's the gist of what the minister said.

Hon. S. Bond: The simple way to do this…. It is complicated; the member opposite has that right. Okay. Nobody who got a grant didn't also get a loan. You're absolutely correct. The 23,000-plus, whatever they are, got a grant and a loan. The balance, however, would have gotten loans, but there are also other…. Because it's integrated with the Canada Millennium Scholarship and other pots of money, it's not as simple as saying: take that number, subtract the 23,000 and make a set of assumptions. We don't have the complicated data pieces here that can say this many just got a loan, and this many….

The one thing that we can give you definitively is that no one who got a grant also did not get a loan. The balance of them got loans and no grants, but there are some other pots of opportunities for them. It's very complicated. We don't have that data with us.

J. Kwan: The $139 million loan — are those the provincial loan dollars? Does that include federal loan dollars?

J. Kwan: The millennium grant from the federal government side, which I do believe the minister, the provincial government administers…. Could the minister give me the details on that millennium grant program funded by the federal government? How much is it? How many dollars are going into it? How many students got access to it — qualification for students for the program — and how much, in terms of low and maximum dollars and the average, was granted to students?

Hon. S. Bond: The dollars attached to the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation are $37 million. It's a non-repayable bursary. They are offered independently of B.C. grants. One of the key things, when we talk about one of the things we're doing in redesigning the grant program, is that we're working very closely with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation. We want to make sure that the program we put in place is complementary to the program that exists. It's $37 million. It is a non-repayable bursary called the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, I want to be careful that we note this. It is a projection. The number is 12,333 that we're projecting. We need to remember that the complexity of it is this. Some students will get B.C. student grant plus the Canada Millennium Scholarship. Some will get just this. Some will get a combination of both. Again, it's based on needs assessment. You can't simply say it's 23,000 plus 12,000, because some students may actually get both grants.

J. Kwan: The 75,000 student number, though — does that include all three categories then, or is it just the two categories?

Hon. S. Bond: The 23,000 are the ones that we can say get a B.C. grant. Some of those will, in addition to that, get the Canada Millennium Scholarship, but the base number….

J. Kwan: Sorry, Mr. Chair. The minister said the 23,000 got the provincial grant financial assistance for sure. I don't know if I heard the minister say that some of those 23,000 also got the millennium grant. Did I hear the minister say that?

Then, with the rest of the 75,000 who got the loan programs…. I shouldn't say 75,000; 53,000 or so got the loan programs. Did any of the students who got the loan programs also get the millennium grant?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, and that's the complexity when you start trying to figure how out many of them just got loans because, actually, some of them can get a loan plus a Canada Millennium Scholarship. Or they can get a loan plus a B.C. student…. Or they can get a loan plus both, or they can just get both grants.

It's very complex. From my perspective, it's a good thing no matter how complex it is, because it's just additional dollars to provide help to students in the province.

J. Kwan: The grand total number of 75,000 — that includes all three programs.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, as students apply for student financial assistance, the total number of successful applications — and we want to make sure we get the terminology correct — was the 77,000 that we gave you.

J. Kwan: Thank you very much. I should have finished my sentence, but the minister knew what I meant when I said: what is the minimum/maximum? I meant dollars that students got.

The qualification for the Millennium Scholarship grant — could the minister please provide me with that information? There were some issues I received in my constituency from people who weren't qualified. I'm sorry; I actually don't have that information with me. If the minister provides me with the information about the qualification, I'd like to ask the minister some questions around that.

Hon. S. Bond: Canadian Millennium Scholarship funding is based on the need of students enrolled in undergraduate programs who have assessed financial needs of more than $125 per week of study. The first thing is that per week, they have more than that need. They have successfully completed 60 percent or more of a course load in the previous semester or over an eight-month period in the past ten years and have completed at least eight months or 34 weeks of post-secondary study. That's hard to write down, so we'll be happy to send that over to you so you have…. Sorry — to the member.

Hon. S. Bond: It's determined in cooperation between the B.C. government and the Canada Millennium Foundation. They actually work to tailor the programs to have the two be as complementary as possi-

ble. They work together to try to design a program that helps our two programs be integrated.

J. Kwan: The millennium scholarship program — is the minister expecting that it will continue next year?

Hon. S. Bond: The answer to that question is yes. In fact, as part of the work that we're doing in the due diligence in re-creating our grant program, we've met with Norman Riddell, who is the executive director of the Canada Millennium Foundation. We are hopeful, actually. We think this would be great progress, to look at the possibility of a jointly funded single program. That would be much less complicated for students and certainly would be, I think, an important advancement.

We're working hard, but the program will continue to exist. We'd like to see our programs potentially integrated. But again, until we decide on the model and how things are going to work…. This is a key fund of dollars for students in this province.

J. Kwan: Is there any anticipation that the qualification or the requirements for the millennium scholarship program would change?

Hon. S. Bond: Interestingly enough, the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation is also consulting across the country, in fact. The timing is actually good from our perspective, because the criteria may change. It is key to us that we continue to work with these partners to serve our students better. They're in the middle of working on their consultation. Obviously, there's work to be done there, but we will continue and staff will continue to dialogue and work closely with this organization.

J. Kwan: I can't be 100 percent certain, but I have received some correspondence from constituents on this issue. I know that I wrote to the minister about them. I think the issue was about access and eligibility for postgraduate students. That was one of the issues.

Anyway, I will double-check at my constituency office to see what other information I have about that. I'm glad there is a review so that there is an opportunity for people to provide their input relating to that.

I'm going to shift away from the grant programs and the loan programs. As I said, I wanted to get this information on record, because I wanted to see what the baseline is so we can measure that against whatever this new program is going to be and see how it would assist students in the future.

Now, one of the ministry's strategic shifts is to ensure that the costs of post-secondary education are shared equitably. Could the minister advise this House: how is the minister trying to achieve this goal of equitability in terms of costs for students?

Hon. S. Bond: I think it goes back to our belief that one of the key principles is that if you can study closer to home, that makes education not only more affordable but certainly more accessible. One of the most significant issues we have in this province is obviously the number of seats, so it's important to note that we have to add seats to the system. We're doing that aggressively. I think it's a belief that one size fits all simply doesn't work, and we need to look at expanding on-line opportunities for students. We're doing that, and we're looking at distance education.

So it is about accessibility and is one of the things that helps us reduce the issues around cost by providing those services in different ways and most certainly closer to where you live. It's also important to note, just as a side note, that it also helps those of us who live in rural communities deal with issues such as recruitment and retention of professionals if we actually train them closer to where we live.

In fact, we believe that students contribute 10 to 20 percent of the cost of their education, and taxpayers in this province believe it's important, so we as the taxpaying public of British Columbia pay approximately 70 to 80 percent of a student's education. I think the great news for people who invest in post-secondary education is that according to Stats Canada, they actually earn almost half a million dollars more over their lifetime than people who simply have a high school education.

We are working hard to add seats. We're looking at a variety of learning options. We also believe that it is an investment in education and that students do need to participate as partners in that process.

J. Kwan: In fact, other jurisdictions have also looked at the issue around access and looked at post-secondary education as an investment for their communities — not just a social investment but also an economic investment. As we know and as the minister has identified, with higher education, increased opportunities for education, it is shown through studies that there are better opportunities in terms of career successes in the future for individuals.

On that basis, some jurisdictions have even gone as far as recognizing the need for that investment to eliminate tuition, to make post-secondary education free of barriers from an affordability point of view. Jurisdictions have actually really invested in that regard, and they benefited from that with the students graduating and filling the needs of the labour force.

That really is, I think, a goal we need to strive toward, instead of the language the minister uses. That is to say, students need to be partners in all of this. Absolutely, they are partners in all of this, but we also need to recognize that the question of affordability is a barrier for a lot of students. Some students may not be able to partner into this process, because they haven't got the financial support. It doesn't mean they don't have the ability to succeed but that they face other barriers that prevent them from getting there.

In terms of equitable costs, there's a question in terms of one needing to look at individuals' socioeconomic backgrounds and the historical and traditional

barriers for students and what those are, then eliminating those kinds of barriers and looking at the cost equitability in that context as well.

Has the minister looked into other jurisdictions in terms of where tuitions have been eliminated altogether and the results in those jurisdictions for academic success and also economic success for the individual as well as for the jurisdiction?

Hon. S. Bond: There are classic examples that are quoted by people, including, obviously, Ireland and other countries. But to be candid, when the member opposite was in government, they chose not to make education tuition-free either. In fact, as a government we have said very clearly — and I laid this out from the beginning of the direction that we took in post-secondary education — that we do believe students are partners in this process and that they do need to invest in a post-secondary education.

The debate and discussion always becomes: what's the appropriate amount of a student's contribution to their post-secondary education? Again, it's absolutely critical to recognize that the return on investment for a post-secondary education is extraordinary. Actually, a Royal Bank study, I think it was, recently said that the return on investment — looking at it economically — is actually 12 percent. If you invest in your post-secondary education, the return is fantastic, and over the course of your lifetime you will actually earn about half a million dollars more than people who simply have a high school education.

The question becomes: how do we make sure that people, as the member opposite points out, have an opportunity to participate when they come from lower-income families? One of the ways we do that has taken up the last two hours of debate in this House, and that's by providing student financial assistance — not us as a government alone but in partnership with institutions as well.

It is, from our perspective, an important investment for students to make. We believe that. We believe that our role is to provide a balance. The taxpayers of British Columbia currently fund a student's post-secondary education to almost 80 percent. That's significant. It's important, and we will continue to believe that we as the people of British Columbia should be a partner in a student's education.

J. Kwan: I can't miss the opportunity to counter the minister's comments. The minister said: "To be fair, the previous administration didn't put in free education in advanced education for students." True. We didn't fully implement that goal, and that is a plan, a policy of the NDP to move towards that direction — to actually see that tuition would be eliminated in post-secondary education. Fair enough. It's going to be an expensive plan to get there, and it will take some time. You have to phase it in over time, and you can't just get there overnight. I want to put that on record.

I would want to remind the minister, as well, that when the government was in opposition, they actually supported the previous administration with respect to their tuition fee freeze. This government supported it, and the Premier went out when he was in opposition and said to students that he would continue the tuition fee freeze. What did the Premier do when he got elected to office? He lifted the freeze. That's what this government has done, exactly like what the government has done with workers in the health care sector — said that they wouldn't rip up collective agreements, and then they got in office and ripped up collective agreements. Another broken promise. For the minister now to say that they believe in students actually having to partner in this process is interesting, to say the least.

The other thing I want to point out, of course, is this. We actually have a situation where tuition fees skyrocketed under this administration, and the assistance to low-income students, students who have faced barriers…. They actually did not receive more relief from government. The question around equitability for low-income students, I would say, has been skewed negatively towards low-income students on the basis that tuitions have gone up and that support for students has not actually increased.

Of course, as I mentioned, this budget year the government is in the process of phasing out grants for students. It remains to be seen what replacement program this government would come up with and whether or not the replacement program would actually meet the minimum standards that were established under the old program.

There are a few gaps here that the minister has not filled in with respect to that. These are real issues in terms of equitability. So far I have not seen equitability being achieved with the government's strategic shifts that they have put in place. Previous budgets measured the ratio of median debt to median income of grads as part of its strategy to ensure that education costs are shared equitably. Has the ministry eliminated this measure from its current budget?

Hon. S. Bond: In a moment I'll ask the member opposite to clarify where exactly she got that measure, because we don't recognize it as one from our service plan. Actually, my assistant deputy has just found it. We'll deal with that shortly.

I have to go back and simply, absolutely have to respond to the comments about whether or not tuition should be free in British Columbia. While I recognize that it's certainly something the member opposite and others have been talking about, I'm wondering if anyone's actually sat down and done the math on what that would cost the taxpayers of British Columbia.

First of all, I agree absolutely that post-secondary education is an economic driver. In my own community recently, articles have been done to demonstrate that it is an incredible job creator and it has economic spinoffs in terms of hundreds of millions of dollars for communities in this province. The cost right now, at a conservative number, in terms of offering free tuition to the students

of British Columbia — and let's remember the taxpayers of British Columbia already fund 80 percent of a student's post-secondary education — would be actually in excess of half a billion dollars a year.

I can honestly tell you that I believe in post-secondary education. We're adding 25,000 seats in this province. It is a difficult balancing act. Students are partners in that investment, and the taxpayers of British Columbia would need to find a way — we would need to find a way — to generate half a billion dollars a year in order to look at a tuition-free province. We have a lot of issues we need to be working on in this province. I think we need to think very seriously about talking so generously about tuition being free.

Is it important that we have a taxpayer-supported post-secondary education system? Absolutely. The taxpayers currently carry 80 percent of that in British Columbia, and that kind of commitment will continue with this government.

I want to point out that the member opposite continues to use the words "skyrocketing tuition." If we look back historically and take the time to look at tuition patterns across the country, not simply plucking British Columbia out of that, we'll see that British Columbia today is at the Canadian average, at the national average. I'm the first to acknowledge that there were increases in tuition over the last number of years that some people might consider fairly significant. Let's ask ourselves why.

The member opposite's government previously chose to freeze tuition for a six-year period. While the rest of the country was raising tuition in incremental amounts across those six-plus years, we in British Columbia had frozen tuition. At the end of the day, institutions and this province…. There was an adjustment to be made. We still find ourselves at the Canadian average, so there are consequences for decisions that are made about tuition.

Having said that, we are committed to looking at the best-quality programs we can have in this province. We are going to continue to work on our access agenda and add 25,000 seats by the year 2009-10. We are re-creating the grant program, and despite the attempt to make sure that language has been appropriately reflected, we are in the redesign phase. At the end of the day, it is a complex balancing act. We want students to have opportunities, but the taxpayers of British Columbia currently fund approximately 80 percent of a student's education.

J. Kwan: I want to be very clear. The goal of moving toward eliminating tuition fees for students is a long-term goal, and I don't deny that it would be expensive, that it would be costly to try to achieve this goal. At the same time, if you look at the issue from an investment point of view for economic investments into the province and then look at other jurisdictions' experiences, where they've invested such large sums into their students, what did they find with those kinds of policies?

I think it is worthwhile for us to examine that, instead of what this minister does, which is simply to write it off as an undoable goal or one that one won't consider because it's not a priority for this government to move in that direction. I don't agree with that tactic. The government froze tuition fees. Previous administrations froze tuition fees to address an issue of affordability for students. You know, just because British Columbia — because of that freeze in tuition fees — had been able to keep tuition fee rates at a lower rate relative to other provinces does not mean, necessarily, that it's a bad thing.

There we go again with this government and this minister, as though somehow racing to the bottom is the be-all and end-all. Therefore, having tuition fees that go up higher…. It's as though the goal is to have British Columbia tuition fees exceed that of other provinces, as though that is somehow a laudable goal for students in British Columbia. In my view, having tuition fees go up higher than that of other provinces is not a laudable goal.

I wouldn't be celebrating that. I wouldn't be going out there saying: "Hey, look at us — British Columbia. Our tuition fees are catching up with other provinces. In fact, we're working toward moving them to exceed other provinces." That's just bizarre, if you want to look at the affordability question for students. I would have thought that one would want to move in the other direction — to create this notion of costs shared equitably for students and recognize students who are in lower socioeconomic spectrums. But it appears that's not the way in which this government looks at things.

I want to put on record, without naming the student, one particular student's point of view and her experiences in the education system.

Of course, this example is not a stand-alone example. There are many examples with many students who are faced with those kinds of situations. What I'm really worried about, of course, is that as tuition fees become out of reach for a lot of students, they would not pursue that avenue. As a result, we lose the talent, and we lose the future contributions of these students into our communities through the taxation system, their earning power and therefore their purchase

power, and so on. There are ramifications with government policies with respect to this.

One needs to remember that access to post-secondary education needs to be measured in a number of ways. Affordability cannot be forgotten in that process.

The question I put to the minister about their policy shift, I don't believe I've received an answer to — that is, that previous budgets measured the ratio of median debt to median income of grads as part of a strategy to ensure that education costs are shared equitably and whether or not the ministry has eliminated this measurement from its current budget.

Hon. S. Bond: The measure was deleted, and I will give you the rationale that we used for doing that. Fewer than 50 percent of students have debt when they graduate, so in fact the measure was not an appropriate scope for us. Programs that lead to higher employment income have higher tuition costs, and thus it may make them less accessible to low-income students.

The real measure is balancing the costs and benefits of post-secondary education. The measure looks only at the student side of the equation, so we are considering or looking at other measures that are appropriate. But the member opposite is correct. That measure was deleted.

I do want to go back, though, as you can imagine, and just respond to a couple of other issues and questions that were raised in terms of the investment in post-secondary education. I do hear the concerns of the student that wrote to the member opposite. I receive those letters as well as letters from students who support and can demonstrate benefits as a result of the changes that we have made, not only in terms of direction but also in the lifting of the tuition freeze.

It is important to point out that in addition to taxpayers supporting 80 percent of a student's education, 50 percent of our students — and I am always on the record as saying students work very hard…. Some of them work two jobs. Families provide support. But 50 percent of the students in British Columbia graduate with no debt when they finish their post-secondary education. That's a tribute to them and a credit to them. Our job is to always provide support to those most in need, and we will continue to do that.

I also want to begin to make sure that when we have a discussion about the participation rates of low-income families, we put it in the context of some of the recent information that we've been looking at. It doesn't mitigate our responsibility to provide support to low-income families, but a recent report by the Education Policy Institute — and that is a U.S.–Canadian group that put together this report — found in fact that participation rates of students from lower income ranges have actually increased, and students with higher ranges have decreased.

Let me give you an example of that. The proportion of university students who come from the lowest 25 percent of the income range actually rose from 11 percent in 1965 to 17 percent in 1998. The only quartile that showed a decrease in students was the top one, which fell to 35 percent. In fact, lower-income students are being represented at increasingly more significant percentage rates, and part of that is obvious. As governments and as society, we choose to support those students most in need. In fact, their participation rates are increasing in institutions not simply in British Columbia but in the rest of North America, according to the study.

Secondly, when we talk about affordability, which is the shift in our ministry that the member opposite is talking about, affordability is a combination of things. It's not simply financial. It is about access, and I've said repeatedly over the three days we've been engaged that closer-to-home opportunities make an enormous difference for students. We believe — and studies would actually show — that you can save up to $6,000 a year if you can study closer to where you live. Our strategic plan, including the allocation of 25,000 seats across the province, looks at that regionally and geographically, because we want to save students dollars, and we also want to provide support to communities by training people closer to where they live so they're going to stay there.

In addition, tuition. Certainly, in the past we saw that there were issues with students in terms of getting into classes, completing degrees on time, and one of the things we said to institutions…. If we lift the tuition freeze, we have to see demonstrated improvement in learning opportunities for students, and it must enhance quality. Let me give you some examples of what institutions did with those dollars from tuition.

We found that there was additional student financial assistance, both merit- and need-based, including scholarships, bursaries and other awards. There were more classes. Additional class sections were added so that more students could get the courses they wanted and complete them more quickly. New equipment and information technology — making sure that British Columbia's students have up-to-date technology, whether it's lab equipment or newer computers.

Library acquisitions — an important component that the member opposite referred to several days ago. We have found that institutions have been able to add new library resources as they have invested those dollars in student services. Also, most importantly, program improvements — looking at ways we can provide better and more quality opportunities for students.

While there are challenges — and I am the first to recognize that students face challenges…. Many of them do. But many of them — 50 percent of them — graduate without debt in this province, and the return on investment for that investment is absolutely extraordinary — a 12 percent return on investment and almost half a million dollars more in earnings over a lifetime.

J. Kwan: There was a report that just came out to talk about the student debt load actually increasing

significantly, at a much higher rate than that of previous years in British Columbia. In fact, students who graduated in the year 2000 — their debt load is way more than what it was in the 1990s. You can bet that for students who graduate post-2000, their debt load is going to skyrocket under this government's administration, as we have seen with the tuition fee increases.

The minister likes to talk about, "Oh yes, we're going to build spaces," and so on and so forth. Well, those spaces aren't going to materialize until the year 2010, many of them. The 25,000 target is for 2010. By then, many students would actually be out of the market to try to access post-secondary education, because tuition fees would have been out of reach for them. That's a recent study that was just done. It was reported out a couple of days ago in the newspaper.

In fact, in March of 2004 the federal Millennium Scholarship Foundation released a report on student financial pressure. The report analyzes data in the survey of 1,543 students. These students were followed through an academic year to track their income and expenditures. The report then compared the trends with government expectations about student expenses and parental contributions when devising student loan limits. It turns out B.C. places the highest financial pressures on students. The largest unmet financial need for single students is in British Columbia, where the gap between living costs and government student loans exceeds $5,000. Four out of ten university students are unable to graduate on time because they have to drop courses in favour of paid work to make ends meet.

Here's the kicker, Mr. Chair. Instead of increasing the amount that students can receive through financial assistance programs, the provincial government is actually decreasing it by $29 million by the '04-05 budget. The decrease will continue until the '06-07 budget, where funding levels will come up again but not even to the same level as they were in the '03-04 budget. Those numbers are in the minister's service plan. The implication, of course, is that the huge gap between expenditures and student aid limits means that students can't meet expenses and therefore need alternate sources of financing by jobs and bank loans, and others may just not be able to attend because of lack of funds.

Here are some of the other key findings of the report. The high percentage of students who are working and are borrowing money from private sources confirms that parents are unable or perhaps unwilling to make the contributions expected by students. About two-thirds of students work, on average, 19 hours per week during the school year. Those who lack parental support work even more. And 41 percent of full-time students say they could complete their studies more quickly if they did not have jobs — and multiple jobs at that.

Let me ask the minister this question. Is she aware of this report and its findings?

Hon. S. Bond: Yes, I am aware of the report. I have read it. I have read numbers of them. At the end of the day, we continue to believe that post-secondary education is an investment. We recognize that certainly there are challenges for students. Our job is to find a balance. It is to provide opportunities; it is to provide expanded access.

In the 2001 census, Statistics Canada found that a high school graduate earned $25,671 per year. A university graduate earned $44,066. That's a $19,000 difference in just one year of earnings. A Stats Canada report this week showed the average Canadian university graduate who took out a loan — and only half of them do — as holding $20,000 in debt. I'm not underestimating that, but in total it's a one-time investment. The same student is earning $19,000 per year more as a result of their education.

We look at the numbers for British Columbia…. We can talk about people who carry a debt load, and it's important to point out that the report the member opposite referred to and the one I'm referring to are snapshots of what's happening in Canada. It's not simply happening in British Columbia. In fact, when we look at students who are unable to make their monthly payments, we find the number in British Columbia is incredibly small compared to the number of people nationally. Nationally, it's between 25 percent and 30 percent — students who have challenges with that. In British Columbia it is less than 10 percent.

As a government we've created interest and debt relief programs to help those students, where necessary. So the taxpayers of British Columbia continue to invest 80 percent of a student's post-secondary education. Students are partners in this process, and 50 percent of our students graduate without debt. Our responsibility is to ensure that we have programs in place to assist those students who are most in need.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on talking about the notion that only 50 percent of the students are in debt after they graduate, as though somehow that's a great figure. The flipside of it, of course, is that 50 percent of the students who graduate require a debt. That's half of the students who could not afford to go to universities or post-secondary education, who actually need to incur a debt in order to do so. That's in addition, of course, to students that we already know are working multiple jobs.

Again, I'll use myself as an example. I graduated — well, I shouldn't say it because I'm going to date myself here — many years ago, let me just say. You know what? I held down three jobs. I come from a low-income family. I held down three jobs, and I had a student loan to put myself through university. That was the only way I could do it. My parents who made minimum wages couldn't support me; nor do I fault them for that. It was our family situation. But it was always a hope and dream for my family to have the children access post-secondary education. My parents are labourers, if you will. They are unskilled workers.

My mom has a grade 6 or grade 7 education level from China. My dad has a grade 11 or grade 12 level of education from China as well. They're not skilled workers by any stretch of the imagination, because they don't have the education.

It was always their hope and dream. One of the reasons we came to Canada was so the children could get access to post-secondary education and health care. Those were the reasons why, as my parents tell us, we immigrated to Canada. Albeit, I was a bit of a black sheep growing up, and I suspect I continue to be for my family. Setting that aside, I actually did want to do something. One of those things was to go to post-secondary education, to university. I did get my degree. As I said, three jobs every summer, and eventually I got myself through.

That's not the issue. Insofar as this, my example is not unique — is the point I want to make. It is very common amongst students.

J. Kwan: And has always been. That's exactly the point. The goal, of course, one would hope, is for governments to move in the direction to make it easier for students of future generations — to make it more equitable for students of the future no matter what their socioeconomic or their family socioeconomic backgrounds might be and no matter what barriers they face in their own situations.

It is to equitably eliminate those barriers, realizing that different people start at different places, and then to provide support to students and families so they can access post-secondary education to achieve exactly the kind of successes that the minister put on record in terms of earning potential — not just earning potential, but simply to allow for and to give the opportunities to students to maximize their potential so that those choices are real choices, not the choices that this government likes to talk about. Choice only exists in this government if you have the ability to pay. That's the direction we're going with the policies of this government in post-secondary education. That's not a real choice for students who face barriers.

So 50 percent of students who end up having a loan by the time they finish school is not something to celebrate. We have to remember how many of those students didn't actually get to the end of the race, if you will, because the debt-load issue was too large of a burden for them to take on. We haven't accounted for those numbers just yet. I would ask the minister to look at those numbers from a different perspective and in the true sense of access for students.

The minister says that British Columbia doesn't rank all that badly relative to other provinces. Well, the largest unmet financial need for single students is in British Columbia. That's what a recent report found, as recent as March 2004. It's a report by the federal government, the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation, entitled Pressure Points in Student Financial Assistance. That's not wonderful information or statistics to have.

As mentioned, while increased pressures are being placed on students, the government supports for students are not increasing — not at all. In the '03-04 budget numbers from the service plan, compared to the '04-05, there is a drop of $29 million for student financial assistance programs. Then in the '05-06 year and in '06-07, we see the government bringing it back up, but not to match even the '03-04 budget year.

We of course know why the government is saying that we will increase those amounts, because that's what they are doing with all the other budget areas, as though…. Well, we know it's that transparent, that they're doing that to say to British Columbians: "Vote for me again, and you will see the budgets go up." Of course British Columbians know now how they can trust the word of this government, given their actions to date and the promises they made and promises they intentionally broke.

Given the findings of this report, how can the minister maintain that assistance limits are adequate in British Columbia? How can the minister maintain that choice and access is available for students? How could the minister claim that students are better off today than they were prior to this government coming into office?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I appreciated the member opposite sharing the opportunities that were important to her family. I would totally concur that families today still have hopes and dreams for their young people and sometimes not-so-young people. The great thing about education is that it's changed and that people of all ages…. Actually, one of the challenges we have in British Columbia is that we believe in life-long learning, so people are choosing to go back to get degrees…. I can remember going back somewhere after the age of 40. The world is changing in that sense.

Parents still have the same dreams, and the member's story is similar to many others in this province. One of the key things is that the member opposite actually got a seat in a post-secondary institution. I'm going to continue to work very hard, as is this government, to add seats as quickly as we possibly can. To suggest that we will see no seat growth before 2009…. Let me give you the numbers. The seat growth in '04-05 will be 3,217. In '05-06 it will be 4,200. In '06-07 it will be 4,394. In addition to that, my budget will increase by $105 million in base funding over the next three years.

Let's talk about what's equitable. Let's talk about access. I want to make it perfectly clear that we're not celebrating the fact that 50 percent of students graduate with debt. What we're saying, in fact, is that we're celebrating 50 percent of students who actually do that, and we're trying to find a balance to make sure that the students who are in the other 50 percent have as many opportunities for support as possible. One of the best ways to meet those financial needs is by providing seats closer to home.

Barriers aren't simply gender-based. One of the biggest barriers we have is geographic. I live in a rural

community. I know how challenging it is for some parents and their families. What we said we were going to do — and we are delivering on that — is create a strategic investment plan in this province that will see an allocation of seats not in one part of the province or two parts of the province but across the entire province of British Columbia. That's good for students, that's good for families, and you know, that might actually help those families meet the hopes and dreams for their children.

It's important to point out that we have spent over two hours talking about student financial assistance in this province because, first of all, we want to get it right. We want to make sure that we have as many supports in place for students as we can possibly have. At the end of the day, the whole goal…. It is about access; it is about affordability. Tuition is one part of that plan and that process.

I'm going to say it one more time. At the end of the day, one of the things that causes the most cost for families is having to send a student away from home — $6,000 a year on average. So the strategy has to include strategic investments that are geographic in nature.

In fact, yes, we care. We're not celebrating 50 percent of students having a debt. What we're saying is that it's a complex balancing act. The member opposite continues to refer to tuition-free opportunities. I'm simply going to remind the taxpayers of British Columbia that that is half a billion dollars a year. I was pleased to hear the member opposite suggest that it would be phased in. Perhaps it's time the member opposite explained how many years it would take the people of British Columbia to be able to afford a half-billion dollars a year when they're already paying 80 percent of a post-secondary education.

J. Kwan: You know, let's be clear. This minister says that they will create 25,000 new seats by 2010, and we established the issues in terms of how much this government is funding towards these 25,000 seats — in terms of the spaces in the institutions, for them to be created. We established those numbers earlier in estimates. The government is going to be off-loading, based on the current budget numbers today, $76 million onto the backs of students — an additional $76 million onto the backs of the students. That's how those 25,000 spaces will be created.

You know what? The minister talks the talk about affordability, but she doesn't walk the walk on affordability. Choice on affordability is limited for low-income students, and programs within the government are not seeing an increase in supports for students in that area. In fact, the budget shows that the government is decreasing financial support to students. Since they took office, they've decreased it — particularly in the '03-04 budget year — by $29 million. So the minister's words ring a little hollow when she says that she cares.

The minister then goes on to say that investing in students costs taxpayers 80 percent of the cost of advanced education. Only this minister would put it in that context. When you say it's an investment, on the one hand — and it is a worthwhile investment, she claims…. But then on the other hand, she goes on to remind British Columbians and says how much it's costing them. She doesn't look to see the other part of the analysis, where students, after they've graduated, in terms of their contributions back to our societies in a variety of ways…. In fact, studies have shown that students who graduate from post-secondary education also pay their dues, if you will, back to society by way of taxes at a far higher rate than that of students who have a lower earning capacity.

In that sense, when you look and add up those numbers and review those studies, you would find that students pay back more than what they benefited from in their early years as they try to start out and as they try to get that post-secondary education so that they could maximize their potential for contributions towards our communities. Study after study has demonstrated that. So when you net out those numbers, the taxpayers' return is more than that of the 80 percent initial investment.

You know what? As the population ages, as fewer and fewer people have children, we will need more and more young people to increase their earning capacity to keep up the service demands in the province — and in the country, I might add. It is absolutely critical that we look at these issues from that perspective, not for the short term but for the long term. What is the payback of that investment for the long term for British Columbians? Studies have shown that investment indeed pays back. Taxpayers indeed receive a return on that early investment.

The flip side of it, of course, is this. If we continue down a path where affordability is not considered as a high priority for people to access post-secondary education, I worry that students who could not access post-secondary education because of financial barriers would end up not being able to contribute to the capacity that they could otherwise contribute to, had they had the opportunity for post-secondary education. I worry even further than that. Some students might end up needing to depend on taxpayers by way of income assistance and other programs for them to survive and make ends meet, therefore costing taxpayers in the long term.

For us to look at these issues isn't simplistic — absolutely. Yes, investments would be required. Large sums of investment would be required. Yes, it is a goal for the NDP to move in the direction of eventually eliminating tuitions. To start off with, the attempt was made by the previous administration by freezing tuitions. That was one way of addressing the issue of affordability. As I mentioned, the government's funding for student grants has decreased by some $29 million, and this, of course, has impacts for students as well. That's based on the minister's own service plan that has been made public.

The last question I want to put to the minister in this area in terms of equitability, in terms of cost-

sharing…. In the government's development of the grant programs, is the government reviewing research and studies that have been done and reviewing statistics available to address issues of students at different places in terms of their socioeconomic status, and how to bring those students who are starting at a lower place to the same level as other students who don't face these financial barriers, as a consideration for the development of these programs?

Hon. S. Bond: Of course we are. Just to summarize my comments, because the time is fast upon us here, I'm simply going to say this. Post-secondary education is an investment. The government believes that. We've demonstrated that. We're adding 25,000 seats to the post-secondary number of seats in this province by the year 2009-10. If you work hard in British Columbia and get a B, you should actually get a seat in a post-secondary institution. We're going to do that.

We actually believe that it is a partnership. The people of British Columbia are currently contributing 80 percent of a post-secondary education. The reason we're doing that is because we think that's good for British Columbia and for students in this province. So we're going to keep working hard.

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

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

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

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

Hon. G. Abbott: Let me take the opportunity at the outset to introduce the staff from the ministry that will be joining us at different points. As well, I'm joined here by the Minister of State for Resort Development, should anyone have questions of him.

My deputy, Jon O'Riordan, is here as well as Bill Valentine, associate deputy responsible for Land and Water B.C. Joan Hesketh is here from the environmental assessment office, and Michael MacDougall is with us at the front at the moment, as well, with respect to corporate services. He is the director there.

J. MacPhail: According to the Sustainable Resource Management estimates, the '04-05 appropriation for sustainable economic development is approximately half of what it was for '03-04 — $11.545 million for '04-05 versus $23.373 million for '03-04. What explains the reduction?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The dominant reason for the change was that there was a $9 million lift for three years to complete land and resource management plans, which we hope to complete well before the end of the current fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: They haven't been completed, though. How many land and resource management plans are outstanding?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll certainly be pleased to provide the member with a status report on all of the six plans that are either at government or pending with government. The earliest one in, in terms of the table completing its work, was central coast, which completed that table agreement in late December. The issue is now being analyzed by government.

The Lillooet LRMP: again, we are working through the final stages of that. The north coast table was just completed about a month ago — an agreement-in-principle. Some of the details are still being worked through by the table participants. Sea to Sky is late in the process. Morice has reported out with a consensus, but it is very recently that they have done that. The final of the six is still in the relatively early stages of table discussion. That's the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlottes LRMP.

Hon. G. Abbott: There is agreement-in-principle on four. Until government formally adopts them, they're

not to that extent complete, but there is agreement-in-principle at four of the tables.

J. MacPhail: What is the allocation of funding per table based on the reduction from $23 million to $11 million in '04-05?

Hon. G. Abbott: Can I get a little bit more clarification from the member with respect to exactly what it is she's asking? Is the member asking how much had been allocated for each of the tables, or is she asking what the residual is of cost to implement? I assume the former. Is that correct? Thank you.

In approximate figures, about $300,000 is for completion of the central coast; $100,000 is for completion of Lillooet; $100,000 is for completion of Sea to Sky; $100,000 is for Morice; and there's about a million dollars allocated to the Haida Gwaii–Queen Charlottes LRMP, though most of that, I understand, came from a contribution agreement as opposed to being directly in our budget.

J. MacPhail: So that's less than a million dollars out of the sustainable economic development fund for the LRMP process? I was adding it in my head. Is it less than a million dollars?

J. MacPhail: Well, if $9 million were allocated for the previous year — I think the minister said approximately $9 million — for six outstanding LRMPs, and at least two are left that aren't even at agreement-in-principle level…. I'm sorry. If four are at agreement-in-principle, how does one go from $9 million to less than $1 million to complete this?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just for the member's information, the great majority of the costs for hopefully reaching consensus on a land and resource management plan is the time that all of the stakeholders spend around a table working together to try to reach consensus around issues in terms of the zoning of Crown land. That's a process that takes a lot of time, and it involves expenses to the participants at the table.

Once the table reaches its conclusions — preferably, as I'm sure the member would appreciate, through a consensus agreement — the great majority of the expenses are completed. The issue then is one of processing through government after that point. It's the travel costs and all the rest associated with the table participants getting together that accounts for the costs earlier in the project.

J. MacPhail: These are general questions, I should explain. These are general questions related to the service plan.

The estimates for the minister's office are $870,000 for '04-05 — an increase of 67 percent from '03-04, when it was $520,000. How much of that increase is attributable to the cost of running the office of the Minister of State for Resort Development?

J. MacPhail: Well, a burgeoning government. Isn't that great? Today we cut workers' wages, and we've got more money going to cabinet ministers. What are the tasks that the minister of state will be taking on in the coming year?

J. MacPhail: What tasks will the Minister of State for Resort Development be taking on in the coming year?

Hon. S. Santori: Over the course of the next few months — which started, actually, back in January — I'm working closely with the Resort Task Force, which includes representation from municipalities, regional districts, investors and first nations. They are compiling and putting together recommendations to ensure that we can streamline the processes that currently exist within government in terms of resort development in the province. I will be implementing those recommendations as we receive them.

I think it's quite clear that there's a tremendous amount of potential in resort development in British Columbia, but in order for us to do that, it's critical and important that we carry out the streamlining and the elimination of duplication. That is my main mandate over the course of the next few months as well as working with investors and communities on how we can better market resorts and how we can add to our tourism initiative over the next year.

J. MacPhail: That sounds like committee work. Could the minister be a little more specific on what project potential there is — the areas of the province that the task force is concentrating on, the nature of resort development and what other ministries he's working with?

Hon. S. Santori: With respect to the other ministries I will be working with, I believe it will cover a number of agencies within government: of course, my colleague in Sustainable Resource Management; Water, Land and Air Protection; the Ministry of Forests; and Mines. With respect to some of the projects, I will just name a few. They are at varying stages of approval or being reviewed.

Most of these, I will note, are taking place in rural British Columbia. I think the member opposite will agree that this provides a tremendous opportunity for those communities to diversify their economies as we move forward. Cayoosh Creek in Lillooet is one of those projects; Crystal Mountain near Westbank; Cy-

press Mountain in West Vancouver; Garibaldi at Squamish. There's the Jumbo Resort that is currently going through the environmental assessment process. It is well into that process and has been for a long time. Mount Baldy in Osoyoos. Mount Mackenzie is another key project in Revelstoke. Saddle Mountain in Blue River. There are ski hills in my community, such as Red Mountain, which are undergoing a significant amount of expansion.

Those address the ski resorts, but there is other resort potential throughout the province — not just ski resorts but marine resorts, ecotourism-type resorts, wellness resorts — and each one of them offers significant opportunity in the province. They also have some challenges that if I, as the minister of state, can assist them with, I will.

J. MacPhail: Let's just take one of those examples. Let's take the Jumbo project. It has been very controversial, very difficult. What's the minister's plan around that? What's the work he's doing around that? How does it unfold?

Hon. S. Santori: I believe that the member is well aware of the process with respect to the environmental assessment. It started in 1989. It's been ongoing since 1989 and through the member's time in office as well. It has gone through an extensive consultation process with the public. It has also gone through very comprehensive technical requirements from proponents. There have been scientific reviews done.

All of that information has been compiled. It has gone to the environmental office, who will, I would assume…. They could probably answer this question better than I or the minister can in terms of compiling the information and providing it to the three ministers that will be involved in the decision-making process. They will then look at that and make their decision accordingly.

J. MacPhail: I know all of that. I'm trying to figure out what the minister's role is as Minister of State for Resort Development. He listed that as one of the areas for which he is responsible. What is he bringing to the table to move the process along to a conclusion? I don't prejudge the conclusion.

Hon. S. Santori: I do not have an active role or a statutory role in terms of the outcome of the assessment that's being done on Jumbo at this time.

J. MacPhail: Then maybe the minister could pick for me…. I'm trying to figure out what this minister of state does, Madam Chair. Maybe the minister could pick one of those projects he listed and tell me how, in his week-to-week or month-to-month duties, he handles that particular project in his role as Minister of State for Resort Development. I clearly picked the wrong one. It doesn't have anything to do with him. Perhaps he could pick one as a demonstration.

Hon. S. Santori: Once again, my particular role with a particular project in terms of approval processes and access to land base — that does not fall within my ministry or my responsibilities. I think it's incumbent upon myself, as the minister of state, to continue to go and promote resort development in British Columbia — to sit down with proponents, whether they be investors, stakeholders or communities, to ensure that we as government are doing everything possible to assist the enhancement and growth of the resort industry.

As I indicated earlier to the member, my primary role is to work across all agencies of government and carry forward the recommendations that come forward from the Resort Task Force and to try to coordinate an agencywide system whereby we can eliminate and streamline processes, eliminate duplication and create a better climate for resort development in the province.

J. MacPhail: We're at the end of the month of April…. I'm really trying to get a grasp on this. The expenditure of $350,000 is pretty key right now. Maybe the minister could take the month of April and tell me what his ministerial duties were.

Hon. S. Santori: As a matter of fact, during the month of April one of the key initiatives…. I shouldn't call it an initiative but a key gathering of the Resort Task Force. I'm sure the member is aware that the Premier announced the creation of the task force back in June of last year. They've been working on coming forth with recommendations from the Resort Task Force.

That information has been compiled as a result of a tremendous amount of consultation that was done by my colleague, Minister Falcon, in his role, at the time, prior to me taking over the ministry in January. It was a compilation of all the consultation that had taken place. It was basically a very intense and long day in compiling that information and creating recommendations that will be going forth to cabinet.

Hon. S. Santori: I could get my calendar for the member, if she'd like. I could give her a play-by-play of every role.

As I said earlier, I have a responsibility and an obligation to continue to meet with proponents and stakeholders throughout the province. I managed several times to meet with a number of municipalities to listen to what their concerns are and some of their opportunities. I have met with first nations on how they want to partner and share their culture and be part of the industry. I think it's incumbent that there is an advocate for the resort-based industries and to continue to con-

tribute to the opportunities that lie before all communities, especially rural communities, in our province.

J. MacPhail: That's good. I'm glad. That's new information. In April, you met with some municipalities. What were their concerns, and which municipalities expressed what concerns?

Hon. S. Santori: I think it was quite evident and consistent with a lot of the municipalities in terms of the need to streamline and to avoid duplication, to improve communications among regional districts, the provincial government, first nations and proponents so that we do have an understanding. All the proponents understand and agree that shortening the time frames involved in a lot of these approvals is in the best interests of all.

I want to also acknowledge that municipalities want to be assured that this process is not one that guarantees outcomes but rather creates certainty. Sometimes, certainty does not always mean positive, guaranteed outcomes. They have brought to my attention the fact that a lot of these projects that are not managed in a coordinated fashion with all the stakeholders, with all the people who are involved, lead to a significant amount of expenditures for the provincial government, for the proponent and for municipalities.

They feel it's incumbent on all parties to get together to try to reduce the amount of duplication and cost and, sometimes, the divisiveness that is created in a community as a result of a lack of coordination and the tremendous amount of duplication that exists during this type of process.

J. MacPhail: We are finishing year three of this government's four-year mandate. I used to get berated by the then opposition about this very problem, and now that opposition is in government. It's interesting that the problem still exists after three years of this government's mandate.

What are the plans? What is the minister working on in terms of a range of solutions to the overlapping and duplication of jurisdictional regulation?

Hon. S. Santori: One of the key recommendations that's coming forward to government for consideration is the integration of many of the agencies involved in any proposal, whether it be Land and Water B.C., the environmental assessment office, local government or proponents. At this time, I have not presented those recommendations to cabinet in terms of how this will be accomplished or under what framework it will be established.

The intent is a fully integrated model that will bring closer the proponents to the table, developing more consultation and working together early in the process, as opposed to the linear process that we have now, which is what creates the length of time required for an approval process to take place. What we are trying to do by integrating the agencies involved in the decision-making process is to reduce those time lines so that we can get a quicker answer in a quicker period of time.

Hon. S. Santori: In terms of the actual recommendations, I would hope that over the next six to eight weeks, the recommendations will be brought forward and approved by cabinet. From that point on, depending on the complexity of what is involved in the structure or framework, I would be in a better position at that time to provide the member with some time frames on how we can accomplish that.

I can assure the member, Madam Chair, that speed is of the essence, and the more quickly we can do this, the better off all the stakeholders will be. Having said that, we want to ensure we take the time that's appropriate to ensure that whatever framework is developed, it is done in a very proper manner and is one that includes consultation with those who helped put together those recommendations in the first place.

J. MacPhail: Does the Minister of State for Resort Development have his own budget allocation, does he work with the budget allocation from the estimates of the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management, or does he work through the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that all of the minister of state's budget is contained on page 146, "Operating Expense by Core Business."

J. MacPhail: There's what I think is a new statutory appropriation — I think; I'm not sure — the Crown land special account. It's almost $211 million. I understand this is as a result of GAAP. Could the minister explain what this means, this sum? Because, of course, it's about three times the size of his own estimate.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. The budgetary allocation relates to the free Crown grants and nominal rent tenures. Under the rules of GAAP, as the member notes, you now have to show it. You can't just provide a free Crown grant or nominal rent tenure without expensing it. That's what that appropriation is for.

J. MacPhail: Is this a calculation of the archives of Crown land, or is it just an expense in, expense out of tenures that have exchanged hands in '04-05?

Hon. G. Abbott: I thank the member for her question. The budgetary allocation will take account of the current and backlogged applications. It will not take account, to answer her question, of archived projects or allocations.

J. MacPhail: What was the date on which the value of the account was calculated?

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could just walk me through where the revenue is in and expense is out. I guess it's the estimates we'll look at.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll provide this to the member, and if she wants to get further information or further detail on it, I'll be glad to provide it to her. Here's the estimate, at least, for 2004-05 of how we arrive at $210.6 million: free Crown grants, heritage sites devolution in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, $3.5 million; free Crown grants in historical commitments, $2 million; anticipated new free Crown grant applications, $4 million; nominal rent tenures, $75 million; in Health, free Crown grant for Children's and Women's Health Centre, $6 million; Transportation, free Crown grant for right-of-way needs, $100,000; in Water, Land and Air Protection, free Crown grant for national park establishment agreements, $77 million; free Crown grant for historical commitments, Pebble Beach, East Sooke, $1 million; free Crown grant for park transfers to local government as per core review, $15 million; and nominal rent tenures, $2 million. Free Crown grant and nominal rent tenure contingency for all ministries is $25 million, totalling $210 million.

Again, because this takes account of the backlog, we're looking at a lower figure — probably around the $50 million to $70 million figure — for coming fiscal years.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll direct the member, if I could, to the blue estimates book. If she goes to pages 148 and 149 in the blue book, she will see the estimates '03-04 and '04-05 coming to the total of $210.6 million.

J. MacPhail: In January, I think it was of this year, the Sustainable Resource Management office launched a pilot project for an electronic land title system. What's been the feedback regarding this pilot project?

Hon. G. Abbott: In response to the member's question, the feedback has been excellent. The project, as I think she noted, started in January. Some 200 firms were involved in the initial testing of the new electronic filing operation. It is now fully engaged and working very well.

Hon. G. Abbott: For those who are seeking to register a property, they can e-file with the land titles office through a process that guarantees the validity of their signature. There are of course a number of safeguards built into the system to ensure both the quality and security of that filing system.

J. MacPhail: Now, the project is supposed to be implemented fully across the board April 1. Do I understand that? Is that on time?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, the project is on line now. It's completed, and it's working.

J. MacPhail: The minister's predecessor said that electronic filing benefits British Columbians by providing the professionals they hire equal access to the land title system no matter where they do business. What's the status of that promise in relationship to the Victoria land titles office?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are currently three land titles offices in the province, as the member knows: Victoria, Kamloops and New Westminster. One of the beauties of electronic filing…. As I'm sure the member appreciates, this is another piece of the great electronic revolution we have seen and continue to see in the western world. One could file, I suppose, from anywhere that has the necessary technical components to do a filing.

Hon. G. Abbott: The ministry received, very late in 2003, a suggestion from the Law Society of British Columbia that we should look at moving the land titles office to something akin to the external or independent authority that would be embodied in, for example, YVR — Vancouver International Airport Authority — or, a more recent example from my former ministry, the safety authority in Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services.

Early on in my tenure as Minister of Sustainable Resource Management I agreed to take a very close look at that. We have done that, and that issue remains under the active consideration of government. I'm optimistic that it is a very promising way in which to proceed in terms of land titles.

J. MacPhail: I understand that permanent staff members have received their layoff notices. Why?

Hon. G. Abbott: As part of the previous plan, notices were, as per collective agreements and so on, provided last October. Some have taken advantage of that to move to other positions in government — I think some early retirements and VDPs and so on. I guess it's all as the process is laid out.

J. MacPhail: What does that mean — as the process is all laid out? People have been given their notices.

Some have left. The minister is actively considering a new model for this, so what does that mean — as it is all laid out? What does it mean for the employees?

Hon. G. Abbott: Until I'm provided with new direction from Treasury Board and cabinet with respect to the Victoria land titles office, the plan was to see the closure of that office on March 1. In order to accomplish that, again, under the terms of the collective agreement, there was an obligation to provide layoff notices last October. There were ten employees affected by the layoff notice. Most of those — I guess we could get the precise details if the member wishes, but I'm not sure if she's looking for that level of detail — have moved on to other positions in government. Some of those ten are still there in the land titles office, and any vacancies that exist in the office are being filled by auxiliaries.

J. MacPhail: The minister said — and I think it was this minister: "I don't expect there would be displacement in any union positions that might be put in place." What's the status of that comment? Does that still hold true?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll be dangerous here and make some assumptions about what the member is looking for. First of all, I assume she's asking what will happen to the employees if we move to an independent authority model. Is that correct?

There is no downsizing anticipated as a consequence of that, nor would there be any implications in terms of the BCGEU positions continuing to be BCGEU positions.

J. MacPhail: Does the independent authority model encompass all of the land title offices in the province?

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move to the Land Act and working forest. Those are my general questions from the service plan.

There were amendments passed, I guess it was last year, that allowed the government to set objectives for Crown land under the Land Act rather than under the Forest and Range Practices Act. It's quite important, because it replaces a substantial portion of the work that would have been done under the Forest Practices Code in terms of setting guidelines and demanding proof of site plans, etc., for Crown land. It's a very important assignment that has been moved to under the Land Act and, therefore, under the responsibility of Sustainable Resource Management.

I note in the '04-05 estimates that there are 754 FTEs for the entire ministry. That's a reduction of 50 percent from '01-02. There were 1,520 FTEs in '01-02. What's the minister's plan? I'd like a little bit of detail on this, please, because the Minister of Forests did refer this question to the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management — how higher-level objectives governing resource extraction are going to be established in an effective and comprehensive way given the reduced staff.

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope we can at least start to answer the question posed by the member with this. There is an appropriation of $2.5 million from the forest investment account. That produces 28 positions. The focus of those 28 positions is on the land-based objectives. That is down, perhaps, in the range of 15 percent from the past, but it's certainly not down 50 — or five-zero — percent. There isn't a dramatic reduction. The work they are doing…. We expect to have similar allocations for the next two or three years as that work is closer to finalized.

J. MacPhail: Well, the forest investment account is static. The Minister of Finance took, I think, over $25 million out of it for just general revenue this year. That came as a surprise to a lot of us. This was the government that said FRBC funding would be used for the industry.

What's the ongoing arrangement for funding of these 28 FTEs? Is the minister somehow saying that once these higher-level objectives are established, that's it, and then it's just freewheeling, results-based entirely after that?

Hon. G. Abbott: There is a three-year plan and a three-year budget to meet that plan. The member is correct that there is always some amount of changing circumstances — i.e., the mountain pine beetle challenge and so on. But in terms of the base work that we need to do, we think the three-year plan will largely take account of that work.

J. MacPhail: So there will be higher-level objectives established for every area of the province that involves resource extraction over the next three years. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member may wish to reference page 23 of the SRM service plan. It notes, for example, that in the 2003-04 fiscal year the aim was to achieve 40 percent of priority plans; for '04-05 it's to achieve 70 percent of priority plans; for '05-06, 100 percent of priority plans. The '06-07 target is: "New priority plans identified and initiated for remaining areas."

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister, then, can explain to me the allocation of FTEs throughout that period of time. Is the allocation of FTEs to achieve this the 28 positions from the FIA? Are there no employees funded directly out of the minister's budget working on this?

Hon. G. Abbott: It's difficult to be entirely precise on this because there are some FTEs — or actually positions in the ministry — that are largely looking at this

but not entirely looking at it. Our best estimate is that six to ten FTEs in Sustainable Resource Management would be in addition to the 28 that we've previously referenced. In addition, we could probably tack a number of positions on it, in that information from the data warehouse within the ministry…. A good deal of that information is also directed towards the establishment of the legal objectives as well.

J. MacPhail: Now, what's the training that's taking place? There's a transition period where both the Forest Practices Code and where there's land regulation under the Forest Practices Code and now also under the Land Act…. What's the transition period? What's the training period? What's been the feedback from the people in the field?

Hon. G. Abbott: In answer to the member's question, FRPA is going to be phased out as the place in which one would find the legal land-based objectives over a couple of years. The Land Act is going to be the permanent home for those land-based legal objectives.

The positions that we've already talked about — the 28 plus the six to ten — are individuals with a range of skills in land resource issues, whether they're technicians or biologists or whatever. They can work on those land-based objectives without any additional training, regardless of whether the statutory instrument is FRPA or the statutory instrument is the Land Act. To date, the feedback from stakeholders, I'm advised, has been positive.

J. MacPhail: Is the training in conjunction with other ministries, including the Forests ministry? What's the nature of the training and the coordination of that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The training with respect to the management of the new results-based or performance-based rules is being led by the Ministry of Forests. We at MSRM are very much a part of that, as is Water, Land and Air Protection. It's an ongoing kind of training, but I understand that they are most intensively at it now, as this is a key time for it.

J. MacPhail: The Sustainable Resource Management plans will replace landscape unit planning. From my previous discussions, I understand that landscape unit planning used to be biodiversity based, but the new planning will be for any value — including the timber value, which can be considered. We know from the legislation that the objectives from these plans can be made legally binding by this minister. Are there requirements regarding meaningful public or first nations involvement in this planning process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is yes. I'll reference first the first nations. There is both consultation and an attempt at appropriate accommodation with first nations in respect to these. We also work with non-native stakeholders. I guess the most recent example of the process working through successfully is the Kootenay-Boundary land use plan changes which were recently completed.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I thought SRMPs replaced landscape unit planning, not LRMPs. Here's what I understand an SRMP to be. It's a planning tool for the forest industry. Timber companies that are the tenure holders do their own strategic plan, and then they request that the objectives from that plan become legally binding through objectives set by the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Was the minister talking about an LRMP?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is generally correct in her suggestion. I think the member understands this pretty well. LRMPs are very broad-based. They give the overall zoning of Crown land within a broad geographic area. Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP, for example, covers a very broad area and has broad zones.

The SRMPs, or sustainable resource management plans, are one level more detailed. They're one level more detailed that an LRMP, so they would take account, for example, of things like forestry issues, tourism, mining and recreation. It's a more detailed plan than one would find in an LRMP.

J. MacPhail: Aren't they mainly run by the forest companies? Aren't the forest companies in charge of running them? How does this work? Maybe the minister can explain, given that new explanation, how meaningful public and first nations consultation occurs.

Hon. G. Abbott: We think, subject to correction here, that the member may be confusing the sustainable resource management plans, which again are just one level of detail underneath the LRMP…. There is an additional level below that called the forest stewardship plan which forest stakeholders would have leadership on, but not on the SRMPs. SRMPs contemplated an integrated range of uses within that plan, and there is a broad range of stakeholders within that level of plan as well.

J. MacPhail: Okay, well let's not do the forest stewardship plans. We'll do those next.

Tell me: for sustainable resources management plans, where do I turn to show the public that they have a right to be consulted and involved?

Hon. G. Abbott: Hopefully, this will be helpful in terms of an understanding of how the SRMPs are integrated with the LRMPs. We are great at initials in our world, it seems. Anyway, a good example here, I think, would be the Cariboo-Chilcotin land and resource management plan, which I think the member would be familiar with. I think it was actually completed during

the term of her government. It's a fairly expansive area. Actually, it's operated very successfully as a planning exercise for the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

Within that plan area is the Canoe Mountain area in and around Valemount. The member may or may not be familiar with this exercise. The Canoe Mountain area around Valemount has had a number of issues, conflicts, controversies over the years between proponents of resort development, mechanized users, non-mechanized users. The SRMP, in that case…. Again, it was through a very intensive process of consultation involving both aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people and the range of uses from mechanized — i.e., snowmobiles — to non-mechanized cross-country skiing; the heliskiing world, which of course embraces both recreation and tourism; and forestry and mining and all the others.

What that Canoe Mountain SRMP did, at a much more detailed level than would be possible in an LRMP, was to sort out — and, I think, effectively — the conflicts that had existed from the past between that range of users. I think that would be a good example of how, through the SRMP process, a lot of that potential conflict between not-always-compatible users can be sorted out.

Now, Canoe Mountain is just one small piece of the province. Obviously, there is a lot more work to be done, but again, I think one can identify those priority areas where there are greater demands for the Crown land base. As a consequence of that, there's greater potential for conflict between the range of users there.

Hopefully, that answers the member's questions in terms of how the public could look at those. While the member asked this question, I'll provide this. Then it will be on the record. I think the ministry is doing some absolutely remarkable things. I'm not doing them because I'm techno-ignorant, but the ministry is doing remarkable things in terms of gathering information and putting it together in a way that's very user-friendly for those who want to find out things like what an LRMP is, what an SRMP is, where different uses are contemplated.

I'll get a little bit more information on the address for that, because I think a lot of people will be interested. We have actually launched some initiatives in recent weeks with respect to this. So when the member asks her next question, I'll try to get that for her.

J. MacPhail: Who guides these discussions, as the minister described? Who leads them? How are the partners assembled in the discussions?

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to correct something I said in my previous answer. It's actually in the Robson Valley LRMP where the Canoe Mountain area is, just so we're clear on that point.

In terms of how an SRMP project like Canoe Mountain would proceed, there is always an interagency management committee that is drawn together to identify the range of issues to be identified and, hopefully, resolved. Practically speaking, the exercises are often led by the regional manager for sustainable resource management. They tend to be the point person in terms of putting together the range of stakeholders. If the member wishes, I can try to put together some examples of the kind of stakeholder groups that would be formed, but the regional manager tends to have the lead in respect of that.

Hon. G. Abbott: Within the sustainable resource management plan — again, the second level of detail below the LRMP — there are, effectively, chapters devoted to forests, mines, tourism and so on. A sustainable forest management plan would, effectively, be the forest chapter of that SRMP.

J. MacPhail: Are the resource-based chapters responsible for conducting and completing their own sustainable forest management plan?

Hon. G. Abbott: The sustainable forest management plans are, generally speaking, partnerships typically between the ministry and the forest company in a particular tree farm licence. For example, we have one ongoing with Tembec and another with Slocan in some of their TFLs or operating areas. They are cost-shared. They are information-sharing exercises, and they involve first nations and other interested participants as well.

J. MacPhail: I'm sorry for doing this so late. I'm a bit foggy today. I should have advised the minister — and he was polite enough to introduce his staff — that I'm going to be doing sustainable resource management plan, land and resource management plan and contaminated-sites management program. Then I've got a few more questions on resort development. I'm not going to get to fish today, I don't think, so I just wanted to advise the minister in case he wants to reallocate staff. My apologies. I should have done that earlier.

What happens to the legally binding…? As I see it, there is a series of concentric circles, ever-shrinking circles of responsibility for the nature of the plan: LRMP, SRMP and then the resource-based management plans. Do each of them require objectives? Let me ask that question.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm advised that objectives might be contained at any plan level, from LRMP through SRMP to the — to keep my lingo straight — even more detailed sustainable forest management plans. As you get to a greater level of detail, the specificity of the objective can become greater too. For example, you could have a more specific delineation of an area devoted to old growth for caribou management.

J. MacPhail: Again, is it MSRM staff that conducts all of this and ensures that the objectives, as they cover

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the question is that this ministry carries the responsibility. We may secure advice from Water, Land and Air Protection, for example, with respect to species, or we may get advice from the Ministry of Forests with respect to forest issues, but the ultimate legal responsibility rests with our ministry.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's all made public. We're trying to get a location where one might find this level of detail. I've referenced the land and resource data warehouse, which is the e-government portal, and the Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management website. There's a great deal of information on those with respect to the different plans. It goes, actually, to quite an astonishing level of detail when you get in there.

J. MacPhail: I assume that that website starts out with an LRMP and then does shrinking circles with the detail of the SRMP and then the SFMP.

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is generally correct. In not all cases will one find the detail that one would find in the Canoe Mountain plan, for example, because all the work has not been done yet, but generally speaking, as you move down into the greater level of detail, the more information you will find at that site.

J. MacPhail: How are the objectives approved? Is it through the minister, or are they required to go to cabinet through OIC?

Hon. G. Abbott: They're ministerial decisions. In some cases those decisions can be allocated to staff, but in most instances it is the ministerial decision. It's not an OIC to executive council.

J. MacPhail: Then I'm correct that the plans that are published on that website include the listing of the objectives as well.

Hon. G. Abbott: The forest stewardship plan is the most detailed of the land use plans we have been talking about here. It is actually, in that case, approved by the Ministry of Forests, but the detailed plans that are contained in a forest stewardship plan have to be compatible with the higher-level plans. The one right above it which we've been talking about, the sustainable forest management plan — it has to be compatible with that. It has to be compatible, ultimately, with the LRMP as well.

J. MacPhail: I know from discussions with the Minister of Forests that site-level plans within a forest stewardship plan have to be available upon request. Does the information contained on the website that the minister has just listed include forest stewardship plans, or are they located elsewhere in the company?

Hon. G. Abbott: No, the forest stewardship plans are not in the catalogue of information that is available through our website.

Hon. G. Abbott: The working forest initiative is one, actually, that we've been working on in the ministry with the assistance of a variety of people in recent weeks. I'm hoping to take something of a finalized nature to cabinet in June.

J. MacPhail: As I recall, the consultation report — I have it here — by Darryl Brown Associates was August 2003 — A Working Forest for British Columbia: Consultation Report. Then the government put that out for feedback, and I recall the then minister reacting to the feedback, which was defined in the media as overwhelmingly negative. His reply was: "Well, it was all special interest groups making repeated representations."

What has the minister done since August 2003 that includes the results of the consultation that, kind of, isn't as dismissive as his former colleague made? I can actually get the quote from the minister if he wishes me to do so.

Hon. G. Abbott: I would never try to duplicate the profound wisdom that so often comes from the former minister responsible for this ministry. Perhaps his staff can advise me of what was done between August and when I assumed this ministry in January. I do know that upon my taking this particular ministerial responsibility in January, we've taken, particularly over the past several weeks, a really long look at the observations that were made by a range of people with respect to the working forest initiative.

In particular, I want to, I guess, look at it with fresh eyes and see if the working forest initiative is going to produce the kinds of results we hope it will achieve. That is, adding to the confidence that working families, communities, local governments, first nations and others might have that as we move into the future, they can look to the Crown land base outside of parks and protected areas as a place where livelihoods can be secured into the future. Again, nothing's been finalized here. Indeed, I am trying to take a fresh look at it, see if there are ways we can build on some of the suggestions

J. MacPhail: The former minister…. I will ask the minister to ask his staff about that period of time, because of course this is the only opportunity I have to ask about that period of time. Has Bill 46 been proclaimed, the Land Amendment Act?

J. MacPhail: Is part of the plan for the government to react to the working forest initiative consultation period? Will it be then that Bill 46 is proclaimed?

We've just had new legislation introduced in the House this week by the Forests minister that affects land use. I'm just trying to figure out how I debate these matters, because several of the pieces of legislation that deal with land use have not even been proclaimed yet. The minister says he's going to bring forward a decision or a document for discussion to the cabinet about the working forest initiative. Does he anticipate that the discussion will also deal with the future of Bill 46?

Hon. G. Abbott: I hope this provides the clarification that the member seeks in respect of Bill 46. Bill 46 provides a mechanism for the designation of the working forest. It will both be proclaimed by OIC and the designation itself will be made by OIC. It certainly wouldn't be my expectation that those OICs would be brought to cabinet or completed until after our continuing discussions on the working forest initiative have been completed.

J. MacPhail: When the previous minister and I were discussing the working forest discussion paper, the working forest initiative, he actually made what I thought was a surprising commitment, but nevertheless he did, and the media did pick it up. That was that all land use decisions would be made in open cabinet. Does that remain to be the case?

J. MacPhail: Does that mean that land use decisions brought to cabinet for consideration, the first consideration, will be at an open cabinet meeting?

Hon. G. Abbott: The open cabinet would be the final decision point. It was a commitment that we made, I think, as a government, and I'm sure it was reflected in the commitment that the former minister made as well. While open cabinet is the final decision point, there will be a number of stops along the way, obviously. Caucus will be very interested in this, and I'm sure that committees will be interested and so on, but the final decision point would be open cabinet.

J. MacPhail: Okay. That will be interesting. Of course, that probably means there won't be any open discussion about the land use decisions, because these matters take a lot of consideration at cabinet. So let's go to one. Let's just go to the LRMP for Lillooet. I want to go into some detail on that now, if I may. What is the status, specifically, of the LRMP? This is quite a topic of lob questions in question periods. I went to the website. I take a great interest in this one, and I've spent a lot of time looking into it and have done information requests to the various ministries. I can't anywhere find a decision point even predicted on the Lillooet LRMP.

Hon. G. Abbott: Hon. Chair, one of the reasons why she wouldn't find that is it hasn't been reached yet. I continue to work in a range of areas to try to reach some conclusions around the Lillooet LRMP. I don't want to be provocative here, and I don't intend to be. As the member knows, we made a commitment in 2001 to revisit the Lillooet LRMP, which with some controversy was put on the table by the former government just prior to the 2001 election.

Since that time there have been extensive discussions between the range of stakeholders that are embraced by the Lillooet LRMP. Among those, of course, are forestry, tourism, mining, the wilderness tourism sector and first nations, communities. A broad range of groups have been consulted with respect to it. I think I still have some work to do, which I hope will be finalized soon with the communities. We do need to engage the Stl'atl'imx nation, which forms a large part of the, I think, 28 first nations that are embraced by the Lillooet LRMP.

One of the things that was not done in advance of 2001 was sufficient consultation and appropriate accommodation with first nations in the Lillooet LRMP area. We will have to remedy that. There's a good deal of work to be done yet, but I think we are moving closer to a resolution of that. I do hope that when we formally ratify it, it will be a consensus document and will reflect a broad consensus among forestry, tourism, wilderness tourism, mining, recreation, communities, first nations and others who have a great interest in seeing a secure and sustainable land and resource management plan for the Lillooet area.

J. MacPhail: I'm not the least bit interested in the rhetoric on either side. I'm quite surprised that three years into the mandate, there's no decision. When I said I'm trying to find a decision point, I'm talking about a prediction of a decision point. I can't find that anywhere. Who exactly is at…? Is there a consultation table? How often do they meet, and how would I know the membership of that?

Hon. G. Abbott: The way in which the Lillooet LRMP has evolved is in some measure a reflection of its different roots than one might find, for example, at central coast, north coast or the Morice plans. In the case of the Lillooet LRMP, there has not been a formal table, as there has been in other land and resource management plan tables, again reflecting the fact that

there was a plan that had been brought forward in 2001 by the former government. We have been working — the former minister up until the end of January and I since then — in terms of what I think could best be described as multilateral consultations — that is, involving the stakeholders that I've previously mentioned, among them forestry and mining, tourism, wilderness tourism, first nations, communities. Those multilateral discussions continue.

I appreciate that the member would like a firm end date, and I suppose that in some ways I'd like that as well. One of the challenges, of course, is that discussions end when a level of satisfaction has been achieved that people feel satisfied moving forward. That has not yet been achieved, at least in any formal way.

There is, I think, a tentative consensus among a number of the stakeholder groups with respect to how this could look, but those discussions continue. They may be reshaped in some ways as a product of those discussions. That's why we haven't put even a draft final plan on the table at this point, because those discussions are still active, still continuing. We still have some challenges to do that, but I think I'm generally optimistic that we will be successful.

J. MacPhail: So the minister himself is conducting the consultations. If that's the case, how does one actually have consultation amongst interested parties, when they're one-off?

Hon. G. Abbott: I don't want to create any illusions in the mind of the member. I don't lead these discussions every day. Typically, again, I think the regional manager for sustainable resource management has been the principal, on-the-ground figure in terms of these kinds of discussions. I have been involved in numerous discussions — for example, with the community leaders, with industry leaders, and that sort of thing — but I don't pretend to lead that process. I've tried, where I can, to be a constructive participant, but I wouldn't pretend to lead them, nor do I think it would be particularly appropriate to do that. I do take my responsibilities as minister seriously, and I want this initiative to be successful.

J. MacPhail: The minister says there's no table. I'm not familiar with this kind of process where there's no table, yet people get to have input into land use with maybe competing but diverse interests. For instance, those that care deeply about the South Chilcotin park — how do they actually talk to the mining industry about the South Chilcotin park?

It used to be that there was a table. The minister seems to think that was an awful process. His government takes every opportunity to denigrate that process. How is his an improvement in terms of actually ensuring a fair balance of uses?

Hon. G. Abbott: The short answer to the member's question is that they come together outside of a formal table structure. As the member knows, there was a formal table structure for the Lillooet LRMP prior to 2001. It worked through a process, unfortunately unsuccessfully, like the Okanagan-Shuswap LRMP table did successfully.

After the 2001 election, I think government felt that it would be more productive — rather than trying to re-create the table, which had been unsuccessful — to work in a multilateral fashion, as I've discussed, to try to build consensus between the different groups. Outside of the formal table, that appears in fact to be what has happened. The mining and tourism sectors, for example, have come together with some ideas that hadn't existed previously.

The other important player here is a group I met with recently in Lillooet, the community resources board, who tend to be reflective of the local leadership in Lillooet and Lytton; plus some of the small businesses, and others. It is — and I acknowledge this — different than the tables on central coast and Morice, and so on, but I think that the outcome, hopefully, will be as productive.

J. MacPhail: When the minister has multilateral discussions, does he somehow let the other interested parties know the results of those discussions? I have to be frank. I have no understanding at all, given the process that he's just outlined, how anyone has any idea what the other parties are saying, and that's what a planning table achieves. Everybody shows up or shares the same information, exchanges their views, and everybody's on the same level with the information.

When the minister meets with the mining industry about the LRMP in Lillooet, does he then share those discussions with the other parties?

Hon. G. Abbott: The answer to the member's question is yes. The understanding is produced through a series of agreements, and sometimes those agreements are reflected in letters to me, for example, from some of the sectors in a single letter. On occasion they can be more formal documents. The protocol we're hoping to sign in the relatively near future with the Stl'atl'imx would be an example of a more formal agreement. Those agreements are shared among the parties to the agreement.

J. MacPhail: The minister just referred to a first nation. Can he list the first nations who have territory in the Lillooet LRMP, and can he tell me about the consultations? I'd like some detail on this, please — dates, what they're working on.

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a total of 28 bands within the Lillooet LRMP area. I'll be glad to provide

that full list to the member if she wishes. Thirteen of those — and I think they're 13 of the larger bands — are the Stl'atl'imx nation, which includes the Lil Wat. The other, larger grouping is the Nicola tribal council. Then there are some other small bands.

Ministry staff have met with all of the 28 bands. I personally have only met, since my assumption of this office, with the Stl'atl'imx. We're moving forward. There was an agreement reached with the Lil Wat. We hope to expand that to the broader Stl'atl'imx nation — a protocol agreement that will identify a list of concerns that we have mutually, where we can move forward to try to address some of those important issues.

J. MacPhail: With the Lil Wat there's a protocol to discuss concerns. Did the Stl'atl'imx have input into that? Do the 26 bands agree to mutually exclusive jurisdiction?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'm acquainted with some history that I wasn't previously familiar with, and I'll pass that along to the member. The agreement with the Lil Wat was reached in 2002 in terms of a protocol agreement. Since 2002, I'm advised, the Lil Wat have become part of the larger Stl'atl'imx group. The hope now is that the protocol agreement of 2002 that was reached with the Lil Wat will now be embraced between the government and the larger Stl'atl'imx nation.

J. MacPhail: What's contained in the protocol agreement? Are the matters discussed in that protocol agreement then shared with the other interested parties?

Hon. G. Abbott: Among the range of issues — assuming we can get the protocol signed — that would be included in the discussion would be, for example, issues arising out of the Lillooet LRMP: issues around resource uses, lower-level land use decisions, the impact of the Olympics and the opportunities and challenges that that might bring to the Stl'atl'imx, and water management issues. These are the kinds of things that are embraced by the protocol agreement. There will be a workplan attached to the agreement. It is a five-year agreement as opposed to a short-term initiative.

J. MacPhail: This protocol already exists between the Lil Wat and the government and has existed since 2002. What have been the results of the discussions arising out of the protocol? Are those results shared with the other interested parties in the Lillooet LRMP process?

Hon. G. Abbott: The information ultimately will be shared, to answer her question. The agreement with the Lillooet involved bilateral discussions to explore their thoughts, concerns, etc., with respect to the Lillooet LRMP. That has been an ongoing process between the ministry and the Lillooet. Now that they are a part of the larger Stl'atl'imx group, we hope to continue that kind of thing and in fact expand the range of bilateral discussion items, as I outlined in my previous answer. The results of that certainly will be shared with others.

J. MacPhail: The minister referred to an agreement made between mining and tourism association. I observed that announcement. There's been much discussion since about what that joint announcement meant. I want to put something to the minister here.

I need to put some maps, Madam Chair, if I may, to the minister and ask him several questions about it. I know this is probably inappropriate. There's a map that's called Government Decision on Phase 1 of the Lillooet LRMP, and then there's a green area called "Area in Question." Then there's another map that talks about the tourism mining zones, and it looks to me as if there's a part of what was going to be designated as the South Chilcotin Mountain Park that's going to be deleted. I think it's the green area on the first document. I would be very happy if the minister could dissuade me of that.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's too bad we're not on TV. I could hold this up and explain more clearly to the member. We're quite confident of these answers. The first map, this one here with the green, is a 2001 map that reflected the current OIC that was in place at that time. The area in green is referred to as the Eldorado finger. It was an area which I think — and this was in 2001 — by general consensus was excluded from the OIC area. It is not now, nor has it ever been, in the OIC area.

The second map is a little bit more difficult to know precisely what it is. Our best guess is that it is a relatively early working map in terms of the discussions between the tourism and mining groups. That's as much as I think we can tell you about that.

J. MacPhail: The minister is saying the second one that doesn't have any green on it is a discussion document and reflects no government position.

J. MacPhail: Various environmental conservation groups went public a while ago saying that there's a government plan to reduce the size of the South Chilcotin Mountain Park, which was put in place by OIC, by about 15 percent. I can't remember what the minister said in reply to that, if anything. What would be his reply? Is he aware of that allegation, and what was his reply?

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes, I'm certainly aware of that suggestion by some groups. The member has been in government for a long time, and she's entirely appreciative, I'm sure, that one receives a variety of submis-

sions from a range of stakeholders. I know there is apprehension on the part of some groups about any deletions to the OIC area, effective 2001. I also received submissions from local governments and community groups and so on that there should be a much larger area deleted from the park than has been suggested.

There is a range of views out there, and government ultimately has to grapple with that range of suggestions we receive from people who are concerned about this area. Some want more area devoted or open to mining; some want more area devoted to conservation. There's no secret about that. Ultimately, government has to make some difficult decisions about where the appropriate boundaries should be.

J. MacPhail: Now, the South Chilcotin Mountain Park is established by an OIC. It was an OIC created under the previous government. If this government deems to change the OIC designating the boundaries of the South Chilcotin Mountain Park, what will be the consultation process undertaken before that change occurs?

Hon. G. Abbott: The discussions underway now would be that. Every day I receive submissions from different groups about that, and we welcome them.

J. MacPhail: Okay, Madam Chair, this government was extremely critical of the process that the previous government went through. I'm trying to figure out how this government is going to improve upon their terribly critical attitude toward the previous process. When do all of the parties get to sit down or view a government plan for the entire LRMP of Lillooet and have input together or through electronic mail or submission, where it's very clearly laid out what the government's intentions are prior to them making the cabinet decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: The public will have an opportunity to consult and to advise a government when a government has given their blessing to a draft plan, which would then go to the first nations for nation-to-nation discussions. It's during, I think, that time that I expect we would receive additional submissions in addition to the extensive submissions we have received to this point.

J. MacPhail: Okay, fair enough. The submissions that the minister has received so far have been to modify the plan made under the previous government. There has been no document that I'm aware of — no map, no website — that says: "Here's what our government is intending to do for the LRMP for Lillooet." When will the government signal its intentions in a very substantive way so that the public or the interested parties can react to that prior to a final decision?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's question is a very good one, and I want to give as full and as open an answer as I can to that.

The government is currently giving its consideration and technical analysis to the range of submissions, which we talked about earlier, in relation to the Lillooet LRMP. At some point, and I do hope it's in the weeks ahead, there will be a completion of a full draft plan, which will be simultaneously released to the public for their additional consideration. That would be simultaneous with the commencement of those nation-to-nation discussions, which I earlier referenced.

While I'd like to give the member a precise date, I can't do that. As she knows, discussions tend to conclude when the interest of the participants or the analysis of government has concluded. As I say, I do hope it will be in the weeks ahead, but one can never be certain, because there are always interesting issues that come into play.

J. MacPhail: There is an assurance that the draft plan will be made public before a final decision. That's what I've heard the minister say.

J. MacPhail: I have one other question regarding the Lillooet LRMP proposal. I need to give this to the minister so that his staff can look at this, because I was unable to overlay boundaries. There are boundaries here of the LRMP, but I can't figure out where the South Chilcotin Mountain Park is, or the original OIC.

What I'm trying to figure out…. That is a map from the Energy and Mines ministry, where it talks about mineral resources. If the minister could tell me by looking at it what colour the park is, then I can figure it out from there.

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I profoundly regret not being on television for this opportunity. This is an Energy and Mines map which lays out the zones of mineralization, so there is no colour reference to the South Chilcotin Mountain Park.

J. MacPhail: I understand that. What colour is the area of the South Chilcotin Mountain Park?

Hon. G. Abbott: The northwest corner, this northwest triangle of the broader Lilloet LRMP area, is the current OIC area.

J. MacPhail: Thank you very much. I am map-challenged, so that helped a great deal.

The colours, as I see them, are a little bit of red, green and then pink. Can people see from that distance? Okay. I was interested in that, because half the park has a low to moderate metallic mineral potential. I just make note of that.

I want to go on to the other LRMP — the one that was most recently released, I think, the Morice. The Morice LRMP was released for public review and comment on March 6, and comments had to be submitted by March 20 — two weeks. How much feedback did the ministry receive?

Hon. G. Abbott: The Morice plan, I'm happy to say, was remarkably less contentious than some of the other land use decisions that we have been attempting to manage. There was a series of open houses near the end of the table's life, which we understand were well-attended with lots of good feedback. There's a very strong consensus, both at the table and at the open houses around the tables, that I think embrace the suggested Crown land uses contemplated in the Morice LRMP.

J. MacPhail: The comment period has closed, and the table has sent their recommendations to government. Did the table make clear what the recommendations were publicly?

J. MacPhail: What is the time line — just approximate — for the government pursuing this to conclusion?

Hon. G. Abbott: We've just received it, but I appreciate the member is not looking for precision here. My best guess would be…. It is my best guess. I'm sure the member will hold me to it if I'm wrong. Given that we have just received it and, really, the analysis and consideration of this by government has only just begun, I'm guessing it's likely a minimum of a couple of months. Again, that is only a guess.

J. MacPhail: The next one I want to talk about is the central coast LRMP. It, of course, has received a lot of attention. I wanted to spend some time on it or ask the minister for a fairly substantial update. There has been a conclusion reached recently. I'm not quite sure what conclusion was reached. There's conflicting information. Oh, I'm sorry. It was the '02-03 to '04-05 service plan that said that LRMP would be done by March 2003, but we're now pegging that at June 30, 2004, according to the government's website.

What is the status of that? What are the funding arrangements for industry, conservation groups and government in terms of protecting certain uses in that area?

Hon. G. Abbott: The table reached its agreement on December 10. Since December 10 the chair of the table, whom I think the member would know — Jim Lornie, a former mayor of Campbell River — has been attempting, through the assistance of the participants at the table, to put together the final text. He is very close to completing that. There are what I hope are a couple of minor details to be ironed out around that. That's hopefully close to conclusion.

The question about funding arrangements in and around the plan and its implementation are still being finalized at this point in time.

J. MacPhail: Was this the area — I honestly don't remember — where there was going to be three-party funding? I remember then that Linda Coady of Weyerhaeuser was leading some sort of funding arrangement. The then government made a commitment, I seem to recall. I could be corrected on that. And the environmental organizations were going to do some fundraising around that. It's all around this concept of protecting what the environmentalists call the Great Bear rain forest, or to have appropriate use of what they call the Great Bear rain forest. What's the status of that proposal, that idea?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member's general summary in respect of those issues is correct. The detailed discussion with respect to the completion and implementation of those kinds of arrangements is still underway.

J. MacPhail: Do those discussions accompany the finalization of the LRMP, or are they separate discussions?

Hon. G. Abbott: They are certainly linked. Clearly, the conservation side and some of the potential funding organizations are looking to the successful completion of a consensus document before any kind of legal agreements are concluded.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to move on to contaminated sites. What's the budget from the ministry? And can the minister point into his service plan for the cleanup of the Britannia Beach site and then for other contaminated-site management?

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll direct the member to page 144 of the MSRM core business summary.

Hon. G. Abbott: Yes. If the member references under "Core Business," sound governance is $1.722 million overall for sound governance. The majority of that is in respect of contaminated sites, excluding Britannia Beach. Government has created a trust account of $75 million to deal with Britannia Beach issues. As the member probably knows, we are in a RFP process in respect of the remediation of that contaminated site.

J. MacPhail: Were the formal request for proposals on that issued this month?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're entirely clear on this point, it was actually a request for expression of interest, an REI, which was released in December around Britannia

remediation. There were six proponents that responded to the REI. Of those, three of the proponents were found to have the technical expertise and ability to proceed, and those three have been invited to submit requests for proposals in respect of the final remediation project.

Hon. G. Abbott: Of the $75 million, $30 million came from the previous owners of the site. To reach the $75 million, there was a $45 million appropriation by government through Treasury Board, and that appropriation can be drawn on as needed.

J. MacPhail: Separate and apart from the 200 hectares that Bob MacDonald got to keep, is the site Crown land or Crown-owned now? How is it defined?

Hon. G. Abbott: The member is correct. It is all Crown land, with the exception of the property she referenced.

J. MacPhail: All right. I just got the news release sent in. It was just issued this week. So it's expected to be completed by the fall of 2005.

The auditor general did a report on the management of contaminated sites. I had quite a lengthy discussion with the previous Minister of Sustainable Resource Management around how the government is proceeding to meet the recommendations of the auditor general. The then minister informed me that the ministry for '03-04 had a $400,000 budget to deal with management of contaminated sites. I'm hopeful the way the minister says the sound governance is now $1.7 million, and I believe I heard him say it's in the majority to deal with contaminated sites.

What is the plan of the ministry to meet the recommendations of the auditor general's report on contaminated sites?

Hon. G. Abbott: Just so we're entirely clear on this point, I gave the member a bit of misleading information in one of my previous answers about where she would find the contaminated sites line. I pointed her to page 144, which is correct, but when she and I were looking at $1.722 million, we were in fact looking at fiscal '03-04. I'm advised that of that $1.7 million, $400,000 was designated for contaminated sites. If you look at the next line, which is $2.784 million — again, it's in the sound governance category — we've had a $1 million lift in the allocation for contaminated sites, and it is contained in that $2.784 million figure.

In terms of what we do, there's a detailed workplan, which we believe is on our webpage for public reference. I think that would be useful to the member.

J. MacPhail: Okay. I'll try and find it, and we'll have time next week, I guess, to discuss that.

I had a very interesting reaction to the government's view that the sale of B.C. Rail, the $1, the discontinued lands…. The minister doesn't have to worry about any of this. I'm just going to ask him a question about environmental cleanup. I had quite a discussion with the Minister of Transportation in estimates on this. The government has said that they require the ability to force a sale on CN of discontinued lands — and discontinued lands is defined — in order to ensure that if those lands are polluted, CN doesn't abandon the lands without cleanup.

Separate and apart from the sale aspect of that, what laws apply to cleanup of Crown land? Until that sale occurs, the government has insisted that those discontinued lands are Crown lands. Not insisted — they've said that. What laws apply currently?

Hon. G. Abbott: There are a couple of ways in which this issue is managed within government. First, with Water, Land and Air Protection there's a Waste Management Act which covers both private and Crown land. When it comes to a mine reclamation, the applicable statute is the mine reclamation act, which is administered by the Ministry of Energy and Mines and which provides for bonding on all sites.

J. MacPhail: On the B.C. Rail right-of-way, which is…. In a fairly lengthy process, the Minister of Transportation and I did agree that the B.C. Rail right-of-way as it exists now is Crown land. We got that established. Under current law, if there is a spill by a train company, a train operator, that pollutes the right-of-way, who is responsible for that cleanup under the current law?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're probably getting near the edge of our expertise here. The best answer, we think, is that if there were a spill on a railway right-of-way, the railway company that was operating on the line would have the responsibility through the requirements of the Waste Management Act of Water, Land and Air Protection.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I'm going to finish this section. I will tell the minister, though, that I am going to try and find that report on the website about contaminated sites and then have further questions next week. Then I'm going to turn it over to my colleague for questions.

Is the minister saying that the Waste Management Act is administered by the staff of the Water, Land and Air Protection ministry?

J. MacPhail: Even as it relates to contaminated sites? I'm just a little bit bewildered, because I thought I

Hon. G. Abbott: Generally speaking, SRM would only be involved where there is no legal owner of the parcel and no clear way to ascribe responsibility.

J. MacPhail: All right. Well, that's very helpful. Because this is Crown land — and I'm not asking the minister to confirm that it's Crown land; the Minister of Transportation and I have agreed that it's Crown land — that's why the management of that in terms of contamination would be the responsibility of Water, Land and Air Protection.

Hon. G. Abbott: I think this is probably as clear as we can get it. The only time SRM would be involved would be (a) on Crown land and (b) where there is no identified responsible party. Those are the only occasions when SRM would be involved. In the absence of either or both of those two things, Water, Land and Air Protection would be the agency of responsibility.

J. MacPhail: This can be just a general question. If there's a spill on Crown land that pollutes, or there's a spill or a contaminant according to the Waste Management Act on Crown land by someone other than the owner of the Crown land — i.e., government — who's responsible for the cleanup?

Hon. G. Abbott: Again, I certainly sense that I'm getting out to the edges of….

Hon. G. Abbott: Our best understanding is that if there is no way in which legal responsibility can be assigned or the responsible party has long left, as in the Yankee Girl mine or something from the 1890s…. In those instances, that's when we might assume the mantle of responsibility. In the absence of that, we expect Water, Land and Air Protection would have the lead responsibility.

J. MacPhail: I'm going to yield the floor to my colleague from Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, and then I will return another day to ask my questions.

The Chair: I would just remind the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain that we'd like to wrap in a very few minutes.

My first question to the minister is this. Recently, in the last couple of years, Land and Water B.C., as you know, completed a successful release of the lands in Burke Mountain. I'm just wondering if there's been any progress made with the proponent on the sale of the optional lands and any other discussions on making those optional lands available for development and economic activity.

Hon. G. Abbott: While there is some sensitivity in terms of the discussion here, I can note for the member that it is under active negotiation and that Land and Water B.C. is working particularly with local government but also with other interested parties to try to reach a conclusion to those negotiations. We're optimistic, but there are issues yet to be resolved.

K. Manhas: With regard to the sale of those lands, I just want to be clear with the minister that the sale and transfer of those lands will only be transferred at the best possible value and return for the B.C. ratepayer. There is some concern that we don't off-load the lands at a lower cost just to off-load the lands. Is that one of the considerations that is being taken by the ministry?

Hon. G. Abbott: As the member well knows, being the MLA for the area, this is very valuable land, and certainly, we at Land and Water B.C. are driven in large measure by market appraisals. So no, there certainly wouldn't be any off-loading, although off-loading is not a term that's likely to be used in relation to these lands.

K. Manhas: I appreciate the answer of the minister. It's nice to have an answer on the record.

I just wanted to bring up…. I know that Land and Water B.C. and the Ministry of Transportation have been working quite diligently and quite hard on assessing the opportunity available in the Indian River and Mamquam River valleys for economic development and resort development. My question is: has the ministry been able to successfully determine land value estimates for land in that area? Is there any progress that can be reported on the record in terms of where we are in that particular project?

Hon. G. Abbott: Staff advise that they are very close to completing a report on that area with respect to both road feasibility and land development feasibility.

K. Manhas: My very last question is a very general one. I've been approached by several members of the community and entrepreneurs who would like to find out, in general, how to access Crown lands, both inside and outside of the municipality. There is a fair amount of Crown land even within the municipality of Coquitlam, above Westwood Plateau, that is unused. There have been several requests of interest to use that for back-country uses or other uses. Maybe the minister could just comment on how individuals in the community could make requests to the ministry or to Land and Water B.C. to access those lands.

Hon. G. Abbott: I'll try to give a comprehensive answer to the member's question. First, we very much encourage people who have ideas with respect to both

the commercial and non-commercial uses of Crown lands, either within municipalities or adjacent to municipalities, to bring those ideas forward to Land and Water B.C. for our consideration.

Obviously, in many respects, what will occur on those particular Crown lands…. If they are within a municipality, chances are there is an OCP designation that's been placed on there by the community. Those OCPs are revisited, I think, on a five-year interval by the municipality. It's possible they could change in response to a formal request. That's one of the items I think any proponent would want to look at. What is the OCP designation? Is it practical to seek any amendment of that OCP designation?

It's likely, although not as certain, that there will be some land use planning outside of the municipality, probably by the regional district for the area. Again, I'm not knowledgable on what the regional district boundaries are in and around the municipality in this case. If one goes outside the municipal boundaries, typically, the regional district is the first place one should look for land use information.

In either case, whether within the boundaries or outside of the boundaries, we do try to work with the plans that are in place. Of course, we're always open to suggestions or ideas that come from local governments or from private citizens, non-profits, interest groups — whatever it may happen to be. That's not to say that they're always going to be accepted, but we always encourage them, and we always try to manage those kinds of requests in a proactive way.

K. Manhas: I just want to thank the minister for his answers. Of course, there is a considerable amount of Crown land in and adjacent to my riding. It provides an excellent opportunity for the continued growth and economic development of the area. I want to thank the minister for his work and, in particular, the staff of Land and Water B.C., as well, for their creativity and dedication at looking out of the box at economic development opportunities on Crown land. I look forward to the opportunities that Land and Water B.C. is currently exploring, particularly in the Indian River Valley and Mamquam Valley for resort development and, of course, in the other lands in the riding. Thank you.

Hon. G. Abbott: I want to thank the member for his kind comments as well as his suggestions. I think he's right. In a province where about 95 percent of the land base is Crown land, what we do at Land and Water B.C. is very important work in terms of creating new opportunities for economic development in this province, and we're very much committed to that.

With those happy comments, hon. Chair, I move we rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Hansard Services publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet. Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.