Hansard -- Monday, May 3, 2004 p.m. -- Vol. 24, No. 10 (HTML)


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page

Introductions by Members		10739

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		10739
	Emergency preparedness in B.C.
	S. Orr
	Asian Heritage Month
	R. Lee
	Role of forest industry
	B. Bennett

Oral Questions		10740
	Legislation on health support workers
	J. Kwan
	Hon. G. Bruce
	Impact of legislation on health support workers
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. G. Campbell
	Labour dispute and cancelled surgeries and medical procedures
	J. Bray
	Hon. C. Hansen

Personal Statement		10743
	Hon. J. Murray

Second Reading of Bills		10743
	Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 33)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Partnership Amendment Act, 2004 (Bill 35)
	Hon. G. Collins

Committee of Supply		10747
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education (continued)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. S. Bond

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		10781
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	J. MacPhail
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Hayer

Hon. S. Hagen: In the members' gallery today are two very, very special people. It's my pleasure to introduce to the House today Marie Salem, who over the weekend was presented with the emergency social services volunteer of the year award by the provincial emergency program. She's accompanied today by Maggie Grant, the coordinator of volunteer services for the emergency social services program with the Ministry of Human Resources. Ms. Salem is the ESS director for the city of Kamloops. In that role, she oversaw 1,000 volunteers at sites like the Kamloops reception centre during last summer's forest fires, providing essential food, clothing, shelter and support to 13,000 evacuees.

I know that all British Columbians appreciate the work of our ESS volunteers and Ministry of Human Resources staff during times of emergency in our communities. Would the House please make them welcome today during this start of Emergency Preparedness Week.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce 27 grade 5 students visiting from Pacific Academy in my riding of Surrey-Tynehead. Joining them is their teacher Rick Bath, as well as several parent volunteers who have taken time out of their busy schedules to accompany these students. Would the House please make them very welcome.

B. Kerr: In the gallery today are the parents of one my constituents, Quendolyn Utitz, who resides in beautiful East Sooke. They're visiting all the way from Ireland, so I'd ask the House to make Erik and Lila Utitz feel very welcome.

B. Suffredine: This is National Forest Week. In the members' gallery today we have from my riding, from a little place called Lardeau, Albert Volpatti, who's the manager of the Meadow Creek Cedar mill and came down today to participate in meetings about concerns around caribou management, trying to make sure we make the right choices to preserve caribou in the Kootenays. Would the House please make Albert welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Today there is a young group of individuals, a Chinese youth delegation, visiting the buildings. They're here to watch question period and later to have a tour. In 2003 this group, the fourth annual Star of Outlook English Talent Competition on China Central Television, and another charitable group, the China youth foundation for foreign languages in education, decided to initiate and organize a visit to Canada with the invitation of a university here in Canada. There are seven winning students of the fourth annual Star of Outlook English Talent Competition. They are here to practise their English and learn a little bit more about Canada.

We have visiting, first of all, the president of service for educational television, Ms. Wendy Li, and the team leader, Mr. Zheng Chen Guang, who is from the Beijing Broadcasting Institute. Then we have the six students ranging from age nine to 21. They are Zhao Wei, Pan Yu, Li Lai Yin, Yu Li, Qu Zhi and Zhou Yinong. Would the House please make them all very welcome.

S. Orr: This week is Emergency Preparedness Week. The theme this year is "Prepare now. Learn how." This week is an opportunity for us to focus on the importance of personal emergency…. Many provincial ministries, local governments, schools, businesses and community agencies will be highlighting this week with activities that support emergency preparedness. There will be all sorts of activities throughout the province, such as school evacuation drills, emergency fairs, presentations and displays — all with the intention of making us much more aware of being prepared for an emergency.

With one of the biggest emergencies we have all ever seen last year — the fires — we all became very aware of how important it was for us to all be prepared. What an incredible job our provincial emergency program team did. Let's note that long in advance of the Filmon report, PEP had already started working on improvements to the already successful provincial emergency program. This is what we expect from an organization that is known as a leader in Canada and, in fact, North America.

PEP is indeed an amazing organization with over 13,000 volunteers, who give of their time and expertise in preparing for and responding to emergency situations. It was with real pleasure that on Saturday night just past, I was invited, along with the Solicitor General, to attend the annual public safety lifeline volunteer recognition awards to honour these very special volunteers for their selfless contribution to our safety. Awards were given to members of the five volunteer services that include search and rescue, auto extrication, emergency social services, and PEP air and radio communications.

So to all these wonderful people who take care of our safety…. I would like to invite every member of this House to join me in commending our provincial emergency program and all their volunteers for their dedicated hard work and to also say a huge, heartfelt thank-you for all you do for us. We truly do appreciate it.

R. Lee: I am pleased today to rise in the House to mark the beginning of Asian Heritage Month, desig-

Across Canada we celebrate the diverse artistic and cultural experiences of Asian Canadians. From Ottawa to Montreal, Halifax, Fredericton, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria, a variety of programs are showcased to enhance the Asian experiences in areas such as music, arts, literary works, dance, comedy, stage shows, videos and films. The Vancouver Asian Heritage Month Society presents the explorASIAN festival, with programs in Vancouver, Richmond, Burnaby, North Vancouver, Port Moody, Coquitlam and Surrey.

A number of outstanding Asian Canadians were recognized recently for their contributions to Asian arts and culture. The explorASIAN Heritage Awards were given to Lily King, Peter Pil Won Suk, Dorothy Uytengsu and Habib Zargarpour for their significant contributions to arts and culture in the community. Dr. Charles Yang and Asha Lohia are recognized for strengthening the community infrastructure that enables culture and arts to flourish. Sofronio Mendoza is recognized for transforming an aspect of traditional Asian culture to create a contemporary Canadian expression. Harry Aoki is recognized for preserving traditional Asian culture for the enjoyment and enrichment of future generations of Canadians.

Alex Wong is recognized as the first Canadian ever to win first place in the 32-year history of one of the most prestigious ballet competitions in the world, the Prix de Lausanne, which is dubbed the Olympics for ballet. Alex beat out 119 top competitors from 23 countries during a week-long competition. He was awarded the equivalent of a gold medal on February 1 this year in Switzerland.

I would like the House to join me to congratulate these individuals for their contributions in the community.

B. Bennett: Today I want to increase people's insight into B.C.'s number one industry — that being forestry. This week is National Forestry Week. There is no one in B.C. whose life is not touched in some way or another by forestry. In fact, there are very few people on the whole planet whose lives aren't impacted by the forest industry, whether they realize it or not.

Let me start with some basic facts. In B.C. 260,000 jobs depend on forestry. There are also about another 20,000 British Columbians employed in the value-added sector. Ten percent of the world's wood exports and 12 percent of the pulp exports come from British Columbia.

Now, while all of these pieces of information are important, I would like to share a few more facts that may surprise a few people. How many British Columbians do you think like ice cream? I'd personally guess quite a few, based on my knowledge of my colleagues. How about ketchup? Did you know that tree cellulose is a thickening ingredient in those products as well as thousands of other common foods? Forestry products are used to produce everything from disposable medical lab coats to car door panels. So when I say forestry touches almost everyone in the world, that's what I mean.

We know forestry will be a family-supporting industry in this province for decades to come because of the positive changes our government is making to strengthen and conserve our forests. We are giving more timber access to communities and to first nations. Since 2002 we have inked agreements with 36 first nations to give them more access, including the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket tribal council near my hometown of Cranbrook.

Right now one of our biggest challenges is our neighbours to the south, but last week the NAFTA panel ruled that U.S. companies have not been injured by Canadian lumber exports. That is the strongest decision in our favour yet.

Despite our wide range of political views in this province and in this House, most agree with our ability as a province to promote our lumber products and to create jobs for British Columbians. Today I'm asking every British Columbian, no matter what their political stripe, to pay tribute to the forest industry. Whether it's by hugging a logger or eating some ice cream, take time to recognize the value of forestry.

J. Kwan: The events of last week are an indictment of the B.C. Liberals' confrontational approach to health care. Make no mistake. A piece of legislation so draconian that it forced health care workers to pay back the government and offered no job security was what precipitated that crisis — a crisis that saw thousands of surgeries cancelled.

My question is to the Premier. What on earth was he thinking when he decided that pay cuts should be retroactive? Will he simply admit that it was a mistake to make health care workers pay back the government for work they had already done?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear that you have to have parties at a table to be able to negotiate an agreement. How this all evolved was that the actual table had broken down. There were no negotiations taking place. It wasn't a question of what ought to be in the contract or what ought not to be in the contract. There was nobody talking. Then when they get past that certain point, they affect strike notice, which is what happens in the labour relations situation. With that strike notice, they then took action. By taking that action, they put thousands of patients…. They put thousands of families at risk.

Government then tried to go back to the parties and have a word with them to see whether there was a way to get the negotiations started again. They were told clearly that they are not interested in negotiating. The legislation that was then introduced provided a framework of how the parties could get back to the table and come up with an agreement.

Quite frankly, what happened during the course of this weekend through the auspices of ministry and government people and the B.C. Federation of Labour…. When you can get reasonable people at the table to be able to negotiate a settlement, you can get a settlement. That's what happened.

Mr. Speaker: Excuse me. Are we ready to continue? The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has another question.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. The table broke down when this Premier said he wouldn't rip up collective agreements and then turned around and ripped up collective agreements. This Premier wouldn't answer questions in question period because he won't and doesn't want to be held accountable.

No one in the province believes the government's spin. Bill 37 was very specific. Nowhere in that bill did it say that the arbitrator was empowered to negotiate caps on contracts or an end to retroactivity. Those provisions violated British Columbians' basic sense of fairness and demonstrated that the government is too extreme.

Last week we put forward a simple amendment that would have eliminated retroactivity — an amendment that if accepted would have averted job action and the cancellation of thousands of surgeries. But every member of this government voted against it. Every single member of this government who could not be bothered to vote and who bothered to vote voted against it, including those who, after the fact, cried crocodile tears.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Order, hon. member. It's time for the question, please.

J. Kwan: To the Premier, once again: why did the government reject the amendment last week but accept it a few days later? Would it not have been better for the government to accept that it went too far, forcing this crisis and therefore having thousands of surgeries cancelled?

Hon. G. Bruce: What the legislation did was allow us to build a framework to bring the parties back to the table. The parties, through the auspices of our negotiating team and the B.C. Federation of Labour — with their assistance as well — were able to get a negotiated settlement. Let us be clear. The parties were not at the table; the parties were not there. The party, when asked whether they would negotiate and come back to the table, said no. Would we then just stand back and do nothing and allow thousands more families to be hurt because a dispute was happening in that sector? Absolutely not. We gave it time. We tried to find a way to bring the parties back to the table, and then the government took action from the perspective of protecting patients and families in the province of British Columbia.

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

J. Kwan: The government could have averted the escalation of the crisis this past week in the health care system by accepting the amendments put forward by the opposition. The opposition also put forward an amendment that would have put a cap on contracting-out and further privatization, an amendment that would have averted job action and the cancellation of thousands of surgeries, putting patient care first. Again, the government wouldn't listen. All the Liberal MLAs in this House voted against the amendment. Later we found out that the reason there was no cap in Bill 37 was because of the Minister of Health Services himself, who rejected it.

Can the Premier tell us why his government rejected our amendment, only to accept it four days later? Again, would it not have been better if government showed some flexibility before this crisis developed? How many surgeries would have been headed if the government had accepted the amendment?

Hon. G. Bruce: Let's be clear. A year ago, knowing that this contract was coming to an end, the government took action with a number of the bargaining unit to see whether or not a collective agreement could be put in place ahead of time. A lot of people worked hard to try and achieve that. This was a year ago. There was an agreement reached. It was sent to the membership, and it was rejected. Then we went through a whole period of time of trying to get the parties back to the table when the negotiations took place — which they broke down. Then at the very last moment we asked the Deputy Minister of Labour, one of the key officials who had helped to get the first agreement, to go back to the parties and ask them point blank: "Listen, can we not find a way to get a negotiated settlement so government doesn't have to bring in legislation to end this dispute?" The answer was no.

J. MacPhail: It's as if this minister has wiped out last week completely, but his words stand on the record of exactly what he intended. That was to take a sledgehammer to the health care workers. British Columbians know the Premier went too far. The legislation was extreme. It hurt workers — most of whom are women — and it hurt patients, all because of him.

Now that we've stepped back from the brink, we all need to accept that there are some important lessons from last week — lessons to be learned whatever our political stripe. One of the lessons is that you can't fix health care if you deliberately pick fights with people who care for patients. Those people need to be part of the solution, not treated as only part of the problem as this government has done right up to and including today.

My question is to the Premier. Does he take any responsibility for what happened? Does he take any responsibility for putting patients at risk? Or is he still going to blame the health care providers he tried to force to pay back the wages they already earned looking after patients?

Hon. G. Campbell: This government said from the outset that we were going to put patients at the centre of the health care agenda. We recognize the challenges that are faced when we go through these times and these changes, and we recognize the impact they have on workers. That's why this government initiated talks at the request of the HEU and others last year. That's why we actually came to an agreement with the HEU executive on how we could move forward together. That's why we thought it was important that we have that as we moved to try and make sure we had a health care system that focused on patients and that took the resources that taxpayers give us to make sure they were going to patients. The results of the agreement that was reached this weekend mean there will be approximately $200 million-plus that will be there for hip replacements and knee replacements and cardiac surgeries. That's what people in British Columbia want.

I can tell the member opposite this, Mr. Speaker. This government was motivated by one thing, and one thing only: what was in the best interests of patients in British Columbia. And it was clear after discussions that were held between the Deputy Minister of Labour and the parties that it was necessary for us to step in to put patients first and protect their interests, as well as creating a flexible framework to come to an agreement if reasonable parties were brought together. That's what happened on the weekend, and that means that today every British Columbian can focus their concerns on taking care of the 6,000 patients and families who had operations cancelled last week because of an unnecessary labour disruption.

J. MacPhail: Well, let's see just how stable the health care system is when this Premier refuses to take any responsibility for destabilizing it. His view is: "It's my way or the highway. If workers don't like what we're doing, we'll take a sledgehammer to them." And when they finally decide to put patient care ahead of this government's sledgehammer, they get penalized even more. This government refuses to accept any responsibility for its intransigence and how it harmed patient care.

Well, even in the very near future there is trouble brewing. Let me quote from an ad taken out by doctors today in this province: "…our government has no strategy to ensure British Columbians get the health care they need when they need it. It's time the B.C. government acknowledged the problem. The B.C. government, however, hasn't been open to our input." There it is, Mr. Speaker. There's the ad.

J. MacPhail: To the Premier: after a very difficult week for British Columbians, when is he going to take some responsibility for his government's failures? When is he going to start listening to health care providers like doctors, nurses, LPNs, care aides and dietary workers instead of picking fights with them and hurting patients?

Hon. G. Campbell: Let me just say to the member opposite and let me say to doctors and health employees and nurses that this government's primary responsibility and our primary concern has always been the best interests of patients and making sure we had a health system that dealt with patients.

Let me say this to the member opposite as well. You know, the health care system is there for patients. The health care system is to deliver care to patients. We had a strike last week, unfortunately, which was putting patients in jeopardy. So the government went to the parties and said: "You know, we can negotiate our way through this." We have negotiated 37 separate public sector agreements with reasonable union leaders who were looking for a solution. We created a piece of legislation that allowed that to happen. And I can tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased that we have an agreement that allows the health care system to focus on the needs of patients and their families in British Columbia.

J. Bray: We did have a very emotional time over the last several days. I've had communication with several constituents over the weekend. Many of them are family members or constituents who had procedures or diagnostic tests cancelled or postponed at Royal Jubilee Hospital and are now calling and asking…

J. Bray: …how that might be rectified, what might actually happen. There is a lot of concern among many of my constituents who have been impacted by the labour strife.

My question is to the Minister of Health Services. Can he please advise me what plans might be in place for us to deal with those procedures and surgeries cancelled due to the labour strife?

Hon. C. Hansen: Clearly, the strike action last week had caused the cancellation of over 6,000 surgeries. We've got tens of thousands of other procedures that have been cancelled, and the sad thing is that this was all preventable. If only the unions had been prepared to engage in negotiations, all of that could have been prevented…

I know of the case — it was in the Campbell River newspaper — of a nine-year-old boy, Trent Edwards, who was in need of cardiac surgery at Children's Hospital to have his leaking heart valves replaced. That was one of the over 6,000 faces — real people who were so profoundly impacted.

I want to be able to say to Trent Edwards, and I want to be able to say to the other 6,000 patients in this province who had surgeries cancelled, that the hospitals and health authorities around this province and the physicians and surgeons are going to be doing everything they can to get these surgeries rescheduled again. It's not going to be something that can happen overnight, but I know that all around this province today there are individuals who care about these 6,000 individuals, who will work hard to make sure they get their surgeries as quickly as possible.

Hon. G. Collins: In Committee A, I call Committee of Supply, and for the information of members we'll be continuing the debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation. In this House, I call second reading of Bill 33.

Hon. J. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I rise to declare a matter before the House. I will absent myself from the chamber while Bill 33 is under discussion and from any votes on the bill.

Bill 33 continues the work that this House has been engaged in for between a year and a half and two years — statutorily or legislatively, at least. It is part of a broader initiative that I think members will recognize is intended to revitalize — and has, in large measure — B.C.'s forest sector.

We have just heard today from one of our colleagues — on this, the beginning of National Forestry Week — and have been reminded of the importance of this sector of our economy to all British Columbians, no matter where they live.

I think it is fair to say, as well, that Bill 33 begins to draw to a close the legislative component of our broader revitalization plan. Members will know that over the last number of sessions we have in this chamber worked diligently and, I think, effectively on legislative reforms required to turn around what has been a pretty dismal decade for our forest sector. I would say that we have taken some significant steps to improve the competitiveness of our industry both in terms of the work they do here at home domestically and also, just as importantly, as it relates to their ability to compete with other suppliers on a worldwide basis. It is now very much a worldwide economy within which they must compete.

In the process of doing that, I would also emphasize that what we are seeking to do, as the overall objective, is improve the stability of the communities that depend on the forest sector to create something that has not existed for many years, I'm sorry to say — a sense that there is a future, a sense that this is an industry that young people can seek entry to on the basis that they will be in a position to support their families in the years and decades to come.

As I said a couple of weeks ago, I think we can begin to see evidence of the positive impacts that these changes are having. It's positive in terms of the industry's ability to compete and positive in terms of the significant investments that are taking place — upwards of a billion dollars and investment on a scale that we just haven't seen in British Columbia in over a decade.

Some of that, recently at least, is in part tied to some significant increases in commodity prices. That's a good thing. We'd all rather they were going up than going down, but the strength of these changes — the strength of our attempts to revitalize this industry — is tied to their durability not just when prices are up but when prices return, if they do, to levels that they have been at in the past. Let's hope that doesn't happen too quickly, but we shouldn't kid ourselves about the cycli-

cal nature of commodity prices. So the durability of these reforms will, I think, prove themselves throughout the market cycle.

It has been something that I think all members can take pride in no matter where they live in British Columbia — the extent to which people have responded, the extent to which workers have recognized the challenges and worked in concert with their employers, the extent to which communities have recognized the challenges and put their shoulders to the grindstone. As a result, we have an industry that is now once again being recognized as a world leader, and the best is yet to come.

As I speak to the specific provisions of the bill, I will be general. It's the type of bill that we'll probably spend a little more time on in committee than we will in second reading because of the nature of the specific provisions and technical provisions addressed by the bill. I'll touch on a few of them that I think are important.

I think members know that one of the cornerstones of the revitalization initiative is the timber reallocation process. In accordance with that cornerstone, the bill does provide an amendment which provides greater flexibility in terms of how that reallocation process plays out — specifically, the types of orders that the minister makes.

I should say for the benefit of members that when the original plan was unveiled, the notion was that there would be a single ministerial order for each of the impacted licensees. As we have gone through this, ever cognizant of the need to ensure that there is a seamless flow of fibre and that fibre doesn't disappear into some black hole somewhere, it has occurred to all that it would probably make more sense if there was an ability to perhaps do this in two stages, keeping with the original time line laid out in the legislation — but to do it in, possibly, two stages. The provision allowing for that to happen is contained in this bill.

The bill also standardizes the compensation provisions, the language contained in section 60 of the Forest Act, as well as specifying the compensation that a licensee or Forest Act agreement holder is entitled to when affected by a part 13 designation. I'll come back to that in a moment. In fact, perhaps I'll deal with that now.

The new compensation provisions under section 60 and part 13 of the Forest Act duplicate and mirror the compensation provisions introduced last spring in Bill 28 and provide a consistent means and consistent language by which to compensate Forest Act agreement holders or licensees. I should say that part 13 is a mechanism that the government has used as it relates to designated areas that may be involved in first nations negotiations. In effect, it is a mechanism by which activity over a specifically enumerated parcel of land will cease, pending the outcome of negotiations with first nations. That's one example. The part 13 compensation provisions apply to existing part 13 designations and specify that compensation only becomes payable to affected licensees after the affected area has been designated for four years, pursuant to part 13.

In all cases, compensation is limited to the loss of harvesting rights and improvements. The new compensation provisions are intended and designed to be fair and equitable for tenure holders while at the same time, admittedly, ensuring that government is not faced with uncertainty or excessive compensation claims in the future. Again, I would emphasize that with respect to the part 13 compensatory provisions, they are triggered only after a designation has been in place for four years.

With respect to another part of the timber reallocation process — that is, the impact and the relationship between contractors and licensees — this bill will ensure the rights of contractors with an existing replaceable contract, will continue to hold those rights, particularly where a contract is transferred or where the tenure itself is transferred. Those contractors or the replaceability rights attached to that contract will follow that contract in the case of either a transferred contract or a transferred licence. At the same time, the bill ensures that there is flexibility as between a contractor and a licensee to waive the requirements of the timber harvesting contract and subcontract regulation in certain cases — and I emphasize this — where both parties agree that that is what they wish to do.

We have done a great deal of work with the Federation of B.C. Woodlot Associations. I want to pay tribute to them for their positive contribution to the dialogue. I know that at times the issues that we are discussing sometimes present vexing problems, but the issue that we started on and that has, I think, represented a motivation to all of us is that we want to double the size of that program. What we are dealing with in this bill are the mechanisms by which that will happen.

There are enabling provisions that deal with the question of allocating additional volumes for the woodlot sector. I said to the woodlot federation that we used to call that, and we tend to call it, the woodlot program. Programs tend to come and go. Woodlots are here to stay, so I prefer to refer to them as the woodlot sector. We are, by virtue of this bill — members will know — doubling the maximum size that a woodlot licence can be. I think that is a provision that most woodlot owners and certainly the federation have been seeking for some time and welcome.

Similarly, community forests. There is a great deal of interest in the expansion of the community forest sector. This bill facilitates that, especially in this way. Under the existing Forest Act provisions, community forests are still seen to be something of an experimental tool. We talk about pilot agreements in the existing Forest Act. We're moving to make more permanent the notion of community forests — all with a view to, again, expanding that sector of the forest licence community in a fairly dramatic way. The discussions have already begun as to the mechanics around doing that.

This bill, members will see, talks about the means by which applications are made and award provisions.

There is contained within these provisions a mechanism for applications for, in rare circumstances, even direct awards of community forest tenures. We can discuss that in more detail when we get to the specific sections.

There are some housekeeping amendments clarifying issues that have arisen upon review of the question of cut control and wording around change of control and transfers. Again, members can put me to the test for this in committee. These are largely technical amendments as opposed to substantive changes from what has existed previously.

This House and all members have heard a great deal, as well they should, about the mountain pine beetle epidemic. My colleague the minister of state has recently provided a detailed description of the approach, the program, that the government is taking forward to try to combat the spread of the infestation but also ensure there is a planning process in place that takes into account the fact not just of the challenge we are facing today but of the impact this is going to have down the road with respect to allowable annual cut volumes and the fact that at some point, given what the pine beetle is doing, those numbers are going to drop significantly and precipitously for certain communities.

This bill addresses that in this way. It certainly recognizes the operational needs created by that crisis by allowing more flexible provisions for the extension of cutting permits. In effect, what we are trying to do is ensure that licensees aren't penalized for directing their activities into the leading edge of the attack. That was an issue that was identified for us. It's an issue that we are addressing in this legislation to ensure that we can continue to work cooperatively with people on the land base to do everything possible to try to combat and minimize the spread of the infestation. Thus far, it's worked well. This was an issue that arose and is dealt with. Again, we can discuss it in more detail.

I'm happy to report that the bill acts on some of the recommendations of an MLA review committee on small-scale salvage. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to again thank the members of that committee for the time they spent in meeting with people right across British Columbia in communities where salvage is a very important part of economic life in the forest. One of the provisions that appears in this bill, which emerges directly from the recommendations presented by that committee, is increasing the maximum size of a forestry licence to cut from 500 cubic metres to 2,000 cubic metres.

That rather simple change will improve the ability of salvage loggers to take salvaged wood, including wood that is impacted by mountain pine beetle or other infestations, fire, disease or windthrow. That's one example of a change that is reflected in this bill or appears in this bill, which has arisen as a result of the work performed by the MLA task force looking at salvage.

There are, in this legislation, clarifications to certain aspects of the tree farm licence form of licence. A process for severing private land from a tree farm licence is reinstated. It was there; it disappeared through our earlier amendments. It's reinstated.

The amendments also address time lines for notice of additions or deletions from TFLs. The example I would offer to the House for why that is significant relates to the fast-moving oil and gas development sector. Where heretofore there has been a one-year notice requirement, that is now reduced to 60 days' notice in order to remove land from a tree farm licence, woodlot licence or community forest agreement. Those provisions are standardized and are designed to facilitate ongoing exploration and development work in the oil and gas sector.

There are provisions in this bill dealing with the Forest and Range Practices Act. Several matters have arisen as a result of ongoing review by stakeholders, by the ministry and by the public advisory committee. Members may have questions relating to those amendments as they relate to the Forest and Range Practices Act.

The last thing that I would draw to members' attention — I won't pretend this is an exclusive or definitive listing, but some of the more substantive provisions — are amendments to the Forest Act to recognize the role of the B.C. timber sales staff as those individuals solely responsible for the awarding of competitive timber sale licences.

Again, there are other provisions. I think I'm safe to say that they are certainly of a technical nature and, largely speaking, of a housekeeping nature. I've mentioned the key ones that arise. As I say as well, it is my belief — I suppose my hope as well — that we are bringing to a close the legislative stage of enacting the forest revitalization plan. I am happy at this stage to be able to echo comments I am receiving from right across the province that, by and large, we are beginning to see some real signs of life and genuine revitalization.

It's not happening everywhere. There are communities where there are still some pretty serious challenges. But when I look at my schedule and I look at the places I'll be visiting and the activities I'll be participating in, whether it's commencing construction on an OSB facility in the Peace worth hundreds of millions of dollars, doubling capacity at a mill — Dunkley's mill — a new upgrade at a sawmill in Merritt…. I was recently in Williams Lake where in addition to mines reopening and other economic activity — pellet plants — a new sawmill is under construction, so those are good signs.

We would be well advised not to proclaim victory at this early stage, but it is an indication that given the tools, British Columbians can do the job, because if there's one job they know, it's forestry. If there's one product — amongst many, but there's certainly one product — that British Columbians can produce better than anyone anywhere else in the world, it is forest products. We hope that by virtue of the amendments contained in this bill, statutorily we are refining that tool in a way that makes it more effective and better equips us to collectively achieve our objectives.

With that, I would conclude my remarks and assure members that I'll do my best to answer any questions that might arise during the course of the committee-level debate on the whole series of sections.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, Mr. Speaker, I gave an assurance to a member, and I'm not certain whether that member has changed her mind about speaking or not.

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

Bill 33, Forests Statutes Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that Bill 35, the Partnership Amendment Act, 2004, be now read a second time.

This bill amends the Partnership Act to provide for the registration and operation of limited liability partnerships in British Columbia. British Columbia has lagged behind other jurisdictions in Canada and around the world in not having legislation providing for limited liability partnerships. These amendments will not only remedy that situation; they'll place this province at the forefront in Canada by providing full-shield limited liability to partners and allowing any business — not just professionals, as in other provinces — to form a limited liability partnership. This will make British Columbia a more attractive place to do business and encourage new and existing partnerships to set up and operate in this province.

Professional partnerships will also be able to benefit from these new provisions if their guiding legislation permits it. Government had received direct representation from the law profession as well as the chartered accountants, who requested that changes to their legislation be made. It's government's intention to canvass other professions to determine their desire for similar amendments to their act. Last week government received a request from the CGAs as well as the CMAs to include them in this legislation. It's government's intent to introduce those requested amendments in committee-stage debate of this bill.

Under the current legislation, each of the partners in a partnership is personally liable for the debts of the partnership and other partners. This is often a less than ideal business structure, as it means that the personal assets of every partner are at risk from the actions of every other partner as well as the partnership employees and all debts incurred by the partnership.

A limited liability partnership, a common form of business structure around the world, is a partnership in which the partners have protection from personal liability for the debts of the partnership as well as other partners. The limited liability afforded partners in the limited liability partnership is similar in many ways to the limited liabilities that shareholders of an incorporated company enjoy. It also provides many of the same benefits — protection of personal assets, the ability to focus on the business of the partnership and certainty for all parties as to what assets are available to creditors.

The lack of limited liability partnership legislation in British Columbia has also meant that limited liability partnerships in other jurisdictions have been discouraged from doing business here in British Columbia. These amendments will remedy that situation by making this province a more attractive place for limited liability partnerships not only to carry on business but, because British Columbia will have the most progressive legislation in Canada, to set up their businesses as well.

The new act will impose a number of requirements on limited liability partnerships in order to protect those who deal with partnerships. Most significant in this regard is that a partner will not have limited liability in instances where there has been negligence or wrongdoing of that partner. As well, in order to obtain and maintain their LLP status, the partnership must register at the corporate registry, notify clients of their change in status and include the letters "LLP" right in their business name. They also must make an up-to-date list of partners available to the public at all times and remain in compliance with all the relevant laws and requirements.

These amendments will bring this province into line with other countries around the world by allowing the registration and operation of limited liability partnerships right here in British Columbia. They will place this province firmly at the forefront among Canadian jurisdictions as having the most complete and progressive limited liability partnership legislation in the country. These changes will make this province a more attractive place to do business, thereby increasing the economic activity as well as the investment activity. At the same time, they provide a balanced level of protection to those who do business with the limited liability partnership.

Hon. G. Plant: Although I'd love to spend some time congratulating the Minister of Finance on this initiative, I rise to seek leave to make an introduction.

Hon. G. Plant: The House Leader wants me to ask for leave to congratulate him too.

But in fact, we will be joined over the course of the afternoon by a group of 77 grade 9 and 10 students from Robert McMath Secondary School, which is in the beautiful and wonderful constituency of Richmond-Steveston. I'm told there will be some 77 students who will be entertaining the nine parents in their company. There are three teachers — Ms. Monique Vonk, Ms. Mej Datoo, Mr. Robert Airey — and a classroom assistant, Mrs. Corinne Ross. I hope they will enjoy their time in the Legislature. They will see that we actually do constructive work along with some of the theatre that happens here.

In particular, although each of the 77 students is an enormously valuable member of the Richmond-Steveston community, I would like to say hi to Lisa Yap. I hope all of them have a very wonderful afternoon here in Victoria and the Legislature.

Hon. G. Collins: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for consideration by a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 35, Partnership Amendment Act, 2004, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Collins: I call Committee of Supply. For the information of members, we will be debating the estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

J. Kwan: Last weekend we were debating with the minister, and I just want to find the place where we left off in Hansard. We were debating the issue about the support for low-income students, if you will, or addressing the issue of equitability in the post-secondary education system for students. I raised issues with the Minister of Advanced Education about some of the strategies the government is undertaking in this regard.

The minister, of course, talks the big talk about the government bringing forward 25,000 new seats by 2010, but in the midst of that there are a whole host of other issues that students are faced with. Many are faced with escalating tuition fee hikes. Many are faced with a situation where the government is providing less support to students by way of student support in trying to manage these issues.

The minister cited that some 50 percent of the students graduate without a debt. The flipside, of course, is that some 50 percent of the students do graduate with a debt. In fact, there was a recent report done and put forward by Statistics Canada, which said that student debt jumped 76 percent in a decade, leaving indebted university graduates in the class of 2000 owing an average of $20,500.

The national graduate survey released found that while the proportion of graduates who had left school debt-free remained constant from 1990 to 2000, about half of all students graduated with no debt. The more recent grads owed significantly more than their predecessors, with many having trouble repaying loans. The federal government, of course, was quick to play down the findings. Joe Volpe, the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development, characterized the sum as pretty easy to repay.

Statistics Canada cites the rise in tuition fees as the main culprit for the growth of student debt, with undergraduate tuition fees jumping from a national average of $1,464 in 1990 to $3,447 in 2000. That number, I might add, continues to go up since the tuition fee freeze has been lifted by the Liberal government. This year, 2004, undergraduate students pay an average of $4,025. We can see that while it is true the number of students who incur a debt for their post-secondary education has remained constant, the issue remains — very much so for the 50 percent of students who do incur a debt — that the debt is becoming higher and higher.

I would like the minister to comment on this issue with the recent findings. This was reported out in the Province on April 27. The article was entitled "Students leave university owing $27,000." Since the Liberal government took office, the tuition freeze has been lifted, and that tuition debt load that I have put on record for this year has increased to $4,025, in terms of the fee per year. I would like the minister to address this issue of increased debt load for students who do have a debt.

Hon. S. Bond: We have canvassed this issue a number of times, and my comments will be the same as they were previous to this. First of all, the study was a Canadian study, and it's important to point that out.

What it does is put British Columbia in a context, and while I'm not going to underestimate the challenges facing students, we need to remember that B.C. students are not alone. In fact, our tuition in British Columbia still remains at about the Canadian average.

In addition to that, one of the things I've said repeatedly is that as students face challenges getting the finances they need to be in a post-secondary institution, our responsibility is to assist those students most in need. Obviously, it is good news that 50 percent of students graduate without debt. Our concern, therefore, needs to be with providing assistance to those 50 percent and those most in need of that particular group. We have a comprehensive student financial assistance package. We are continuing to redesign our grant program as we speak.

Additionally, we need to be very clear that while the rest of the provinces in Canada were raising tuition incrementally over the last number of years, British Columbia had a tuition freeze. While that is an attractive — at times political — decision, in fact, the law of life would suggest that at some point there's going to be an adjustment process. The rest of Canada was increasing in smaller proportions incrementally. British Columbia faced a rather rapid increase following that. But from our perspective, our responsibility is to make sure that we have a program in place to assist those students most in need.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister, of course, would like to say everything is just fine because we have a situation where 50 percent of the students actually don't have a debt. But the minister misses the point that the other 50 percent of the students do have a debt, and the issue they're faced with is that the debt is increasing substantively under this government's so-called strategy to address issues for students.

The minister says, well, these are ongoing challenges. Yes, they're challenges but challenges that could be met by the government if the government chose to address the issue by investing in post-secondary education and investing in students.

Let me put on the record some information here with respect to another report that has been done and that I made some reference to in estimates earlier. Pressure Points in Student Financial Assistance: Exploring the Making Ends Meet Database was a report that came out in March 2004. The key findings of this report include the gap between expenditures and student aid limits, which suggests that some people may have difficulty meeting expenses and therefore need alternate sources of financing, and some may not attend because of lack of financing. The report also notes that most of the impacts for the students in this category with this finding are in British Columbia.

The high percentage of dependent students who are working and/or borrowing from private or family sources seems to confirm that parents are unable or unwilling to make the contributions expected by the student aid programs, and that is the issue here, with student aid programs actually on the decline. Also, the federal government student aid program doesn't help basically, because the cap is so onerous that many of the students don't qualify for their program.

"The incidence of part-time employment and use of private loans suggest costs faced by certain categories of students exceed assistance limits in some jurisdictions. Actual parental contributions are generally higher than expected in the lowest income ranges and lower than expected in higher income ranges. The parental contribution expectations of government for middle- and higher-income families are quite onerous. About two-thirds of students worked, on average, 19 hours per week during the school year. Those who lacked resources such as parental support or student loans were more likely to work. Forty-one percent of full-time students said they could complete their studies more quickly if they did not have jobs. The situation could be compounding student debt if students are taking an extra year or two to complete a four-year degree and borrowing more money in the process. Low-income students, mature students and those who move to attend post-secondary study have the highest student loan debt levels."

This is a recent report. The findings, I would say, are anything but for one to celebrate because of the situation many of the students are actually in.

Then, when we look at the issue before us, around tuition, we actually have a less than encouraging situation, I would say, because tuition is continuing to go up in British Columbia.

The other areas that I think are of concern for British Columbians would be…. Well, let me just turn right to the tuition issue. I was actually going to deal with the question around training and apprenticeship, but let me just stay on topic here with the tuition question.

The Canadian Federation of Students has said that since 2001, B.C. university tuition has increased by 70 percent and college tuition by 150 percent. Statistics Canada indicates that in 2003 and 2004, students paid 7.4 percent more in tuition fees — the biggest increase in four years. For the first time in eight years, British Columbia's average undergraduate fee is higher than the national average. Some specific statistics that I want to put forward: Northern Lights College in the Peace River area will have a tuition increase of 15 percent. In the 2004-05 academic year the University of Victoria has an increased tuition of 30 percent in the past two years and has proposed a 28 percent hike in the fall of 2004.

I earlier mentioned the Okanagan University College, which has seen the tuition jump as well. The minister countered that with a one-off that the government has come up with of reducing the Okanagan University College tuition by $1,000. However, we should note that over the last three years, the tuition at the Okanagan University College has actually jumped some 65 percent since 2002.

In regard to increased tuition fees, a March 2003 article in the Province — some of that information which I had just put forward for the minister's information…. The article actually cited the Minister of Advanced Education as stating: "Do I think increases will continue? That will be up to the institutions. I really

have no sense of what the trend will be over the next number of years." This is, of course, a disturbing response from someone who oversees post-secondary education in the province. How can the Minister of Advanced Education have no sense of whether tuition fees will continue to skyrocket in British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: It's not a matter of the Minister of Advanced Education not knowing. It's a matter of a principle that's employed by this government, which actually is called institutional autonomy. What we did when we made a policy decision about tuition in the province was restore the institutions' ability to determine tuition on an independent basis, set aside from government's decisions. In fact, they get to decide what the best range of tuition would be for a particular institution.

Institutions are different all around the province. Certainly, where I live, in a rural community, it is much different than downtown Vancouver. So it is not a matter of not knowing. It is a matter of a policy decision that said government isn't in the best position to make the decisions on an individual basis with institutions.

In fact, it is interesting to note…. While the member opposite quoted some of the tuition increases for this year, let me just give you a few of the other ones. Vancouver Community College is at zero percent increase. North Island College is at zero percent increase. The College of the Rockies is at zero percent increase. We have some other small ones as well. The College of New Caledonia is at 3 percent. So in fact, we are finding that because of some of the measures we have put in place, plus decision-making done at local institutions and at individual institutions, those rates are different all across the province. It's not a matter of the minister not knowing the answer; it is a matter that each institution deals with tuition independently. We believe that's an important policy decision to have made as a government.

J. Kwan: I would remind the minister that when they were in opposition, they actually supported a tuition fee freeze. In fact, this minister and this government campaigned on continuing the tuition fee freeze. How things have changed now that they have been elected, and how things have changed with the many, many broken promises from this government.

The list is endless. It's endless in terms of how this government said that they would do one thing prior to the election and then after the election just turned right around and did exactly the opposite. B.C. Rail comes to mind. The health care sector comes to mind. The teachers come to mind. Education and advanced education with tuition fees come to mind. The list, as I said, is endless. This government continually breaks the promises it made during the election.

The minister argues that lifting the tuition fee freeze for students will improve educational opportunities like more classes, and thus they will be able to complete their degrees more quickly. But we must ask ourselves: do higher tuition fees equate to a better education and getting a degree done faster for students?

If the minister is correct in her assertion, why was the University of Victoria's law department ranked number one for many years during a tuition fee freeze, while still being one of the most affordable in the country? The fact is that paying more for university does not automatically translate into receiving a better education. Moreover, when UVic's tuition fees went up by 30 percent in 2002, it added to the university's overall budget little more than 5 percent. It was just enough to cover the cost of inflation and the cost of doing business. It did not provide for more lab equipment or technical support for students or more spaces for students.

The reality is this. The minister cites that a number of universities or colleges didn't actually see an increase this year. Let me just say, in case the minister actually missed it, that since 2001 we see tuition fees increasing by some 70 percent. We see college tuition increasing by some 150 percent since this government took office. It's hardly anything for one to celebrate.

For the minister to say, "Well, gee, the tuition fee increases slowed down…." Well, the hit has been substantive. I might add that not all of the freeze, in terms of tuition hikes, has actually taken place. In fact, some of the other universities and colleges still have tuition fee increases in addition to what was brought in a couple of years ago.

The minister says it is not up to her to decide whether or not tuition fees should be capped; it's for the institution to decide. The institution had to increase tuition fees. Why? Because they don't have enough funds in the system to provide for the programs that they need. That's why they have to increase tuitions. That's why students are getting hit.

Meanwhile, even according to the budget that this minister has tabled…. Here are the budget figures. While the minister denies having any knowledge of what the trend will be for tuition, the 2004 budget lays it out pretty clearly. Tuition will continue to skyrocket. In fact, over the next three years the government estimates that tuition will increase from $713 million in '04-05 to $837 million in '06-07. That's an increase of $124 million. That's from the government's own budget document. So how could the minister sit there and say: "Well, gee, it's not up to me. I don't know whether or not tuition would be impacted or what's going to happen"? It's in the government's own budget book that they expect the tuition fees would increase.

Furthermore, it's this government who is cancelling support in the education system in terms of financial support. They know very well that by doing exactly that, the cost is going to off-load onto students. The minister knows exactly that by saying they will fund 25,000 seats by 2010 without fully funding each of those seats, somewhere along the line the students have to eat the cost of funding those increased spaces. The minister knows very well that's exactly what this

One of the central concerns for students is keeping education affordable. Can the minister explain whether student aid has kept up with tuition increases over the last few years?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, I'm going to read into the record, because quite honestly it is time to put it on the record. It is far too easy to make comments without actually going back to what our commitment was — to suggest we didn't keep it.

In terms of tuition our commitment was — and let's talk about fully funding — to support the 5 percent tuition cut that the previous government made and actually fully fund, which had not occurred previously and which caused some major challenges at institutions in the province. We agreed and promised to fully fund it in the 2001-02 fiscal year, to offset costs to post-secondary institutions. The key there is that we as a government would fully fund the commitment that was made. I'm happy to tell you that we did support that particular promise with a 5 percent reduction, and we fully funded it in the 2001-02 budget year. There was a second promise we made that we also completed, which was to consult with educators, students and administrators on the hidden costs to students and institutes of previous tuition freezes that were — here are the key words — not properly funded by the government and that have reduced student access and reduced course offerings.

Here is what we did about that promise. In the fall of 2001 the minister met with student representatives, educators and administrators from all public institutions to determine their perspectives on the tuition fee freeze. The information gathered through these meetings provided input into a new tuition policy, which was announced by cabinet in March of 2002. Two promises — two completed promises.

Let's talk about tuition in the province and give it some context. First of all, the taxpayers of British Columbia currently support post-secondary education for students between 70 and 80 percent. While tuition is one of the factors that cause costs for students, in fact it is a very small piece of the entire puzzle as students try to work to gain a seat in post-secondary education. When we talk about our particular view of that, we believe that getting an education in this province is a partnership.

As I said, the taxpayers of this province are partners to the tune of 70 to 80 percent. It's challenging for some students in the province obviously, and we don't ever underestimate that. That's why we have student financial assistance policies, and that's why institutions such as the University of British Columbia have a policy that says if a student is able to be accepted into an institution on their academic merit, they will not be turned away because of financial need. That's the kind of partnership we have in the province to assist those students most in need.

Let me talk to you a little bit about…. I think the University of Victoria law department is probably still as outstanding as it was, and from my perspective the additional tuition…. One of the things we said in our policy decision was that it must be used to increase learning opportunities and enhance quality for students. That's what we heard when we went out and talked to people — that there were opportunities missing for students because of the freeze that had been in place.

Let me give you a few of the examples of what institutions have done with the tuition revenue. They've provided additional student financial assistance both merit- and need-based, including scholarships and bursaries. They've added more classes. Additional class sections mean more of our students get the opportunity to get in the courses they need. They've provided for some of the concerns the member opposite expressed — new equipment and information technology, making sure that our students have the very best and most up-to-date technology.

Critical to success in our province, they've increased library acquisitions and also program improvements such as the learning experience of students and more hands-on activities, labs, etc.

We can continue to have an ongoing debate about tuition. Our government believes it is a partnership in which students, families and the government have a responsibility to partner in providing for a student's education.

The Chair: Member, I just want to make a caution here. This debate is becoming quite repetitious. This topic has been well canvassed, so I'd ask the member, if she has a new line of questioning, to move on to another topic.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear in terms of what has happened with the issue around tuition since this government took office. Let's be clear what this government had campaigned on and promised British Columbia students and failed to deliver that campaign promise — that is, to reduce tuition fees by 5 percent. This government campaigned on that, and not only did they not deliver on that, but this government actually increased tuition by, in some cases, some 150 percent since the government took office. So let us be clear in terms of where things are at with respect to this government. The government did not deliver on its campaign promise of reducing 5 percent in the tuition fee area for students.

The minister says: "Well, in the 2001-02 budget year we actually funded institutions the full cost of the tuition freeze in terms of the amount." Well, let us be clear. The 2001 budget was basically the NDP budget that was tabled, which this government took after they won office. Since that time, in budgets after that, you actually see no support for students from this government. The government lifted the tuition fee freeze, and then we saw tuition skyrocket across the province.

Let us just put on record what happened since that time. Some samples of tuition fees for full-time under-

grad arts and sciences or general studies programs across British Columbia. The University of British Columbia: 2001 tuition fee, $2,181 per year; in 2002, $2,261 per year; 2003, $3,459 per year. In the University of Victoria: 2001 tuition fee, $2,152 per year; 2002, $2,796 per year; 2003, $3,635 per year. Capilano College: 2001 tuition fee, $1,275 per year; 2002, $1,695 per year. In 2003 they were expecting a 40 percent increase in their tuition fees for students. In the University College of the Cariboo: 2001, $1,200 per year; 2002, $2,400 per year — a doubling; then in 2003, proposed $3,120. Langara College: 2001, tuition fee, $1,260 per year; 2002, $1,780 per year; 2003, $2,054 per year. Vancouver Community College: 2001 tuition fee, $1,194; 2002, $1,680; 2003, $2,200. BCIT: 2001 tuition fee, $2,238; 2002, $2,997. Then in 2003, they also expected an increase.

These are just some examples of how tuition fees have skyrocketed since this government took office. So for the minister to say, "Well, gee, we actually didn't control that; actually, we had no say in that…." Well, no. The government promised that they would actually decrease tuition by 5 percent. They failed to deliver on that promise. The government said that they wouldn't interfere with institutions, with tuitions, yet in the budget books they expect that there will be an increase of $124 million for students in terms of their fees.

The minister's words simply don't ring true. By September of 2003, in fact, tuitions would have in some cases tripled and in almost every college and university have almost doubled. That's exactly what's happened. It isn't any wonder that the tuition debt load…. The Statistics Canada report shows that for those students who do have a debt load, you actually see a significant increase in their debt load. Is it any wonder, based on what this government is doing, based on the government's policy? Let us be clear in terms of the record of what this government is doing around that.

The minister, of course, didn't answer my question — surprise, surprise — about student aid. How has that kept up with tuition fee increases?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm only going to say this one more time, because I think it's incredibly disappointing in terms of the completed promise. I can only say it and read it and reiterate it. This is the last time.

We said that we were going to support a 5 percent tuition cut previously announced by the member opposite's government and were actually going to fully fund it. We did precisely that. In tandem, we said we're going to talk to people about the impacts of a six-year tuition freeze in British Columbia. We did precisely that. We announced a new tuition policy in March of 2002, which effectively lifted the freeze on tuition. Secondly, the institutions are in the best and most appropriate position to make those decisions, and they will continue to do that in British Columbia.

The other thing that's important to point out is that the average funding per FTE was higher in 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004 than it ever was in the 1990s and particularly in the latter part of the 1990s. In fact, institutions are receiving, on average, significantly more dollars per FTE.

Finally, to answer the question — which I'm always happy to do for the member opposite when I get one — in fact, student aid across government has increased. We've done that in partnership with institutions. I noted earlier that in the tuition revenue that was generated, one of the things that institutions did was make those dollars available. Also, I can think offhand — hopefully, it's within a few percentages…. For example, the University of British Columbia invested about 25 percent of their tuition revenue in extra assistance. Another example is the University of Victoria. They include in this year, 2004-05, additional dollars — in fact, $2 million — in student financial assistance. While government isn't doing it by itself, we are increasing those dollars, and so are institutions.

The Chair: Hon. member, I'm now asking you for the second time. As I mentioned, this debate has become tedious and repetitious. You have canvassed this particular item now for the second or third day. It is time to move on, please — new subject. Thank you.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I'm sure this is tedious for the government, but you know what? It's not tedious for the students who are faced with this situation.

The Chair: Member, it is my judgment from the chair that this debate has become tedious and repetitious. I'm asking you to move on. It is not the government's decision. It is mine. Move on.

The rules of this House…. It's really quite something. It does prevent the opposition putting issues forward to the minister.

The Chair: Member, would you take your seat, please. Would you take your seat.

The Chair: Member, I find it distasteful that you're challenging the Chair. You keep referring to the fact that you're treated unfairly and that there are different rules in this House, which is absolutely false. I'm asking you now to move on to another subject.

J. Kwan: Mr. Chair, I want to respond to the minister's comment that she made just now. The minister made a comment that the universities, in partnership with the government, actually put forward grants to help with tuition, to help students faced with increased tuition. The reality is false — what the minister just said.

Let us just look and see what the tuition fee increase is and the rate at which it is increasing. The Uni-

versity of British Columbia has raised tuition by 75 percent for students. Do we see student grants increasing by 75 percent to help out students in the amount of tuition fees that have increased? No, we do not see that. Do we see colleges providing grants to help students at the rate of 150 percent increase? That's what the colleges have increased tuition fees by — 150 percent. How do the grant programs, in partnership with this Liberal government, actually provide that kind of relief for students? They do not, Mr. Chair.

Let us be clear in terms of what this government is doing and what the facts are before us. For the minister to make such a suggestion…. They're simply false and untrue. Grants do not match the rate at which tuitions have increased across the province since this government took office. The Liberal government made a promise to students that they did not deliver on, and students across the board are saying that they feel betrayed by this government. Many of the students have expressed exactly that sentiment.

The government announced that it wants all students with a 75 percent average to have access to university. However, by the time 2010 rolls around, tuition fees will be out of reach for the majority of B.C. students. The government says it's funding the 25,000 spaces to the full amount that is needed to build those spaces. You know what? Experts in the field say that the government is short on funding them by some 56 percent. You know what? Based on this government's record, if you ask me whose numbers I am going to trust, let me tell you, it's not going to be what this minister says or this government says. Their track record to date has been anything but matching the realities of what communities are faced with and what they say to be factual and truthful.

The Solicitor General states: "I think students in our post-secondary institutions have got to wake up and smell the roses." He says the tuition is not that bad.

The Chair: Member, I've asked you to move on to a new subject, and you continue to disregard the Chair. I would ask you now to move on to another subject again, for the last time.

J. Kwan: Well, thank you, Mr. Chair, for your guidance. I'm just responding to the minister with respect to her comments.

The Chair: Yes, and you had your opportunity to respond, so now move on. Thank you.

Such is the rule of the House. I'm not able to bring up the issue around tuition fees anymore. Such is the rule of the House.

Let me ask this minister this question, then. Okanagan University College will be transformed into two separate institutions — a new University of British Columbia, Okanagan, and Okanagan College. This government estimates that by 2009 and 2010, the number of student spaces in the region will increase by 5,500 to 12,010. UBC Okanagan will accommodate 7,500 FTEs, and Okanagan College will accommodate 4,600 FTEs. The full transition plan is for September 2005. However, there has been a real lack of consultation about this development. Students, residents and faculty and a lot of people are concerned about losing regional control. I'd like the minister to tell this House who sits on the Premier's B.C. Progress Board.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm actually not certain of all the members of the Progress Board. I'd be happy to get them. It's not something that falls under the mandate of my ministry.

Hon. S. Bond: I'm happy to confirm that. It is on the website obviously. Martha Piper was a member and may still be. I'm not certain about that, but she certainly has been a member of the Progress Board.

J. Kwan: Is it not the case that it's the Progress Board who initiated the idea of making the OUC into a UBC satellite campus?

Hon. S. Bond: Again, we'll certainly be happy to confirm the language of the exact recommendations or suggestions made, as the education group that is part of the Progress Board looked at. We believe the language said something to this effect — that government consider expanding the mandate of an existing provincial institution or, secondly, establishing a stand-alone institution.

It's important to point out that one of the jobs of the Progress Board is to look around the province and determine the kinds of thing that help make British Columbia a better place. If we look at the statistics around the interior of the province, one of the places that's been most underserved in terms of the number of seats for capacity for students certainly was the interior of British Columbia. On any of the changes that we made, we looked very carefully at demographics and, most importantly, the needs of students.

J. Kwan: In a letter to the Kelowna Daily Courier dated March 11, 2004, the minister stated: "The B.C. Progress Board released a report that suggested either expanding the mandate of OUC or expanding the mandate of an existing university to the Okanagan."

It so happens that Martha Piper was also on this board, which made this recommendation. Does the minister know whether or not Ms. Piper also was involved in making this report and this recommendation to the minister?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, let's clear this one off the record so my staff doesn't have to do extra work. This comes right off the Progress Board website. The chair is David Black; past chair, David Emerson; Lawrence

Bates; Alex Campbell; Herman Driediger; Norman Keevil; Eva Lee Kwok; Jill Leversage; Jeff Mallett; Gerry Martin; Jim Pattison; Martha Piper; Jeet Sandhu; Carol Seable; Ken Shields; Mark Shuparski; Brian Surerus; and Doug Whitehead.

Dr. Piper was a member of the educational component. I don't know how the Progress Board is broken down, but certainly there was an educational group that provided suggestions and did a number of things for the Progress Board, and Dr. Piper was a member of that group.

J. Kwan: Does the minister see this as a conflict of interest? Here you have the president of the University of British Columbia who sits on the Progress Board, who makes a recommendation to the government that suggests expanding the mandate of the OUC or extending the mandate of an existing university to the Okanagan — the very same board that made that recommendation turning the OUC into a satellite campus of UBC.

Hon. S. Bond: As minister — and I'm surprised the member opposite wouldn't recognize this — we hear recommendations and suggestions about how to make things better and how to do things differently in this province all the time. Let me make one thing perfectly clear. The decision to look at a model such as we're using in the Okanagan was made by this government after a lot of serious thought about what's best for students in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: The Progress Board along with a number of people, including a significant group of people in the interior, have been indicating for a long time, actually, the need to deal with the post-secondary circumstances in the interior of the province. I hear recommendations and suggestions from outstanding educators on a daily basis. The recommendation was that something needed to be done and that there were several models for doing it. At the end of the day, as I said clearly, this was government's decision.

J. Kwan: The minister herself made a statement to the Kelowna Daily Courier, which said, "The B.C. Progress Board released a report that suggested either expanding the mandate of OUC or expanding the mandate of an existing university to the Okanagan," dated March 11, 2004. The Progress Board made the recommendation to actually have the OUC turn into a satellite campus of UBC. We have the president of UBC sitting on the very same Progress Board that made that recommendation to the government, which the government had implemented.

My question to the minister is: did she look into the issue of conflict? When I asked a question earlier, she catcalled me and said that's ridiculous. Is it ridiculous on the issue around whether or not a conflict exists? I don't think so. I think it is fair for British Columbians to find out whether or not there exists a conflict on this question. Why doesn't the minister just answer the question?

Hon. S. Bond: We receive recommendations from a number of sources all the time. As the member opposite so ably read into the record, there were two models that were being considered. In fact, what it said was: should we have OUC maintain a stand-alone status? It had nothing to do with linking it with another post-secondary institution.

Secondly, it was: should we consider an existing institution, looking at the possibility of that being a campus that would be a second campus? A group of people at the Progress Board identified that as a possible option. That's not conflict of interest. It's providing a series of recommendations. That model has been discussed across North America. As a matter of fact, the University of California would be one that comes to mind in terms of where that option was considered.

J. Kwan: The minister said that's not conflict of interest. Where does she get that advice from? Is that legal advice?

Hon. S. Bond: It could have been Simon Fraser University. It could have been the University of Victoria. It could have been the University of Northern British Columbia. We were looking at a model which has actually been exemplary in North America. The University of California comes to mind. What do we have today? We have two institutions in the interior of the province that are going to meet the needs of students and, in fact, in one of the most underserved areas in the province in terms of seat capacity. That's great news for students, and I'm incredibly disappointed that the member opposite doesn't actually care about the families and students in that part of the world who are going to have extraordinary benefits as a result of this decision.

J. Kwan: You know, this minister likes to claim that they consult. They like to claim they consider all sorts of recommendations from all sorts of people. But you know what? The people from that community said that this government did not consult them. Students weren't consulted. The faculty — were they consulted? People from the community didn't know what the process was with respect to this. Nobody in the community knew until the government made the announcement. In fact, city councillors from the community wrote to the government to complain about it.

I don't think it is an illegitimate question for me to put to the minister. It just so happens the Progress Board that made this recommendation that this government implemented consists of the president of UBC. It just so happens that the OUC was converted into a satellite campus of UBC — no coincidence there. It does raise the question, if nothing else on the issue around

perception: what is being done? If the government actually had not been secretive about this process…. That may be one thing. That might explain for people in British Columbia what the intent of the government was and how they arrived at this decision. But no, the government did not follow a process of openness and transparency with respect to this action. The government actually did this in secret, and the community did not know what was going on.

Let me just put on record parts of a letter that was written from a city councillor of Penticton to the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection:

Part of the government's heartlands strategy is to allow the development of institutions that are regionally based. Can the minister explain why the government decided to turn OUC into a satellite campus of UBC instead of working to develop OUC status to a full university?

Hon. S. Bond: Boy, I love talking about this. At the end of the day, it is such a great-news story. Let me give you…. We'll trade one. Although I have dozens here, I'm trying to pick which ones to read here.

The letter goes on to thank a number of other people, including the MLAs who worked very hard on that project.

Let me just give one other example from a letter, because I think this would be great to get on the record and may be appropriate at this moment: "It's time to jump off the doom-and-gloom bandwagon and embrace the good news which will make winners out of our students and contribute to the positive future they will bring to our communities here in the Okanagan."

The reason we chose the model we did is because we believe colleges play a vital role in British Columbia. In fact, we think the students that attend the college in the interior will now, as a matter of fact…. I'll get the stats for you; I can't remember the size of it in terms of the largest outside the lower mainland, in the province.

The University of British Columbia brings national and international credibility instantly as a world-class university. Over the last number of years UBC attracted $377 million of research awards — in 2002-03. When we looked…. And we did look. We took the two models. We looked at the two opportunities. We looked at what was best for students. In fact, we found that by using the approach we took, we would not only be able to add a significant number of seats, but we could see incredible increases to research.

The economic impact for the interior of the province is phenomenal. More than 500 new jobs will be created at UBC Okanagan and Okanagan College by 2009. The estimated economic impact, much less the educational benefits, will be in excess of $300 million. The estimated economic impact of UBC Okanagan and the expansion of Okanagan College is $300 million. This is just a fabulous and great news story for the students of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: If it's such fabulous news as the minister claims it is, why did the minister preclude the OUC student association president, who stated at a CBC radio interview on March 17, 2003, that students at the OUC were not consulted on this major development and that they were not even invited to the press conference where the Premier made the announcement?

Can the minister tell me: why was the president of the OUC student association not allowed to be part of this wonderful announcement that the government made?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's look at the chronology of consultation, just so we can get this on the record. In February we met with the Okanagan mayors. We also met with the Okanagan University College board. We met

with community leaders and the U-2000 members. As a matter of fact, we met with the OUC and CFS student representatives in February of 2004. The Okanagan MLAs had ongoing consultation with their communities. U-2000 has been having this discussion for years in the interior of the province. In fact, the student president that you mentioned was actually invited and participated in a dialogue that I attended, as well as the Premier of the province.

J. Kwan: The minister still didn't answer my question. The president of the student association was prevented from going to the announcement. Why?

Hon. S. Bond: There were students involved in the announcement. That student was actually in attendance in the building. There certainly was not an attempt to prevent anyone…. The room was packed with people. Actually, it exceeded our expectations. The room was full. That particular student, as I suggested, had the opportunity to present their views and the views of their students in a meeting with the Premier in February.

J. Kwan: It's interesting because the president actually said that they were not consulted on this issue. In fact, they were not invited to the press conference, and they couldn't get to the press conference. I'm sure that maybe the minister actually had a student there, but it's kind of funny. If it's as wonderful as the minister claims it to be, why wouldn't the government be open and accountable? Why wouldn't the government want the president of the student association there at this press conference? Why wouldn't the government answer the issues that have been raised by the councillor from Penticton who has written to the MLA on the issue? Why wouldn't the government just brush past all of this?

It is inaccurate, let me just say, for the government to suggest that for the first time ever students in Kamloops and the Thompson-Cariboo will be able to get a full university degree without leaving home. UCC has been offering independent degrees since 1995, and before that it was offering degrees in conjunction with the universities. Students could complete degrees in Kamloops without having to come to the lower mainland and have been able to do so for well over a decade now.

You know what? If you ask students what they think about this move, here are some of the comments. The Kwantlen University College student association and a former policy analyst for the UBC Alma Mater Society told the Georgia Strait: "Other colleges and university colleges should be worried about being gobbled up. The victim will be the diversity of education." [Laughter.]

Maybe members think that's funny — that these students and individuals have no role to play with respect to their thoughts and opinions about this. If the government were open and accountable, the government would have included these folks in the consultation process. The government would not have done this in secrecy. The government would not have tried to hide the issue until the announcement.

A former professor at Okanagan University College said he was shocked at the announcement, and he called it a travesty. He said that the UBC model could provide some academic benefits, but he isn't convinced it will meet all of the Okanagan's needs, and he worries that it may affect the ability of students to transfer between the college and the university. Jim McGillivray, a former professor at Okanagan University College: "I am shocked and appalled." The OUC president, Katy Bindon — her future, of course, is now…. Well, there's only one president that would be required.

The new UBC Okanagan will have an independent senate. It will be controlled by the UBC board of governors. There's been speculation that some seats on the UBC board of governors will be opened to the Okanagan. Can the minister tell me how many seats on the UBC board of governors will be opened up for the Okanagan?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, let's just get a couple of things cleared away here. In terms of the good news and the fact that it's secret, I'm actually surprised because…. You know what? This part of the province has actually been asking for a freestanding institution for a lot longer than I've been sitting in government.

One of the letters actually responds to that in terms of one that was written and that hasn't been read out yet. "The government responded creatively and thoughtfully to the broad-based, grassroots call for a full-status university and significantly greater funding for advanced education for the Okanagan." How in the world could that be interpreted as anything but great news?

Now let's talk about the role that the people who live in the interior will have in terms of the institutions they now have — two of them — that will be outstanding. First of all, there are two advisory councils that have been created. One will work with UBC Okanagan. That advisory board, plus one that will be set up on the college side, will see representation across a broad spectrum. As a matter of fact, we're looking at regional representation. We're looking at making sure there are two students on each of those advisory boards. So in fact, there will be two governing bodies looking after two institutions that will be completely made up of people who actually live and work in the interior.

Secondly, in terms of the member's specific question about the UBC board…. And we need to make one thing perfectly clear. An independent senate is an independent senate. That senate will actually determine the shape of the programs, the opportunities and things like what GPA is required. All of the entrance requirements will be based on what's important for the people of the Okanagan. It's independent. We say it's independent because that's what it is.

The Vancouver campus of UBC will be governed by a senate of its own. So the people of the Okanagan, for the first time in a freestanding institution of this type, will have an independent senate. In terms of the

UBC board, we currently have one member representing the Okanagan on the UBC board. My staff is currently working through the process issues required to be taken care of so that we can add additional members to the UBC board that will represent UBC Okanagan.

J. Kwan: The point that was made by the councillor from Penticton is exactly that. Yes, the community had been advocating for a long time for the OUC to be a full university, but they never thought that in the process they would actually become part of another campus. They never thought that the OUC would actually become an off-site campus of UBC. That is the Penticton councillor, people from the community who had something to say about this….

J. Kwan: Maybe the Solicitor General would actually know better than the councillor from Penticton. Maybe he knows all of the answers.

J. Kwan: He goes: "Oh yeah, I do." It is his hometown. Funny how people who still live in Penticton actually take issue with the government's process, take issue with the government's decision.

J. Kwan: Oh, it's a councillor in the city of Penticton who raised the issue, and immediately the Solicitor General, without even knowing who the source is and who raised the issue says: "Oh well, it's an NDP mayor who made the issue." No, it isn't, Mr. Chair.

The student association, who live in that community, are saying that this government did not consult them. They didn't even have the courtesy from this government for them to be invited to this press announcement that was supposed to be such good news for the community. If it was such good news for the community, why didn't the government invite the people who actually live in that community and allow them to have access to go to this press conference? What was the government afraid of — the real voices of the people? Is that what the government is afraid of? Why weren't they allowed to go to the press conference? It is absolutely outrageous.

J. Kwan: It is absolutely outrageous from the Solicitor General, who is catcalling me as we engage in this debate, Mr. Chair. It is absolutely outrageous, and it is pathetic, to say the least.

The minister says that the board of governors is independent. Let us just keep in mind that it is the government who appoints the board of governors at UBC. The minister says that the Okanagan will have seats on the board of governors. How many seats will they have?

Hon. S. Bond: As I suggested in the earlier answer, it actually requires a legislative change so that we can be inclusive and make sure that the Okanagan is well represented. We are working on the details of that, and I hope to be able to deal with that very shortly. Having said that, we do have two advisory councils already up and running. Institutions are travelling throughout the entire region, talking to students and their families.

Let's just talk about someone else from Penticton, a resident who actually wrote, and the headline says: "UBC Okanagan Positive Move." Let's start here.

Mr. Chair, how in the world can the member opposite find some sort of doom-and-gloom story when we're creating jobs? We're adding to the economy. We're adding thousands of seats to the post-secondary education system in an area that has been underrepresented for years.

J. Kwan: I think this actually highlights the problem with this government. They fail to listen, they fail to listen to what is at issue, they fail to consult openly with the public, and they fail to be open and accountable. This example is exactly that.

The minister just got up and said: "Hey, this is great. This is wonderful. This is exactly what should happen in the Okanagan." This is the thing that the government has been wanting to do — it should have been done, she says — for decades in the Okanagan. Yet if the government believes truly that this is good for the Okanagan, then they should have nothing to hide. They should have an open process that allows for the community to participate. They should have a process where, prior to the announcement being made,

they let the community know what the plans are so they can provide their input. But no, that isn't the process the minister followed. Even when the announcement was made, key people in the community didn't even get the courtesy to be invited to the press announcement. Why is that? One has to wonder what the government is trying to hide. Why did they engage in that process?

The minister says: "Give me some more letters that I can put on the record to say how great this is." You know what? I have a binder full of letters from people who raise concerns. More particularly, I want to raise the issue around process. It should have been up to the community to decide which way it should have gone. It should have been up to the community to decide and to be at the decision-making table every step of the way, and that isn't what happened here. The process this government had engaged in is anything but open and accountable. It's anything but consultative.

The minister didn't answer the question. She only said: "Yeah, perhaps the legislation will be tabled with respect to the amendment of the UBC board of governors." But the question is this: is the minister planning on ensuring that at least 50 percent of the board of governors would be from the Okanagan district? After all, this is a partnership. UBC campus took over the Okanagan University College. It's now called UBC Okanagan. If it's meant to be shared partnership and to ensure that the region has a voice, what will the makeup of the UBC board of governors now look like?

Hon. S. Bond: For the third and final time, I give notice that I've answered this question. I actually answered the question, and I'm happy to do it one more time. We are in the process of making the required process changes. There is legislation in place, in fact, that stipulates the size of the board. We are working on those changes. We are looking at significant representation from the Okanagan. In addition to the UBC board, the great news is that we have two advisory councils made up of a minimum of 15 people each, which actually means that 30 residents, including four students, will have direct impact and the ability to provide advice on the shaping of these institutions.

Let me go back just one more time for the record. Why is it that this strategic investment plan is so great for the Okanagan? Let's talk about UBC Okanagan — 4,500 new full-time-equivalent student spaces from 2004 to 2009-10, $45 million incremental operating costs from 2004 to 2009-10, and $116 million in capital to accommodate the student FTE growth. UBC will also use its own resources to fund research infrastructure costs.

Let's talk about Okanagan College, because the college is as important to us. One of the issues we dealt with most often was: "What are you going to do at our local campus?" In fact, we're hoping to enhance service to students on those particular campuses — 1,000 new FTE spaces from 2004-09, $7.4 million incremental operating costs from 2004-09 and $20 million in capital to accommodate student FTE growth.

For the record, the people of the Okanagan have been asking for their needs to be addressed for years and years. The good news is, when the member opposite suggests that we haven't paid attention…. In fact, we listened to the people of the Okanagan in ways that were creative and exciting, which are going to add 500 jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic investment.

Not to mention that we've spent days canvassing student financial assistance and the concerns for families and students, and that is something we should spend time on. For every student that can stay in their hometown or closer to where they live, the average savings will be $6,000 a year in their post-secondary education costs. That's important too. So in terms of the investments for the Okanagan, this government is proud of that particular announcement of that particular plan, and I'm excited to see what the future holds for the Okanagan.

J. Kwan: Well, I'm sure this question will become tedious. You know what? It's tedious for me to have to ask the question of the minister over and over again and for her not to provide the answer. I asked a specific question of how many members will be on the new board for the UBC board of governors. The minister did not answer the question. She did not answer the question. Where is the certainty for the Okanagan community that they would actually be governed regionally when the government won't even give them that basic answer on this transition?

I'm sure the minister will say: "For the last time, I'm giving the member the answer." For the last time, let me just be clear that the minister did not answer the question, like many of the questions that I put to ministers during the estimates process. They just ignore the question and go on to talk about what they want to talk about, and then they pretend that somehow they answered the question.

There is no certainty based on the minister's answer to date that the Okanagan community would actually have regional governance of their university. There is no certainty. The minister says: "Well, there's an advisory board." We know that advisory boards do exist, but we also know that the people who ultimately make the final decisions do not rest with the advisory boards. They do not.

You know what? For this minister and this government to talk about consultation, what a laugh that is. What a laugh that is when the community at large is saying that the process was a lousy process. There were a lot of Okanagan communities left out, Mr. Chair. This is a direct quote from the Vernon city councillor Jim MacGillivray, who is now saying that. "There were no consultations with representatives of students, faculty and staff. In fact, all these groups were excluded from the announcement." The president of the BCGEU, George Heyman, made that comment.

The minister laughs as though somehow George Heyman is not legitimate within this context of saying

that faculty members who are part of the BCGEU don't have the right to a say, to be involved in this process — that they were excluded from the announcement. There's openness. There's accountability. There's consultation from this government — what a joke.

When people say that it's a lousy process, the minister says: "Oh well, we know all the answers. We know it's the right thing to do." To date, she has given no reassurance whatsoever to the Okanagan community that the university will be governed regionally. She's given no reassurance whatsoever on what the makeup of the board would look like.

The Premier announced that students planning on taking applied and college-oriented programs through the Okanagan University College in September 2004 will see a $1,000 reduction in their tuition. The minister stated — and she stated in this House just now — that the government has no ability to impact trends for tuitions, that the government does not play that role, that it is up to the institutions to decide, but yet the government announced a tuition cut. They were able to do that for the Okanagan University. Why couldn't they do that for any other university or college across British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, Mr. Chair, we spent half an hour reading tuition fees into the record. College tuition fees are actually at a particular level, and university tuition fees are at a different level. When you separate two institutions, just think: we have a college, and we have a university. We didn't want to disadvantage our college students in terms of the incentive that they have for going to a college. So in effect, the decision was made to be reasonable and rational as we looked at the two institutions that were being created.

You know, Mr. Chair, I just have to say it's unbelievable that we're having this discussion in the sense that this is great news for the students of British Columbia, not just for the Okanagan but for the Kootenays because, in fact, those students may choose to be closer to their families.

Let me just read a letter. This just came to us a few minutes ago. It's important, because I also want to remind people that as they read the record of this discussion, they read both sides of this discussion. Let me just remind the member opposite of our consultations one more time: the Okanagan mayors, February 23; Okanagan University College board, February; community leaders and U-2000 members, February; OUC CFS student representatives, February 2004; Okanagan MLAs, ongoing consultation with their communities.

These groups were presented with three options: status quo, OUC becoming a full-status university or the UBC Okanagan initiative. In fact, they were given all of the models, all of the opportunities to have a look at that before government — and I take responsibility for that — made the final decision.

But let's look at another aspect. Let me read this from a professor emeritus from OUC:

In fact, the people of the Okanagan wanted a freestanding university. This government responded.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just say this. It is funny when the minister insists that they have consulted when the community members are coming forward to say that no, they haven't. Maybe it's funny. Maybe the minister thinks that consultation is however they do it, but you know what? Community members who are active in their own community, like city councillors, are saying that they have not been consulted. The president of the student association says that they have not been consulted. The minister insists that they have been. Well, you know what? Based on this government's record on their word, I would trust the president of the university association any day over this government's word — based on trust alone and based on their record to date.

The government says: "Well, hey, everything will just be fine, because we've done this thing, and it is wonderful." But community members have concerns. Here we have students at the Okanagan university who are concerned because they feel that the government's not answering the questions that they have regarding the transition and how their education will be impacted by the transformation of OUC into two separate institutions. For instance, one student said: "What will happen to the degrees of students who are graduating from OUC this year, given that it will soon be a defunct institution?"

Hon. S. Bond: In the meeting that we had — which included the Premier, I might add — where student representatives were there, they actually provided us with a list of questions. You should know that my staff worked really hard to respond to those particular stu-

dent representatives who met. It's amazing to me. I actually was at the meeting where student representatives met with myself and the Premier and a number of other people. That meeting took place. In fact, students brought a list of questions, and the Premier urged us to make sure that we answered those questions.

That's going on every day, as well, as we meet with students, because we are concerned that the transition be done as smoothly as possible. Both the representative from the college side and the University of British Columbia have attended countless sessions throughout the entire region, including places like…. These are on schedules that will be coming up. If they haven't been held yet, they will be within the next few weeks. They are meeting regularly with student groups. They are looking at how we can best transition for these students.

In terms of the question around the degree, obviously Okanagan University College remains Okanagan University College until the official transition takes place in 2005. They will receive a degree from Okanagan University College. As of 2005 those students that are enrolled will receive a degree from the University of British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Will the same small class size at the OUC remain after this transformation?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, this is an incredibly aggressive adding of seats to the system, so we're challenged by providing the capital space we need to actually put students in classes. That's why it's a phased-in increase in the number of seats.

The fabulous news here is that UBC Kelowna has an independent senate. It's the senate that actually shapes programming and looks at what's in the best interests of students. Quite frankly, the educators who are going to teach those students will look at class size at UBC Kelowna and at the college, just like they do at every other institution in this province.

J. Kwan: The minister didn't answer the question. The question is: will the same small class size at OUC be available after the transition?

Hon. S. Bond: Educators make decisions every single day about class size. Some of those class sizes will remain small; some of them will be larger. I would like to suggest that if you're a student at the University of British Columbia and you have a great professor who teaches you, you can have a certain number of people in that class.

I don't know what the maximum number should be. Educators around this province decide every day what the best format is, what the best number of students in a classroom will be. That will be exactly the same at UBC Kelowna as it is at every other university.

J. Kwan: Educators should have the right to decide what the class size should be, with the exception that this government, under Bill 19, brought forward legislation that whacked the education system and the K-to-12 system with respect to class size, independent of court decisions. That's what this government has done, never mind what educators have to say, unlike what this minister claims now — that they would actually value the word of educators.

Well, what nonsense we have seen today. In the K-to-12 system the government has just ignored educators' words. Now all of a sudden…

The Chair: Member, I want to remind you we're dealing with the Minister of Advanced Education, and not the Minister of Education.

J. Kwan: Well, the example, Mr. Chair, that I brought up is to compare the words of this minister just now. She says she values educators' determinations with respect to class size. We've seen it in other systems across the province in education, where the government does not value the word of educators on exactly the same issue: class size.

Ask me again: who do you trust? Well, let me see. Based on the government's track record, they're not holding very well with respect to that. On the issue around the expertise of educators around class size, what has the government done? The government certainly has not put the word and the expertise of educators forward in the K-to-12 system. They just brought in Bill 19 to impose class size.

The minister says basically she doesn't know the answer to this question, so we'll have to wait and see. I'll tell you that when I travelled up north and to other communities in the Okanagan community, students said to me that one of the things they value about their college is the size and the way in which things operate in that college. Will things change? Will class size change? It remains to be seen. Nobody knows the answer, and the minister's not prepared to give that information and reaffirmation about class sizes to the OUC students and community.

What about the nursing and education programs that the OUC has? They are now different from UBC's. What will happen with that?

Hon. S. Bond: As you can imagine, this is a significant transition in post-secondary education in the province. It's a significant change in model. There are two nursing programs. We have an excellent transition team in place. UBC has actually placed several staff people on site. One of the issues they are working out at this point in time is how those programs will transition.

In fact, the great news here is that we're going to be working on how to move this transition forward in light of a huge expansion. We're not looking at remov-

ing opportunities for students. There are two nursing programs. There are also education programs we have to work out. Right now transition teams are working out the details of how those programs will move forward.

J. Kwan: Well, there's another piece of unknown that the people in the community won't know in terms of how that will take place, what that transition's going to look like and, at the end of the day, what those programs will look like. What about students?

These questions, by the way, are questions from the students themselves that the minister claims she's answered. They're questions from the students, Mr. Chair.

Will students be able to enjoy the same services that UBC students enjoy in Vancouver, given that they'll be paying the same fees as students in Vancouver?

Hon. S. Bond: I simply can't say the services that students receive at UBC Kelowna will be identically the same as they are at UBC Vancouver. We wouldn't want to. The needs of students are different around the province. Part of the issue that the member opposite has been bringing up is local governance. In fact, that's why we have advisory councils in place to talk to us about how students are best served at UBC Kelowna. This is an institution all its own, and we want to shape it and create it to meet the needs of students in the Okanagan.

I'm not going to suggest that these services will be identical. In fact, UBC is working extraordinarily hard with students as we speak. They have a series, as I suggested, of discussions within communities. The list includes Kelowna, Vernon, Penticton, Salmon Arm, Revelstoke and Oliver, and possibly Summerland as well. We're looking at a whole number of meetings where people can come and speak to both UBC and the college leadership side to have those kinds of questions answered. Are they going to be carbon copies of one another? Absolutely not. That's not what the people in the Okanagan asked for.

J. Kwan: I'm asking a question on the issue of value for money. Okanagan students will be expected to pay the same fee as UBC students, but will they receive the same value for money — the same kinds of services that one pays for in the lower mainland — in the Okanagan? That should be a simple question for the minister — yes or no. Will people get the same value for the money that they pay, for the same fees that they pay, in terms of services in return?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, there is another answer. The answer is that they're actually going to get value-added, because they get to stay closer to home to get an institution that is thirty-fifth in the entire world in terms of a world-class institution. Will they get value? Absolutely. Our hope is that additionally, they and their families are going to save about $6,000 a year because they can stay closer to home. I call that value-added.

J. Kwan: The minister is purposely mixing apples and oranges. The question to the minister is this: where students in the Okanagan are paying the same fee as UBC students in the lower mainland, would they get the same value for money for the fee they pay for the services they should expect? A simple yes or no would do from the minister. But no, she decides to mix oranges and apples with respect to that. Students have the right to know. If they're paying the same fee as a student in the lower mainland, will they get the same services for the amount of money they pay in the Okanagan — value for money?

Hon. S. Bond: That's a different question, but the answer to the question is this, and here is the answer for the last time. Students in the Okanagan will get the opportunity to have a world-class education. Will the services be exactly the same as they are at UBC Vancouver? I don't know the answer to that question because they are two different institutions and their needs and services will be shaped by advisory councils and by meeting the needs of people who live in the Okanagan. Will they receive top value? Absolutely.

J. Kwan: The minister, just by her statement, has undermined the Okanagan University College in its historical contributions to our community. She just said that the community now has an opportunity to get a world-class education, as though somehow before this move they didn't. That's absolutely offensive to the students in those communities who are graduating from the OUC.

I would venture to say that they have a world-class education and that the degrees they earn from the OUC this year and in previous years are just as valid as any other degree from any other university or college. For the minister to suggest that now they have the opportunity to have a world-class education is nothing short of offensive for the students who earned their degrees through the OUC previously and who will be graduating this year, prior to the transition. It is outrageous — what the minister just said.

The minister would not confirm that the students who are actually paying the same amount of money at UBC will get the same value of services for the amount of money they will pay in tuition fees. The minister would not confirm how many members will be added to the board of governors of UBC that will actually be from the Okanagan community, as an example, to ensure that regional services and a regional voice are there equal to that of the lower mainland counterpart.

Why wouldn't the minister give those answers? Because the minister hadn't planned out all of this work and hadn't done her homework prior to the announcement. Once again we have a situation here where the government makes these announcements, and then they tell the community: "Don't worry. Everything will be fine." Yet they don't know what it's all going to look like. They don't do the consultation prior to all of this so that the community can have a look-see

at exactly what the government is planning and then have a voice in that process — to say what they do like, what they don't like or what direction it should go. The minister has failed on that account. The government, I may add, has failed on that account on a number of its portfolio areas.

Let me now turn to another university, another campus. On March 5, 2004, the government announced that it is investing $70 million in a new SFU campus in Surrey that will provide 3,000 new spaces for students by 2010. This is the very same location that the previous administration was developing as a technical university until 2001. When the Liberals took over in 2001, in order to cut costs, they closed Tech B.C. and shelled out $41 million to end the lease. They now have bought it back again to use as the new SFU campus for $70 million.

Can the minister explain why her government shelled out $41 million to get out of the lease for the Surrey Central City campus and now has bought it back again for an estimated $70 million?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Chair, I hope you will permit me one foray back for just one moment. What's absolutely unbelievable to me is the amount of time we have spent debating what is amazingly good news for the students of the Okanagan. I'd like the member opposite at some point to let me know which one of these things she's not interested in seeing the people of the Okanagan have — 4,500 new full-time student spaces, $45 million in incremental operating costs, $116 million in capital to accommodate that, 1,000 new seats at the college, $7.4 million in incremental operating costs or $20 million in capital. This is all part of a strategic investment plan in this province that other provinces are looking at because it is one of the most aggressive agendas in post-secondary education in decades. I'm not sure which part of that the member opposite would like to say to students: "No, sorry. We don't like that idea." We responded to the people of the Okanagan in a way that was creative and innovative and is going to be just the beginning of enormous potential.

I guess what's disappointing is…. I certainly am actually very uncomfortable with the comments made about Okanagan University College. We have said clearly that it has been an outstanding institution in the province. It has great faculty. We hope and are confident that most of them will find places in the two institutions we're creating. For the member opposite to suggest that I would express such disrespect is absolutely unbelievable. In fact, the strategic plan this government has in place talks about 25,000 new seats to post-secondary education, and that is absolutely necessary.

Let's talk a little bit about the Surrey SFU campus and the news that was unveiled there. I'm actually really surprised that the member opposite even brought this question up, because on March 10, 2000, when the member opposite was in government, Tech B.C. signed a 25-year, $127 million lease to purchase unfinished space in the Insurance Corporation of B.C.'s Surrey Central City development, close to its temporary home at that time. However, Tech B.C.'s operating costs were so much higher than anticipated — as a matter of fact, almost $20 million a year — and projected numbers of students simply did not materialize. In other words, the previous government purchased an incredible…. It's an absolutely stunningly beautiful building. I want to get that on the record before I'm accused of being disrespectful about that. But the previous government created an absolute nightmare in terms of the campus and the costs associated with it. Literally hundreds of students did not materialize, and this government took a creative approach to saying: "All right, we need to sort this mess out."

As a result, our ministry decided to wind down and ask SFU to look after Tech B.C. so that we could protect those students who placed their future hope in Tech B.C. Part of that process was terminating the lease for the space in Surrey Central City. In essence, we did negotiate with ICBC concerning that lease, but with the other savings we generated, we actually saved $44.5 million. Yes, there was the write-off, but today the fabulous news is that we're actually going to see incredible increases of space in one of the fastest-growing areas in the province — again, underserved and absolute capacity increases. Let's make no mistake about this. We dealt as quickly as we could with taking care of student needs and cleaning up a mess that was created long before we got here.

J. Kwan: I'll turn to the comments about the Surrey campus in a moment. Let me just put this on the record. The minister just accused me of being disrespectful to the OUC. No. Hansard will show that it's this minister who made the comment that OUC and people in the Okanagan will now be able to get a world-class education with this transition. It's the minister who made that comment, and the record from Hansard will show that.

It goes to show the lack of understanding of this government and the OUC. In the government's own press release dated March 19, 2004: "For the first time ever, students in Kamloops and the Thompson-Cariboo will be able to get a full university degree without leaving home." This quote is from the Premier.

Well, guess what. The UCC has been offering independent degrees since 1995, and before that, it was offering degrees in conjunction with universities. Students could complete degrees in Kamloops without having to come to the lower mainland and have been able to do so for well over a decade now.

Let me put on the record this letter from a community member in Kelowna. From Stan Chung:

These are some of the issues community members are raising with this transition. The government has not provided the information to the public. The government, in spite of their claim of consultation, is not consulting properly with the community. By the government's own press release, it shows their lack of understanding with respect to what is being offered in the OUC and UCC.

Let me now turn to the comments made by the minister about the Surrey campus. You know, this Liberal government, once they formed office, railed up and down and said that the Tech B.C. campus out in Surrey was unnecessary and that it was a waste of taxpayers' money. Afterwards the government, in fact, went as far as to go and buy out the space — to get rid of it, so to speak. Now the government turns around and says: "Oh, wait a minute. We actually do need the space for advanced education after all."

The Finance minister was withering in his scorn of the two NDP–inspired ventures. "No cost was spared," he fumed. "The only difference between this and the fast ferries is that this one doesn't move," he said, which is where everything stood in late spring of 2002.

Jump ahead to Friday and the announcement by the Premier that Surrey Central has been selected as an expansion site for Simon Fraser University. Yes, the same monument to the incompetence of the last government — that same old fast ferry that doesn't move — was the right location for a new Surrey campus after all. Still, it looks to me like taxpayers are buying that space twice, once under the New Democrats and now under the B.C. Liberal government.

The government said in 2002: "We didn't need that campus. That was a big white elephant. We should get rid of it." Now what does the government do? They turn around and buy back that campus space for the community. After all, a university is needed in Surrey. How about that?

The space of the new Surrey campus was already in possession of the government when they came to power. Yet they sold it, and now they have re-bought it. The taxpayers foot the bill twice — under this government, under their strategic planning, under their good management. That's what the government has done. The government spent $70 million buying a space that we already owned. There's good management for you.

The issue as I've outlined…. The government bought a space twice that was owned by British Columbians, and British Columbians had to foot the bill from this government — $70 million buying a space that this government said we didn't need.

Let me now turn to the privatization of the Knowledge Network. In a September 2003 news release, the government announced that it was ending its contribution of $5.1 million per year to the Knowledge Network. In that news release the government also announced that it was seeking a partnership with the private sector to take over the Knowledge Network.

This decision did not have the support of the majority of British Columbians. An Ipsos-Reid poll actually conducted March 2 to March 8 found that out of 800 B.C. residents surveyed, 69 percent of the respondents opposed selling the Knowledge Network to a private company. Given that 69 percent of British Columbians surveyed in the Ipsos-Reid poll are against the privatization of the Knowledge Network, is the minister reviewing the decision to sell off this public broadcaster asset?

Hon. S. Bond: We're actually not privatizing or selling off the Knowledge Network. We've gone

through an extensive process, which I'm sure the member opposite is aware of. We're actually looking for partners who can bring back some innovative ideas in terms of how to run what we consider the province's educational broadcaster. In fact, we're not selling it off.

We actually said, I think, in my initial comments that it could be a public-public partnership; it could be a public-private partnership. In essence, we've said that educational television isn't necessarily run best in the hands of government all by itself. So we're out there, and we have a process in place that will see innovative, creative people tell us how best to serve the province in educational television.

J. Kwan: It's sort of like the Minister of Transportation who continuously insists that B.C. Rail has not been sold. It has only been leased for 990 years. That is all. "We haven't sold B.C. Rail," the Minister of Transportation says.

Now we have the Minister of Advanced Education saying: "Oh no, we're not privatizing the Knowledge Network. No, no." But this is what the government's requests for expressions of interest say regarding the Knowledge Network: "While the province may consider some involvement in the operation of the Knowledge Network service during a transition period, it is the intention of the provincial government to redirect its investment in the Knowledge Network to other education funding requirements." Not privatization, the minister says. Oh, really? We're just going to redirect its investment in the Knowledge Network to other education funding requirements. That is all. It is the intention of government to do exactly that. The minister says it's not privatization. By any other name, given the intention of this government, British Columbians know what it means. It is privatization, and 69 percent of British Columbians oppose that plan.

Can the minister tell this House why her government is planning to direct the $5.1 million annual contribution the government made to the Knowledge Network?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, in terms of partnership, we hold the CRTC licence. That's a significant part of the partnership. Yes, it would be our hope that over time we could transition some of those funds. And where would they go? They would go perhaps to student financial assistance, to the grant program, to adding new classes, to adding library resources — to just about everything we could possibly think of that would benefit students.

J. Kwan: The minister just owned up to the fact that they are intending to privatize the Knowledge Network. The minister did that just now as per their expressions of interest where they said they were going to move down that road.

The minister says, okay, they'll redirect the funds into grants and so on. The minister says that a new partnership will allow the Knowledge Network to revitalize educational programming, while at the same time redirecting educational funds to areas where it will best serve students' needs. Can the minister explain how the government came to the conclusion that the Knowledge Network was no longer serving the needs of its viewers?

Hon. S. Bond: There are a number of factors. If the member opposite knows the history of the Knowledge Network, when it began one of the points and major tasks of its mandate was to actually deliver courses. With the advent and development of on-line technology and Internet learning, for example, there has been a change in how distance education is delivered. Certainly, the use of television as a medium has diminished significantly.

We do believe in educational programming; we think it is important. But we also know that right now the Knowledge Network requires substantial upgrading of its production and broadcasting equipment to meet industry standards, and we certainly need to look at the new digital system that requires. There are significant dollars attached to that. So in fact as time changes and technology changes, so do the requirements and needs and use of the Knowledge Network.

I want to make it very clear that we are looking for a partner. The comment that I made was simply that obviously we would like to reduce funding as the transition takes place and that those dollars, if and when that took place, would be redirected to student support. That's been very clear in our mandate with this project from the very beginning.

J. Kwan: Let me just put on record, from the community, how they feel about the Knowledge Network. One community member wrote this letter to the Premier:

Then the letter goes on to talk about issues concerned about selling the Knowledge Network. That's one view from a community member to the Premier about the selling of Knowledge Network.

The minister says that with new mediums coming into play, Knowledge Network is no longer providing the kind of service that is needed by British Columbians necessarily. How did the minister come to that

determination? What work did the ministry do to decide that Knowledge Network is no longer as valuable as it was when it was brought in by the former government in 1981?

Hon. S. Bond: It is not that the Knowledge Network is not valuable. That's not what I said. What I said is — and let's summarize it — that the Knowledge Network was actually established in 1980 to deliver formal educational courses and curricula via television. That doesn't happen. It is virtually zero at the moment.

The mandate of the Knowledge Network has changed. It is not directly educational, and there is some…. I'm sure many of us are considered viewers as we watch specific programs on the Knowledge Network. So it is not that it is not valuable; it's that its mandate has changed. Educators and students are now preferring to use, in many cases, the Internet and on-line learning for distance education. We, of course, are trying to enhance that with the use of BCCampus, for example, which we also have discussed previous to this.

The role of Knowledge Network has shifted to one of providing more informal, lifelong learning, educational experiences. We looked and discovered that the mandate had changed and that the Knowledge Network's delivery of actually curriculum-based programming has declined to almost zero. Again, it also needs an infusion of dollars because it needs to be digitalized, and there are a number of technology improvements that need to be done. In fact, we're looking for a partner that will help, and not only that. We are looking for creative and innovative individuals who can take what is an important asset and look at how educational programming could better be delivered in the province.

Hon. S. Bond: The mandate itself didn't change. People changed; life changed. We got a lot more technological. In fact, my daughter can now take a course on the Internet, and she can do her homework in the middle of the night. So in fact, the mandate itself didn't change; the world around us changed. People's lifestyles and preferences also have been adjusted. The Knowledge Network provided valuable educational course provision earlier in previous years than it does now.

J. Kwan: As you normally compare to other stations that you receive, such as the one provided through Knowledge Network, what other station does the minister know that actually provides for no advertisements? What other programming actually does that?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't know the answer to that. I confess to not watching very much television at all. But in essence, from my perspective, the point is that with educational television in British Columbia, the viewers' needs in relationship to educational delivery of programs have changed. Our job is to always evaluate services that are provided in the province and look at how we can better meet the needs of students. This system of providing that information has in essence changed, and I would assume it has probably changed in the rest of North America as well.

J. Kwan: Because there are none. Knowledge Network is the only one that doesn't have the interference of advertising or political bias in that regard.

The minister says the viewers have changed in terms of education programming delivery. Were there any evaluations of Knowledge Network programming done before the government made the decision to stop funding it?

Hon. S. Bond: I apologize. Could we ask the member to repeat the question, please?

J. Kwan: Were there any evaluations of Knowledge Network programming done before the government decided not to fund it?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, we're still funding it. As I suggested, when we looked at the studies and the information we gathered as a ministry, we discovered that life had changed and that the mandate, actually, of Knowledge Network had changed — not the mandate itself, but the delivery and the necessity for that type of programming. So in fact, we're still funding the Knowledge Network.

J. Kwan: Only until the government actually brings in a private sector person to deliver the services, and then the Knowledge Network will lose their funding. That's been put out by the government. It's explicit. Let's not pretend that the government is going to continue funding for Knowledge Network; the government has already made it public that they won't continue the funding for Knowledge Network.

The minister claimed again that life has changed, that education viewers — people who view television in terms of education — have changed and that they no longer look to Knowledge Network for the educational information they provide, or that there are other mediums that provide for a better educational option. But what concrete evaluations did the minister and the government engage in to come to that conclusion?

Hon. S. Bond: As I understand it, the discussion about the possibility of a partnership for the Knowledge Network started in 1999.

J. Kwan: The previous administration never did engage in a request for proposals or seek the community through expressions of interest with the intention

of the provincial government to redirect its investment in Knowledge Network to other education funding requirements. The previous administration never did that. This government is doing that. This government, in its own request for expressions of interest regarding the Knowledge Network, said: "While the province may consider some involvement in the operation of the Knowledge Network service during a transition period, it is the intention of the provincial government to redirect its investment in the Knowledge Network to other education funding requirements." This government, this minister put forward that expression of interest. The previous government never did.

Don't try to hide — Mr. Chair, through you to the minister. Take responsibility for your actions. This government is threatening to cut the funding for Knowledge Network. It explicitly says that in this expression of interest, and it explicitly says that the government may consider some involvement, but the intention is to privatize Knowledge Network.

Again to the minister: what evaluations were done for this government to arrive at the conclusion that this minister is now saying — that life has changed, that education television viewers have changed and that the medium with respect to providing television education should shift, and therefore that the government should move in a direction to stop funding Knowledge Network?

Hon. S. Bond: My point was simply not to hide. My point was to point out that, in fact, consultation and discussion of the sustainability of the Knowledge Network started in 1999. The basis of some of the work that we've done looked back to a Nesbitt Burns report that was actually done by the previous government in terms of the challenges.

Let's face it. One of the issues here is sustainability and the fact that there is a significant upgrade required in terms of producing quality opportunities here. We need to look at the digital age. We also did a core review process to look at what the role of government is in educational television. We remain a partner because we have the CRTC licence. There has been significant discussion about the sustainability of the Knowledge Network since 1999.

J. Kwan: I say again, for the minister's benefit, that the previous administration never put out an expression of interest for someone to take over — for the government to have the opportunity to privatize Knowledge Network. The previous administration never did that. True, the previous administration reviewed, as it does with all of its programming to see where funding should come from and look at different options…. But the question, where it comes into play, is whether or not the government takes those considerations into action.

This government put out expressions of interest. This government stated clearly in its expressions of interest that its intention is to redirect the funding to Knowledge Network elsewhere. The government is explicit in saying that. What it shows, though, for the government…. This minister continues to evade the question that I put to her about what evaluations of Knowledge Network programming were done before the government made the decision to put out the expressions of interest, before the government made the decision that it's going to stop funding Knowledge Network.

The very fact the minister wouldn't answer that question directly, I believe, is because the government did no such evaluation. The government is only just making it up as the minister goes along to say that education television viewers have changed, life has changed, suggesting that technology has changed and somehow Knowledge Network is not providing the same kind of value it used to when it was first created — somehow implying that. If the minister is saying that she isn't saying that, then show this House what evaluation has been done. What concrete work has been done? Show us the documentation with respect to that.

Hon. S. Bond: The work we did was involved, as I suggested earlier, with the core review process. We did a complete and thorough core review of the Open Learning Agency, of which the Knowledge Network was one of the component pieces. I want to make it perfectly clear one more time that we're not suggesting this is not about value. This is about a change in technology, a change in delivery mechanisms and, in fact, a change in lifestyle for many people. That doesn't take away from the value. We're simply saying that government isn't necessarily the best person to be looking at how to be innovative and creative in educational television, and we're looking for those kinds of partnerships. We maintain the licence, which is an educational licence, through the CRTC.

We went through a thorough core review process of the Open Learning Agency, of which the Knowledge Network was a key component.

J. Kwan: Through the minister's answer, I think she is claiming they did in fact do a thorough evaluation of the Knowledge Network programming before they made the decision to put out an expression of interest for, basically, the privatization of Knowledge Network. If that's the case — and this minister would like to claim they're open, accountable, transparent and so on — will the minister release the information she has reviewed under the core review relating to Knowledge Network?

Hon. S. Bond: I suggested that the advice was given to the minister about that through our core review process. I think if the member opposite reads the vision we have for the Knowledge Network in the request for expressions of interest that were sent out, she will clearly see we have a vision for educational television in this province. The work that was done was

done through the core review process and was provided as advice to the minister.

J. Kwan: That wasn't my question to the minister. The minister claims that she is open and accountable and that this government is transparent. They say that they have done reviews with respect to the Knowledge Network programming and that it was done before the government made the decision to stop its funding. In the spirit of openness, accountability and transparency, why doesn't the minister agree to release that information?

Sure, the information was done for the minister's information. There's not a problem with that. It is up to the minister to decide whether or not she would release that information. Why won't she release that information for the public's consumption so that they can evaluate whether or not the government made the right decision?

The minister says: "Go to the expressions of interest, and then you will know what our vision is. Well, with the exception of this: British Columbians simply don't trust what this government is saying is actually the right thing. They don't trust this government. Let British Columbians make their own decision, based on the documentation that this minister has received with respect to the Knowledge Network and the government's decision to stop funding Knowledge Network. Why won't the minister release that information? What is she trying to hide?

Hon. S. Bond: The review was done as part of the core review process, and that information was advice to cabinet. It was part of the core review process.

J. Kwan: The government and the minister have the authority to decide they will release that information, and the minister won't.

Outside of the core review process there were no other reviews, based on the minister's answer — no other evaluation was done on Knowledge Network and this programming — before the government made the decision to stop the funding. If there was, why wouldn't the minister offer that up as well?

The fact that the government made the decision to stop its funding and that they decided they wanted to privatize Knowledge Network is exactly this government's ideology on everything. They want to sell the assets of British Columbia and just sell them out completely. We have seen that from this government in a variety of other areas, where they took exactly that ideology and implemented it into action. That's what we have in the Knowledge Network as well.

We have a variety of letters, a host of letters from community members who do not agree with the government's decision with respect to Knowledge Network. The community says: "Our public educational broadcaster — the only commercial-free non-corporate B.C. TV media — is being sold. I see this as more evidence of money being more important than education by and for British Columbians. The $5.1 million per year from the B.C. treasury for the Knowledge Network has been good spending for my tax dollar." That's written by Gus and Aileen to the Premier, as another example.

I have a whole stack of these kinds of letters. I won't spend all of my time in estimates debate putting these letters on the record for the minister to understand how the community feels about this.

J. Kwan: Members in this House might cheer that bringing the voice of the people to this forum and for me to not put all of the letters on the record…. For the members to cheer and say somehow that's a good thing…. I would say that it is not necessarily a good thing, Mr. Chair.

The voices of the people should be heard, but the samples that I've put forward are the general sentiment of many British Columbians. Some 69 percent of the community who were polled on this issue feel that the government should continue to fund Knowledge Network and continue to support Knowledge Network, as it has done since 1981.

Let me turn to the process that the government's talked about on the privatization of Knowledge Network through its expressions of interest. What sort of process has the government gone through regarding the bidding for the Knowledge Network?

Hon. S. Bond: On September 22, 2003, government issued a request for expressions of interest, fondly known as an REOI, for a partner in operating the Knowledge Network as the province's educational broadcaster. I want to get this right, so I'll read it with the dates.

The REOI, request for expressions of interest, closed in November with seven proposals submitted for consideration. An evaluation committee was formed, consisting of members with expertise from both the private and the public sectors to review and assess the proposals. Of the seven proponents, five have passed the evaluation criteria. We are currently awaiting the next steps as we work through this process.

J. Kwan: The process of privatizing Knowledge Network that the government has embarked on

through its expressions of interest…. The minister says that she's received seven proposals and that their committee is working on what proposal will be chosen.

Now, a number of questions for the minister with respect to that. Who is on this committee?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, we are not privatizing or selling the Knowledge Network. We are looking for partners. With the request for expressions of interest, that is made very clear. The great news is that we had seven proposals from people, I'm assuming, with great expertise and innovation.

I can give you the categories of the people that are represented on the evaluation panel. I don't have all of the names with me, but I can give you where they come from. From the Open Learning Agency, there are two. That's critical, because obviously the Knowledge Network was a piece of what they did. From Advanced Education, there are two; from Partnerships B.C., there are two. There are two private sector specialists in television broadcasting.

J. Kwan: Let's be clear. For all intents and purposes, the minister can call it whatever she wants. The public knows that what the government is doing is privatizing Knowledge Network. The minister can pretend and go through a whole charade of how they're not privatizing, and so on and so forth. The reality is that this government is privatizing Knowledge Network, and the public knows it. Through their letters written to the Premier and to the minister, they call it for what it is, even though this minister refuses to be forthright with British Columbians on the action of this government on exactly that.

The bidding process from this government…. The minister says that there are seven proposals. There are seven proposals, she says. I've received an e-mail from a community member to the Premier, saying that they understand the bidding process has now been closed — as has been confirmed by the minister — for the purchase of the Knowledge Network, with only one bidder from B.C. and the majority of the bids coming from commercial interests in the United States. Is that true?

Hon. S. Bond: I'm absolutely not going to comment on a proposal process that's in place.

J. Kwan: Well, the government actually, on the B.C. Rail deal, saw information that was pertinent to the deal leaked to one of the bidders and continued with the process.

The Chair: Member, let's come back here now to these estimates for Advanced Education.

J. Kwan: Well, according to this individual who wrote to the Premier…. He actually said that he understood the bidding has now closed on the purchase of the Knowledge Network, with only one bidder from British Columbia and the majority of the bids coming from commercial interests in the United States. The writer continues to say:

This is according to the public — the information that they've received about the proposals. The minister says she can't review that information. Well, let's see, then, what will happen with the Knowledge Network. Let's see whether or not another asset that belongs to British Columbia will be sold, once again owned by corporate interests outside of British Columbia, like many of the assets that this government is selling — many British Columbia assets that this government is selling.

The process that the government is engaged in now, with the evaluation of the proposals — when does the minister expect a decision?

J. Kwan: Will the government consult with the public as to how the programming would change the Knowledge Network with the decision that's pending?

Hon. S. Bond: Government will ultimately be making the decision on which bid best reflects our vision for educational programming in British Columbia. That will be done in the next several months.

J. Kwan: That's not my question. The question is: will the public be consulted?

Hon. S. Bond: Government will make the decision based on the best bid. We've already laid out the vision that we have and the criteria that we have in place. We are looking for a partner. We are not privatizing the Knowledge Network. We're looking for a partner who is innovative and creative and who will add sustainability and a new life, actually, to the Knowledge Network.

J. Kwan: Well, the minister heard the question twice, and she refused to answer the question twice. I'm sure now she'll get up and say, "I'll answer the question for the last time," by not answering the question again.

The government says and this minister says that they're open and accountable and transparent. They

sold B.C. Rail without the public getting to see what the deal was. Here we have a process of privatizing the Knowledge Network. The minister claims it is not privatization. For all intents and purposes, it is privatization.

If the government is open and accountable, the public should have the right to see what the proposals are. They should have the right to be able to comment on what they think this new so-called partnership is going to be, what the programming is going to be and how it's going to change. The public has the right to do that.

Why won't the minister commit to the public so that they will, in fact, have a role to play, they will be consulted, and the process will be open and accountable as the minister likes to claim that it is going to be? Why doesn't she commit to making sure that it actually is, and let the public see the proposals and comment on them?

Hon. S. Bond: We're in the middle of a competitive process that outlined for the people of British Columbia the vision we have. The good news is that we want to look at a sustainable educational programmer in this province. We actually think that government doesn't have all the answers about educational programming, so we're looking for a partner that's going to help us revitalize this particular asset for British Columbians. We are in the middle of a competitive process. The committee will continue to evaluate, the process will move forward, and ultimately government will make a decision about how we maintain and sustain the Knowledge Network in British Columbia.

J. Kwan: By the minister's own admission, she says she doesn't know all the answers about how Knowledge Network should be operating. By the minister's own admission, she doesn't know. Well, then why doesn't she consult with British Columbians?

The minister says: "Oh, but here's our vision that's outlined in the expressions of interest." Well, British Columbians — 69 percent of them — said they do not agree with the government's privatization of Knowledge Network. If the government is genuine in its intent to consult with British Columbians, to invite the voices of British Columbians to the table on this issue, all the government has to do is do so — make sure that British Columbians have the opportunity to evaluate the proposals and judge for themselves whether or not that is the best way in which Knowledge Network should operate.

Let British Columbians have a say in how the programming would change as a result of this new private partnership. But no, that's not what the minister is committing to — absolutely not. The minister is not committing to any of that. All she'll commit to is that when the decision is made, British Columbians will be told: "Here's what's going to happen with Knowledge Network." There's openness; there's accountability from a minister who likes to claim that this government is transparent. What a laugh.

British Columbians know they are being taken for a ride; they know that by the actions of this government. Knowledge Network is another one of those projects of this government where they base their ideology on what is best for British Columbia as opposed to what British Columbians say is best for them. The government has demonstrated once again that they will not listen to British Columbians. The government has demonstrated once again that they will not trust British Columbians to put forward their thoughts, to ensure that there is a consultation process with respect to the new programming that would be in place with Knowledge Network.

Open Learning severance payments. On February 26, 2004, in question period the opposition asked the minister about the disguising of the $150,000 severance package for Terry Piper, a former CEO of the Open Learning Agency. In order to get around the PSAC rules, the board disguised these severance packages as "completion bonuses."

The Finance minister says he's now seeking legal advice on the issue. The Finance minister says he has requested legal advice and, as well, will be asking the Open Learning Agency board for more information. Can this minister tell me what the result of this legal advice was? And what about the information from the OLA board?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite is fully aware, this is a matter that is currently before the House, which will be addressed in due course by the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: Well, how many months has it been? On February 26 the question was asked. The month of March has rolled by; the month of April has rolled by. It is now May. The Minister of Finance said he was going to get right on to it and provide the information. Two months have now passed, and no answer from the government.

The minister, of course, has a role here with respect to Open Learning Agency and the severance package paid under the Open Learning Agency within this government, within this ministry. The question was put to the minister as well: will any of the money be returned? Let me put that question to the minister now: will any of the money be returned?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Chair, the member opposite knows full well this is a question that is in front of the House and that the answers to the member's question will be provided to the House in due course by the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: The question was put to the minister in February. It is now May. The minister has had ample time to prepare and rehearse her answer. It's time for the government to provide the answer to British Columbians on this question.

In due course? It's now been more than two months since the question has been put. It is the Open Learning Agency under this ministry and this minister's responsibility. What is the status of that? Or has she just happily handed over the responsibility to the Minister of Finance? It's sort of like the rest of this caucus. They could actually vote on the bill before seeing it — vote for the government and then later on claim: "Oh well, gee, we actually didn't know what the bill said." No kidding, if you didn't actually get to see the bill.

Well, this minister is responsible for the Open Learning Agency. She should take responsibility in trying to find out the answers instead of passing the buck. Let me give the minister another chance to live up to her responsibility as the Minister of Advanced Education: will any of the money be returned?

J. Kwan: I feel it coming that the minister is going to get up and say, "The questions are becoming tedious," and "I've answered those questions already," and then will proceed to get up and not answer the question once again. I feel it coming. It's sort of like an instant replay with this government on questions that they cannot and would not answer. Why? Because they are secretive. Why? Because they don't want British Columbians to know. Why? Because they don't want to be held accountable. I feel it coming. You can just press the button on a video machine or something — rewind — and the minister will say exactly the same thing and proceed not to answer the question.

Well, let me ask the minister another question relating to this issue. What we know so far is that the minister wouldn't give the legal advice information that was sought. She wouldn't give the information on the OLA board in terms of what information they were able to attain from this. She wouldn't answer the question on whether the money would be returned. Well, is the minister rewriting Bill Harlan's contract, the current interim CEO, in order to remove the deliberate deceptions made within his contract regarding service repayments?

J. Kwan: Well, I'll retract the statement, Mr. Chair, but the reality is this….

The contract that was written actually provided information that purposely sidestepped PSAC guidelines. That's what the contract did, and it was deliberate in its intent to override government policies. Now the question to the minister is: is the minister rewriting Bill Harlan's contract in order to remove the deliberate sidestepping of government guidelines regarding PSAC made with his contract regarding service payments?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Chair, this is an issue that is before the House. The Minister of Finance will report back in due course.

J. Kwan: Instant replay, as I predicted, Mr. Chair. That's exactly what the minister has just done. No responsibility from this government for her own area of responsibility — the Open Learning Agency. A staff that works for this minister in her own ministry with respect to his contract…. This minister would not answer the question as to whether or not any work is being done to review his contract and whether or not any work is being done to rewrite that contract, where British Columbians lost $150,000 in a severance package for Ms. Terry Piper — disguised as severance.

J. Kwan: Oh, the minister says I should watch my language. You know what? I am telling this House based on the facts that are before us. That's exactly what I'm doing. The facts show that the contract was rewritten deliberately. Decisions were made deliberately to override government policies — the PSAC policies on this. It was a deliberate attempt to hide the $150,000 severance package for Ms. Terry Piper. They were disguised as completion bonuses. That's exactly what this government has done. That's exactly what the documentation shows.

Those questions were put to the minister back in February. It is now May, and there are still no answers forthcoming. The staff person still works as the interim CEO, and there are no answers from this minister as to whether or not any action has been taken regarding the rewriting of his contract.

What is this minister doing? What steps is she taking to ensure that the contracts of those who hold senior positions in distance education are accountable to taxpayers? What exactly is this minister doing?

Hon. S. Bond: As the member opposite is more than aware — I will say it one final time — this is a question before the House that will be addressed in due course by the Minister of Finance. So from that perspective, the issue will be dealt with in due course by the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: The instant replay for this question does not work. The minister at some point in time needs to take on her area of responsibility and be accountable to

British Columbians. That's why she earns the big bucks as the Minister of Advanced Education. That's why she has the Open Learning Agency under her bailiwick.

I asked the minister to explain what steps she's taking to ensure that contracts of those who hold senior positions in distance education are accountable to taxpayers. I'm expecting an answer, not the instant replay that the minister likes to say: "Don't ask me. Go ask somebody else. I'm not accountable."

Hon. S. Bond: The member asked a question in the House. It was addressed by the Minister of Finance. He recently reported back to the member opposite on Monday, March 29 in fact. When one risks asking questions when one doesn't have complete information, one might think the member opposite might just get it wrong. So in fact we will await the information that will be provided in due course by the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll tell you. The Open Learning Agency is the responsibility of this minister. Mr. Harlan works for this minister. Ms. Terry Piper, former CEO , worked for this minister in her ministry. The minister says: "Well, I don't have any of the answers for that. Don't ask me. Go ask the Minister of Finance."

Then she goes on to say: "Well, the Minister of Finance was providing updated information on March 29." No, the information he said was: "We're seeking legal advice, and we'll get back to you with more information." Well, there's an update, except for this. When the question was put to the minister on February 26, they said they would get the information for the opposition. It's now been more than two months, and no new information has come from the ministry. This minister is just happy to sit in her seat and then say: "Well, don't ask me these questions. Go ask the Minister of Finance." I know already — with this government, the Minister of Finance runs everything. Boy oh boy.

The question was given to the minister over two months ago — enough notice, wouldn't you think, for the minister to say: "Hey, given that this is my staff, my employee, within my ministry, I'd better find out what's going on too"? But no, not this Advanced Education minister. She's happily deferring that responsibility to the Minister of Finance, letting the Minister of Finance decide once again what the government's answer should be. We've seen time and time again from the Minister of Finance that he will tell everybody what they can say, when they can say it. That's exactly what the Minister of Finance is doing — the House Leader, they call him.

I don't know about all these Liberal MLAs and government ministers. I don't know about whether or not they have any role to play in making decisions within government. It certainly seems to me like the Minister of Finance is the minister for everything.

J. Kwan: The Minister of Forests is heckling me, and he is saying: "Well, we've got to ask the Minister of Finance to say whether or not it's suppertime." You know what? It is true. MLAs do have to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not it is suppertime. The Minister of Finance will tell them exactly when they can do what and what they can say and how they can go about doing it. That's exactly true.

Let me ask this minister this question. I'm sure that she will get up and say: "Don't ask me; ask the Minister of Finance." Can the minister explain what steps she's taking to ensure that no more contracts are reworded to get around PSAC rules?

Hon. S. Bond: Just for the record, PSAC is actually under the mandate of the Minister of Finance.

J. Kwan: Just for the record, the staff that I'm talking about work for this Minister of Advanced Education. This minister says OLA is under her area of responsibility. The staff that I'm talking about get their paycheques from this Minister of Advanced Education. You can't just pass the buck and say: "Don't ask me." With the exception of this, which I have already identified, and that is that the House Leader, the Minister of Finance, controls absolutely what this cabinet can say and when they can say it.

Even in addressing issues, this minister already has known this for more than two months. This minister still doesn't have the go-ahead from the Minister of Finance to say: "Oh yeah, you can actually address that question. You have two months' worth of notice to practise the answers." Boy oh boy. Here we have the Minister of Finance controlling everything, telling this cabinet, this bench of Liberal MLAs when they can say what, when they can say it. No wonder these MLAs voted for a bill that they didn't even see.

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

The Chair: We'll have a recess, with the acceptance of the House, until 6:45.

J. Kwan: I would like to turn to the issue of deregulation of language schools. In November of 2003 the government changed its legislation so that language schools will no longer be regulated. The Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, the agency formally responsible for regulating ESL schools, has become the Private Career Training Institution Agency and will still regulate private career training schools but not language schools. I remember debating this issue when the bill was introduced.

One of the minister's stated commitments in her letter in the service plan is to ensure "that students

have access to the learning opportunities they need and deserve." Does the minister agree that students, regardless of what country they come from, deserve learning opportunities when they study in British Columbia?

J. Kwan: If the minister believes that all students in B.C. should have access to learning opportunities, can she explain how her government's decision to stop regulating language schools is in line with this belief?

Hon. S. Bond: That has nothing to do with opportunities. Students still obviously have a myriad of opportunities within B.C., and we expect that we will continue to see those grow.

J. Kwan: Actually, it does have everything to do with learning opportunities, Mr. Chair. According to an article in the Vancouver Sun, British Columbia may be losing out on an "extremely lucrative market in teaching English to Chinese students" by not regulating language schools. CBC has reported that the Chinese consulate has threatened to stop issuing visas to students due to the lack of regulation regarding language schools. While the lack of regulation on language schools is a Canada-wide problem, instead of cracking down on these issues and on these schools in British Columbia, the government is backing away.

Why is the government abandoning these students by offering them no financial guarantees and protections and, in fact, took them out of the regulations?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, as we looked across Canada, it is indeed the situation that B.C. is now in line with what happens not just in Canada but also the northwest of the United States. In fact, students continue to have opportunities, as they do across the rest of Canada.

J. Kwan: Here is yet another example of where the minister likes to say: "We're just following the footsteps of other provinces, other jurisdictions." Do you know what? Not for the better — what this government has done. ESL language schools are no longer regulated, no longer being enforced in terms of regulations by the government. This government brought in legislation to change that.

Let me just put on the record what some people are saying about British Columbia's change.

This is by the action of the government. By doing that it is causing, I think, several problems. Students no longer have protection, as when it was formerly regulated. I think the credibility for British Columbia in language schools for offshore students would be eroded and is being eroded as a result of that.

B.C.'s decision to quit regulating private English-as-a-second-language schools would leave students with no protection. That's what this government has done. So what if other provinces have gone down that route? So what?

Given that British Columbia did have a regulating authority over private language schools, why did the government choose to also go down the route of other provinces by not giving protection to students when that is not helpful for the students and certainly not helpful for the reputation of British Columbia?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's quickly walk through what we are doing here. First of all, we are replacing the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission with a new agency called the Private Career Training Institution Agency. One of the reasons for that is that we heard from an enormous number of private career trainers that they needed to be competitive, so they actually could attract more students to British Columbia. We heard about major issues with streamlining and a number of things around being competitive with other jurisdictions.

What are we doing in terms of the next process? While ESL schools are no longer regulated, many of those institutions actually offer career training programs as well as ESL. In those cases, those institutions will still be covered under the new legislation and will be registered with the new agency.

Firstly, some of the ESL schools will be covered under the new agency simply because of their mandate. Secondly, the new legislation specifically provides that private language schools can register voluntarily with the new agency, and their students will have access to tuition protection through the student training completion fund. We think that is going to be an excellent marketing tool for trainers and that absolutely many ESL schools will take advantage of that. We think this will be an advantage to them as they offer and advertise those programs abroad.

J. Kwan: As a result of the government's deregulation of language schools…. Formerly, there were about 1,100 registered private post-secondary education insti-

tutions. Now about 500 have been deregulated, offering no consumer protection for these students. If the minister sees fit for them to be regulated when training is being provided for students along with language training, how is it that language-only training does not require consumer protection and therefore can be deregulated under the legislation that this minister brought forward in this Legislature and passed?

Hon. S. Bond: That's not in fact the case, actually. A number of private trainers have been deregulated. The issue isn't the type of institution that they are, although the primary coverage will be the career training programs. They will have a significant threshold in terms of cost and hours so that students are protected. The focus will be on career training programs, but in addition to that, some of the programs, for example, that may have been deregulated are things like dog-grooming. There is an entire group of programs, it was felt by trainers and government, that were simply too regulated.

We looked at, for example, the number of private trainers that were regulated in British Columbia compared to, say, Ontario. Our number was quite extraordinarily out of context in terms of a competitive and protective market. In fact, we looked across jurisdictions, and we looked at a number of reasons.

J. Kwan: I tell you. The minister just tried to downplay language schools deregulation by the legislation that this minister had introduced and that this government had passed by suggesting a dog-grooming kind of training, and so on. You know what? What this government did is brought in legislation that removed ESL schools from the Private Post-Secondary Education Commission, which government developed a new agency for, and ESL schools became self-regulating under this government's legislation. That's what this government has done.

Formerly in British Columbia there was regulation that applied. As a result of this change, about 500 of those institutions no longer have consumer protection. It is not just career training, as the minister would like you to believe, that should have regulation. In my view, ESL training should also have regulation, and this government took that out.

J. Kwan: The minister claims that the deregulation was needed in order for British Columbia to be more competitive. Competitive for what — racing to the bottom to provide no protection for students? That's exactly what the legislation has done. You don't see this government trying to compare itself to other provinces to improve itself. No, you don't. We now have a situation in British Columbia where the consul general of China is saying they might have to consider not issuing any visas for students because there are so many problems in the private institutions with respect to language training.

The people who are getting hurt? Yes, they are the students and their families. I would anticipate that a lot of those students from overseas…. Their families work very hard to save enough money to send their children over here so that they can have access to better education opportunities. Little do they know, a lot of these overseas families, that there is no consumer protection. Little do they know that the hard-earned dollars they've saved up for their children to come here to get the education they sorely need would be lost, with no recourse. Many of them have been faced with that situation.

How is that good for British Columbia in terms of our reputation, in terms of building our economy, in terms of trying to build British Columbia as the gateway to Asia, when in fact in this one area the government could have ensured that consumer protection was in place? This government deliberately took action to take away that consumer protection for language schools. We now see the fallout of that.

It's true. It's not just British Columbia that is faced with that situation. Other provinces are too. But you know what? We could have been ahead of other provinces in this area, and the government chose not to provide that protection. The government deliberately brought in legislation that allowed for the exemption of language schools to be regulated. The minister says: "Well, you know, institutions could opt in if they wanted to." Yeah, right. Sure. Since the legislation has been introduced and enacted, some 500 institutions have opted out because the government does not require the regulation anymore.

What is this government now doing, given the situation before us — given that there have been many schools in the media, quite frankly, ripping off students? Since this provincial government no longer has regulation requirements for language schools, what is the government doing to address the students who have been ripped off since they've come to pick up language courses?

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, private institutions in British Columbia have an absolutely stellar performance record in terms of the kinds of programs they've been offering in the province for over 100 years across many sectors. Just for clarification, the question the member asked about the other categories…. There are 500, and they do span across a number of programs, including ESL. There are a whole bunch of other types.

Private training institutions — their reputations are important to them as well. In fact, we believe that they will use the opportunity to participate in the new process as a marketing tool. They absolutely want to offer students the best possible opportunities they can as well. The record has been exceptional in this province. We have, I think, on record approximately nine ESL schools that have had difficulties in ten years. We believe that private trainers offer incredible opportuni-

ties. We believe that many of them will choose to participate in this process voluntarily, because their reputations matter to them as well.

J. Kwan: Well, I'll tell you. According to this minister, everything is just excellent. Everything is just fine. It's excellent. But you know what? It isn't so excellent when you're a student who's been ripped off by the system, particularly when you're a student from overseas where your parents worked very hard to save up enough money to send you here so that you can have some education opportunities. When you have been ripped off, it isn't so excellent.

It's to the point where the Chinese consul general of Vancouver has posted an urgent warning on the website saying that some colleges in British Columbia have been suspended because of serious questions about the quality of the programs they offer, saying that there have been irregularities in terms of how these institutions provide their education, saying that there are issues with respect to how these institutions provide the education — the supposed education — to these foreign students.

You know what? The federal Immigration minister said that more needs to be done to crack down on bogus schools that recruit foreigners to Canada, these fly-by-nighters that rip off foreign students and potentially open Canada's borders to terrorists. This is according to the federal Immigration minister. Yet these issues fall under the provincial government as their area of jurisdiction and responsibility.

You know what? I would say that with the issues that have been raised…. In fact, Valerie MacLean of the Better Business Bureau says that English as a second language will leave students with no protection. The Better Business Bureau has been reported as saying that since the B.C. government — this minister and this Liberal government — decided to quit regulating private post-secondary education in the area of language training. The people who have to pay the price of what this government has done are students, foreign students from abroad — and the reputation of British Columbia, as a result of this government's shortsightedness and the need to race to the bottom in the interest of what this government and this minister say is competition, by taking away protection for consumers, for overseas foreign students in language training. It's appalling.

In the area of employment and vocational education, the government has imposed increases in inflation and has underfunded this area, which means colleges across the province are facing deep financial issues. As a result, colleges and university colleges are closing high-cost programs in order to shift funding to cheaper programs so that they can meet mandated enrolment targets. Can the minister tell this House how many vocational programs are being lost due to those shifts?

Hon. S. Bond: We'd appreciate the member opposite defining "vocational" for us.

J. Kwan: The minister says: "Well, define vocational." Let me just give the minister an example of a vocational program. The travel agent program that was offered by the Vancouver Community College — that's a vocational program, which the college had to cut. Why? Because they were underfunded, because they had imposed increases and inflation, etc. As a result, they had to cut programs — as one example.

Hon. S. Bond: Again, the system is designed so that institutions make choices about the programs that best serve their students. The fact of the matter is that the government…. We don't say to a particular institution, you know, that you should or shouldn't offer a particular vocational program.

The reason for clarification is that we were just trying to sort out whether it was on our side or whether it was industry training or which side of the ministry it was managing. In fact, we don't make specific programmatic decisions other than in some very targeted cases where we're doubling the number of physicians and looking at almost 2,000 seats to add RNs and those kinds of things — nursing professionals in the province. Those decisions are made by institutions based on the needs they feel most meet the clients that they serve.

J. Kwan: There have been many, many reportings of institutions having to cut programs because they don't have enough funding from the provincial government to keep these programs going. The vocational programs that have been lost since this government has underfunded post-secondary education, has imposed increases and accounting for inflation…. Some 72 percent of all job opportunities will have been in occupations requiring more than high school completion — 72 percent. Yet many vocational programs have been lost due to funding pressures.

How is the minister ensuring that youth and adults have access to employment programs and vocational education?

Hon. S. Bond: First of all, to clarify, the stat about 72 percent is a post-secondary educational opportunity, and that includes far more than vocational programs. One of the things we're doing — one of the most aggressive things and one of the best things we can do to address that — is actually adding 25,000 seats to post-secondary institutions, including colleges. They play a major role in our delivery of post-secondary educational opportunities. The best thing we can do is make sure students get a seat in a post-secondary opportunity of their choice. Some of those are colleges; some of them are universities. Just for a reminder, let me look at the dollars per FTE funding. In 1999 the number was $7,610. In 2004-05 it will be $8,320 per student.

J. Kwan: The minister giveth and then the minister taketh. That's exactly what this government has done. The minister says: "Oh yeah. You know, we are fund-

ing and going to be creating 25,000 new spaces by 2010." Yet in the same breath as the minister says this, we have a situation where spaces in universities and colleges are being lost because of underfunding.

In January 2003 the Vancouver Community College announced that the college was facing a $5.8 million deficit for the year '03-04. Several programs were to be shut down, and hundreds of FTE student spaces were eliminated. After several media reports and pressure from the community, the minister stepped in with a little bit more money. However, it was not enough to prevent many of the cuts. Most of the losses have been in high school completion and ESL. The travel agent program, which I mentioned earlier, has been cut. The adult basic education for youth program will lose funding in June of 2004.

These are just a couple of examples in which this government has created a situation where student spaces have been lost, caused by the government. The minister can get up all she wants and say: "You know what? We're going to fund 25,000 new spaces by 2010." All in the same breath, the government is underfunding advanced education. As a result, institutions have had to close spaces and programs. That's the bottom line, Mr. Chair.

Then the ESL piece has been impacted. Why is the minister not protecting funding for key areas like ESL and adult basic education?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, let me read those numbers one more time. Let's try it one more time: in 1999, $7,610 per FTE; in 2000-01, $7,920; in 2001, $8,440; in 2002, $8,500. And the list goes on.

Let me just focus on Vancouver Community College for a moment because just recently they…. As a matter of fact, the date is April 23. It's a press release coming out of Vancouver Community College. I think there's a basic misunderstanding here. The comment being made by the member opposite is that we're losing seats, about how we're giving and taking away. In fact, seat numbers continue to increase. They have to, to get to 25,000 by 2009-10. What changes is the program focus. Institutions…

Hon. S. Bond: …make choices about how they add the seats to their systems. Let's just read what Vancouver Community College had to say recently.

J. Kwan: The reality is this. There are student spaces that have been lost in particular programs. That's exactly what's happened. The minister can say: "Oh no, no. Everything is just fine because it's just excellent." Well, it isn't excellent, Mr. Chair, when you have spaces lost in particular programs that really impact students' educational opportunities. ESL training, adult basic education — funding has not been protected for these areas. It has not, and spaces have been lost as a result of that.

The minister likes to say: "Oh no, everything is fine. We're funding education." Funny how that is, because the Confederation of University Faculty Associations of British Columbia is saying that based on the government's budget that they've tabled, B.C. universities and colleges would have to add 11,811 spaces by 2006, but they are only receiving 56 percent of that funding from the government to provide for these new spaces. What does that mean? That means the rest of the cost of the creation of these spaces would have been off-loaded onto students.

In an attempt by institutions to try and make ends meet, what they have done is cut some programs that are critically important to students. They've cut these programs because they do not have the funding to continue them. That's exactly what happened at VCC.

The government likes to talk about the literacy target. You'd think ESL and adult basic education would be paramount in trying to reach this literacy target that the government has set out. Yet the government has not seen fit to protect funding for these key areas.

Hon. S. Bond: I just want to make sure it's perfectly clear on the record that the comments I read were not government comments. They were the president of VCC's comments in a recent press release that suggested they're actually adding 770 full-time spaces. Let me read you the comments about the work they've done in ESL. "We're extremely proud of the important work we do in ESL and high school completion, and we are committed to offering the English language and academic courses that students need to build a foundation for further training." What better process could we have where institutions actually look at the needs of their students?

In terms of overall numbers, let me give you the actuals we have in ESL up to 2002-03. Interestingly enough, in 1999-2000 the actual FTE number for ESL alone was 3,584. We don't have the numbers, I should say, because we're still waiting for audited statements obviously. In 2000 and 2001 — so this is the Year 2000 budget year — actual FTEs dropped in ESL to 3,556 — not a large drop but a small drop. In 2001-02 the number went up to 3,925. In 2002-03 it went up to 3,965. In

fact, when we go back and look at actuals in terms of ESL, those numbers have increased. Having said that, we certainly do see institutions making individual decisions, but the fact of the matter is that seats are going up in terms of the number of seats. How they're distributed is up to institutions.

J. Kwan: I just recently met with the president of VCC. Actually, I spoke with him to see how things were and how things were going. Yes, they had to cut many programs because of funding shortfalls — absolutely. And they had to cut critical programs that were needed by students and that would have supported students to find jobs, which is the goal of students and the supposed goal of this government. Yet we saw institutions having to cut these programs because they didn't have enough funds to provide them.

I also know, as it was reported to me, that students enrolling in or the number of seats offered in adult basic education had gone down, for an example. Why? Once again, because of underfunding.

You know what? In the earliest set of the estimates I asked the minister for a breakdown of what it looks like in terms of the adult basic education situation in our institutions — how many seats are being offered, the enrolment and all of that information. I'll await that information to see how it pans out with a year-to-year comparison, Mr. Chair.

I can't wait to have that information, because in speaking with the public and the institution representatives, they tell a different story. They tell a different story with respect to the lay of the land in terms of the challenges that people are faced with. Everything is not just excellent, as this minister likes to say about the actions of this government.

Let's look at another area. Earlier this year Beaver Aircraft Canada announced plans to transform an old manufacturing factory in the Okanagan into an aircraft manufacturing centre. The development would have created 1,000 jobs. Beaver needed a skilled workforce and asked the government to provide a training program at the Okanagan University College, which the community in the Okanagan supported. The cost was $9 million.

By mid-June the company was lured away by Alberta. The Minister of Advanced Education defended the failure to act by saying that it would have been a subsidy to individual businesses. The former Minister of Economic Development stated that our obligation is to ensure we have skilled workers available to the aerospace industry in B.C., and we would do that. The benefits to the region would have been huge.

The government, however, failed to take action. They preferred to spend $9 million on bungling the Coquihalla and B.C. Rail privatization scheme. Despite commitments from the former minister of enterprises, the government failed to act on a deal that would have brought training and jobs to the Okanagan. Can the minister explain why the government did not take action to ensure that those 1,000 jobs would have landed in British Columbia instead of elsewhere?

Hon. S. Bond: I would be delighted to. We spent a lot of time working on this proposal. One thing we spent a lot of time with was actually checking to see if there was a valid and credible business plan. Perhaps the member opposite would want to check that that proposal wasn't established in Alberta either, for probably very similar reasons to the one reason that it wasn't in British Columbia.

Let me tell you what we did in response, and I will stick to the yes, everything is…. Not everything is great, but boy, there is a lot of great news in this ministry, and I'm always happy to share that. What we did after looking at a business plan that was not actually viable was create a provincial strategy for aerospace training. I'd be happy to share the brochure and information on that program with the member opposite.

We called together all the training opportunities in British Columbia that exist within the public system, and we're also looking at private opportunities. We put together a comprehensive strategy called the British Columbia aerospace strategy, which includes a $20 million investment that shares those resources all across the province, so that we can add more than 500 new student spaces in aerospace and related training programs. We're working with industry to make sure our program is effective and meeting the needs both of industry and of students. A number of institutions are working on that — British Columbia Institute of Technology, University College of the Fraser Valley, Okanagan University College. Northern Lights College has an amazing partnership with this particular process.

In fact, we did have many, many discussions about that potential process. There was not a credible business plan, so we took the opportunity to bring together our institutions and create a provincial strategy for aerospace that is continuing to work even today.

J. Kwan: Well, isn't that interesting? The minister says: "Oh no, they didn't have a credible business plan." I suppose, then, the Central Okanagan economic development commission…. They're wrong. I suppose they're wrong when they say that these are the kinds of things we actually need and that we're up against the kinds of things this government is putting forward. Oh, everybody else is wrong except for this government, and everything is just fine and is just excellent, according to this minister. Isn't that interesting?

The government's position was that it wouldn't provide direct subsidies to a private business. It seemed like that financial support for a training centre might materialize, but that was then. The former Minister of Competition and Enterprise has actually said that those are the kinds of things we want in British Columbia. It turns out the former Minister of Competition, Science and Enterprise — the now Provincial Revenue minister — has failed to deliver to the people in the Okanagan community.

The government's position, and according to this minister, was: "We have made it very clear that the government of B.C. is not going to subsidize the individual businesses." That's what the minister said. That's why the deal was lost. That's why a thousand jobs and the opportunities associated with those didn't come forward to British Columbia. That's gone elsewhere, and the minister says: "Oh well, that business plan would not have been viable anyway, really."

Let's just see, in terms of lost opportunities for British Columbia under this government's leadership and management. Let's just see. We now have a situation where that was lost — a thousand jobs and the opportunities associated with those for British Columbia gone elsewhere. The government says they won't provide a subsidy, so the folks in the Okanagan, the heartlands, with this government trying to build and strengthen the economy for the heartlands, miss yet another opportunity.

ITAC, the Industry Training and Apprenticeship Commission, was formed under the previous administration under the former minister, Moe Sihota. It was founded to revitalize apprenticeship in B.C. and to ensure input and participation between stakeholders — business, labour, education and the government. There were equal numbers of commissions from business, labour and education, and the deputy ministers mentioned above represented the government.

The commission worked hard on revitalization. New training manuals were developed. New trades were certified. Women and visible minorities were encouraged to participate. Existing apprenticeships were expanded. ITAC was disbanded under the Liberal government, replaced by ITA, the Industry Training Authority. All of ITAC's 16 offices across the province closed: Abbotsford, Burnaby, Coquitlam, the Kootenays, Cranbrook, Dawson Creek, Kamloops, Kelowna, Nanaimo, Nelson, Prince George, Surrey, Terrace, Vancouver, Victoria and Williams Lake.

The Industry Training Authority will continue to maintain authority over training standards. In developing the new model, many groups and citizens were concerned that the ministry did not adequately consult them. There are significant concerns that the new board does not adequately represent labour and education sectors. Some of these issues were dealt with during debate in committee stage.

Section 10 in the bill deals with the appeal board, and the question was put to the minister about the appeal board in terms of its representation for labour, for education and the business sectors, and whether or not that representation will be there. The minister's answer, of course, was that she would not necessarily ensure that labour, education and business sector representatives would be on the board. Rather, she said, she will be using people with expertise to set up the board.

Now, the new industrial training standards break down multi-year training and apprenticeship programs into component modules. Can the minister tell me what the rationale behind this breakdown was?

Hon. S. Bond: In terms of industry training, first of all, I want to go back and bring a quote. In some ways it captures some of what we were thinking. It is actually in 1995. A previous minister, the former Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, said this:

You know, the previous government thought about that in 1995, and as we create a system that's going to meet the needs of a booming economy in British Columbia, especially when we look at record housing starts, we need to do some things differently. Traditional apprenticeship will continue in the province, but absolutely we are looking at new ways that will look at opportunities for students to have more entry and exit paths. We are going to maintain high standards, but we are looking at new delivery models to enhance and also to supplement the existing traditional apprenticeship model.

J. Kwan: How many employees service all the apprentices and the employees in the province?

Hon. S. Bond: We actually have 30 employees. That's a combination of both in the Industry Training Authority and the Burnaby centre, but that's not all of the support we provide. The member opposite read into the record a list of locations that were closed when we made the revisions to the model. We have an innovative partnership currently with the government agents of British Columbia that allows us to provide services — exam invigilation and a number of other services — for apprentices at 58 offices around the province. While we certainly did close offices in locations in the province, we are now serving apprentices out of 58 government agents offices, and additionally we have 30 staff in the two areas that I suggested.

Hon. S. Bond: As I've said, we've changed the model. We have moved from 12 regional offices to using the services of government agents offices, which represent 58 offices and support staff in those. They are, however, working with government agents offices. Originally, there were 120 FTEs that were involved with the process, which included the regional offices.

J. Kwan: Just about half the number of employees servicing all the apprentices and employees in the province. Just about half, and that's what's left now for the province.

Does the minister have any information that would demonstrate that fewer apprentices are dropping out of the programs, now that the training has been changed?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not losing numbers of apprentices in terms of registrations. We are in the process of continuing to register them. Actually, the average is about 500 new apprentices a month. Numbers continue to look very good.

J. Kwan: Registration at 500. What about since the program started? Are there any dropouts since?

Hon. S. Bond: Our early numbers, and you can imagine that we're just in the beginning of tracking 2004…. But let me give you an example. In 2001 apprentices terminated were 280 in the month of January. In 2002 it was 238. In 2003 it was 180, and in 2004 it was 15.

J. Kwan: Who's currently updating the database and removing the apprentices who have dropped out of the system?

J. Kwan: The industry training centre — that's staffed by the ministry staff?

Hon. S. Bond: It's a contract the Industry Training Authority has with the government agents office.

Hon. S. Bond: It's a contract with the Ministry of Management Services, the government agents branch.

J. Kwan: What process do they follow in trying to keep track of who's dropped out and who hasn't dropped out of the program?

Hon. S. Bond: It's the responsibility of the apprentice to give that notice.

Hon. S. Bond: We will be putting a review in place this summer to verify those numbers.

J. Kwan: A review in place in the summer to verify the numbers. So the numbers are just being put forward now, and there is no way of ensuring that the numbers are actually accurate as they are being reported until the minister does a review later on in the summer?

Hon. S. Bond: The review will be ongoing. It will be conducted through the Industry Training Authority with the use of the AIMS computer system. In essence, we will be contacting all of our apprentices and checking on their status. The Industry Training Authority has been in place just for a matter of months. It will be their responsibility to do that.

J. Kwan: Sorry. The minister said they will be putting a review in place. Then the minister said that it's the industry training centre who would have to do that review. Who exactly is doing the review? Who will be checking to make sure the information is actually up to date and correct? Is it by the Ministry of Advanced Education, or is it by someone else?

Hon. S. Bond: No. The new model has the Industry Training Authority that will be responsible for the program of skills training in British Columbia. We went through an extensive discussion about this in last year's estimates.

We created a new model. The Industry Training Authority is responsible for the budget. They are responsible for monitoring and managing those programs, so it will not be the Ministry of Advanced Education. It will be the Industry Training Authority, and it will be the employees of the industry training centre that will do that work.

J. Kwan: Well, the employees of the industry training centre already collect that data. Presumably when they collect that data, they would have done some work to make sure the information is accurate, but that is not case. The minister said the Industry Training Authority will be putting the program in place in the summer to make sure that the information collected by the industry training centre is in fact correct. We have two bodies really, basically, doing the work that is required, which is to ensure that accurate information is reported in the database, it appears to me. The Industry Training Authority and the industry training centre are both doing the same task. One would have assumed that the centre would have been required to actually ensure that the information they put in the database is in fact up-to-date, accurate information.

Hon. S. Bond: It is required to do that. I think we need to just clarify how the system works. The Industry Training Authority is the governing body. They set policy. They shape the programs. They're directed. They are a nine-person board of people that were selected from all over the province of British Columbia. They don't do data entry. They govern. In essence, it's the employees of the industry training centre that under the leadership of the Industry Training Authority will continue to operate and to manage and to do the work that's assigned to them by the Industry Training Authority.

J. Kwan: You would have thought that they would have a system in place already to ensure that the information collected is in fact correct information and not wait for the summer to come around for that to be in place. You would have thought that, then. It would have been logical to think that. That's not the case.

The guest editorial for the British Columbia and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council newsletter stated that by replacing the full-scope training with modular training, the ministry has

sidestepped the real issue. It states: "Dropout rates are high because some employers use apprentices as a source of cheap labour. Unscrupulous employers use apprentices for one or two years and then lay them off. Many apprentices don't drop out because they want to. It's because the employer abandons them." I would like the minister to comment and respond to this claim that has been put forward by the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council.

Hon. S. Bond: Actually, you know, change is difficult for people to embrace. But the reality of it is that we have an issue with skilled workers in the province of British Columbia, and quite frankly, we can't always wait four years to get them. We can talk about lost opportunities. That would be a major lost opportunity.

What we're doing is looking at continuing the traditional apprenticeship system, and yes, we are looking at dropout rates. They've been very high for the last decade, in fact, and there are a number of reasons for that. One is that students should be able to take their training closer to home, and we're working on that. I know the member opposite doesn't want to hear this again, but when you add 25,000 seats, students can actually be trained closer to home. That helps us in the skills training agenda as well.

Having said that, we are looking at some training programs that will be done by modules. A perfectly good example of that recently is the Canadian Home Builders who have an extremely successful, first of all, pilot project now moving on to a module that would look at framing in British Columbia, simply because at the moment we're actually importing labour to frame in British Columbia. We believe that we should create a framing certification — high quality being done by the Canadian Home Builders so that more young men and women can get jobs in this province doing something they really want to do.

J. Kwan: Only this minister would actually cheer the fact that we have to import workers for framing. The issue about framing in terms of the workers in that field is not actually the lack of availability of workers within British Columbia. It is a lack of employers wanting to pay a fair wage for these workers. Therefore, they're importing, and there are real issues with respect to that.

The government says: "Oh well, you know, people don't like change. People don't like the way things are going because they don't like the changes that are being put forward, which this government and this minister say are excellent and great." Interesting that the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building Construction Trades Council says something else. They say the dropout rates are high because some employers are using apprentices as a source of cheap labour. Unscrupulous employers use apprentices for one or two years and then lay them off — not because apprentices don't want to do the job, but because the employer no longer wants them. They have abandoned these workers. I would like the minister to address this claim directly.

Hon. S. Bond: We have an incredible record of support for apprentices in British Columbia. Small business owners, in particular, work very hard to ensure that our young men and women have an opportunity to apprentice in the province. There are unscrupulous people, I'm sure, in every sector. But in fact, we have an incredible track record of working very hard to support apprentices in British Columbia. I'm just completely surprised by the fact that there is always some sort of negative response here.

It was Dan Miller, actually — former Minister of Skills, Training and Labour, a Premier and a millwright — who in 1995 said: "It's time to think about revitalizing apprenticeship." The very principles that were mentioned in this particular government's views are exactly the ones that we are trying to embrace in 2004 so that we can create a workforce that's skilled and prepared to make sure that the economy of British Columbia continues to have its needs met.

My view and certainly the comments about importing labour…. My comments are simply this. We have a responsibility to train workers so that they can have jobs in British Columbia. That's what we hope the new system will do.

J. Kwan: It is interesting. Whenever there are people who raise issues with this government and this minister, she will say: "Oh, they're just being naysayers. They're just being negative Nellies. That's all they are." It's as though the criticisms and questions brought forward by people who question the actions of this government, who are trying to hold this government to account, are just somehow being negative for no particular reason.

In the March 10, 2004, newsletter — and this is from people who are in the field, who know their business…. Let me just quote their newsletter.

Let me just pause here for a moment. We have a situation where the minister says that the Industry Training Authority is putting together an approach to check and see if the database is correct. That approach would not be up and running until the summer. We have contradictory information from people from the trade who say: "Well, we estimate that more than 3,000 of the registered apprentices have in fact abandoned their trade, not necessarily because they wanted to, but because the employer has abandoned them." That's people from the trades who are saying that.

Well, which is it? Which is it in terms of actual information? The minister says there are unscrupulous employers everywhere. True, there are. But on this specific issue, what is the government doing to address the unscrupulous employers' relationship to apprenticeship dropout by laying them off, by using people as a cheap labour source? Or is the minister saying: "Oh, everything is just excellent and great. Therefore, these naysayers, these negative Nellies, are just saying these things, because the government says these things are not true and everything is just great"? Which is it?

Hon. S. Bond: We're not aware of people laying off apprentices in numbers. They couldn't actually afford to do that with the shortages we face. To be quite candid, if the member opposite has information about unscrupulous employers, she should make that public, and we will deal with it.

J. Kwan: As I said, this information actually came from the B.C. and Yukon Territory Building and Construction Trades Council. It was in a newsletter that's been issued publicly. You would have thought that the minister might have said: "Hey, wait a minute. There are issues here. Maybe I should follow up." That was actually issued back on March 10, 2004.

Maybe the minister didn't get the approval to act from the Minister of Finance and is just sitting on this information, wondering what she should do and twiddling her thumbs a little bit. It's public information that came from people who are in the trade, who are making these concerns known to the minister.

The minister says: "Oh, I'm not aware of it. Nobody brought it to my attention." It's been brought to the minister's attention. Maybe the problem is that the minister's doing nothing about it. Maybe that's the real problem.

The recent firing of the senior-level apprenticeship manager for involvement in fudging examinations has questioned the credibility of the B.C. trades certificates. Could the minister please tell me if she's planning to conduct a complete public investigation into this issue? What is the status of the issue now?

Hon. S. Bond: When we dealt with the issue of exam marks being adjusted, we found that 312 test scores had been adjusted upwards to a 70 percent pass mark between 1995 and 2004. I can certainly give the member opposite the numbers if she requires those. This information was provided by an independent review carried out at my instruction by the Financial Institutions Commission, an arm's-length agency under the Ministry of Finance. We worked through that process very quickly because we absolutely wanted to maintain the integrity of Red Seal examinations, and we want to continue to be a partner in the Red Seal program.

J. Kwan: Will the apprenticeship training certificates be recognized outside of B.C.?

J. Kwan: Will they fall short of the Red Seal certification, or is the Red Seal certification still required?

Hon. S. Bond: We still have Red Seal programs, and we'll continue to have them in the province.

J. Kwan: My question specifically is: the apprenticeship training certificates — will they fall short of Red Seal certification?

Hon. S. Bond: The member opposite will have to clarify. An apprenticeship training certificate…. I have one of my staff members responsible for that area with me, and we're not certain what she's referring to.

J. Kwan: The apprenticeship training certificates. When a person goes through the training and once a person completes the process, they'll earn a thing called the Red Seal certification in these trades. In this process, which has now been changed under this government, will the training that the apprentice receives still have Red Seal certification? Or will it fall short of Red Seal certification based on the changes the government has put forward?

J. Kwan: I would like to ask the minister a question around training apprenticeship in the area of funding. Training apprenticeship will see a marginal funding increase for the first time ever in B.C. However, apprenticeship courses will not be fully paid for by the province. They'll still be subsidized by 85 percent. The funding decrease does not address higher student numbers and increasing participation rates. The funding levels would not even compensate for inflation. Increases in funding for student financial aid are occurring in tandem with unprecedented tuition increases. The allocated funds would not be able to keep pace with the growth in student numbers, much less with the increasing costs. By reducing funding to institutions, the government is abdicating its responsibility and putting the burden on students.

In a March 15 Vancouver Sun article, the minister indicated that institutions are being asked to do more

with the facilities they have. Isn't it inevitable that funding per space will drop if post-secondary institutions are asked to do more with less?

Hon. S. Bond: Let's just talk about industry training funding for a moment. Funding of over $77 million is being provided in 2004-05. That compares to just over $73 million in 2003-04. We also have funding for board administration being reduced so that we're actually putting more dollars into student training. In fact, we're providing over $60 million to public institutions for industry training and $3 million for delivery by private trainers to provide classroom training.

We spent $3 million to fund 40 pilot projects. We're spending $2 million to restructure programs so we can align them with the new model. Most recently we actually spent $882,000 to fund additional classes, to make sure our apprentices can actually get into the programs they need so that we can help eliminate wait-lists. All of those dollars are being targeted at industry training in the province.

J. Kwan: In October 2003 the College Institute Educators Association of B.C., CIEA, sent a letter to the Premier regarding their concerns on how changes to government funding priorities are having disproportionately negative impacts on female students trying to access post-secondary education in B.C. Is the minister familiar with this letter?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have it with me, but certainly we've met with officers of that association a number of times, in addition.

J. Kwan: Let me put a portion of that letter on the record. "Programs and courses that primarily attract female students, such as early childhood education and office administration, have been either cut or significantly reduced in a number of instances. Many day care facilities on campuses have been closed. All of the above directly affects the ability of female students to access and succeed in post-secondary education."

Can the minister tell me how much, if any, funding goes towards assisting female students, particularly single mothers?

Hon. S. Bond: I don't have specific information with me that would talk about the breakdown of supports provided to women in particular. If the member opposite has specific questions, my staff would be happy to get that information to her as soon as we're able to get that.

J. Kwan: I'll give one program to the minister as an example. The employment and educational access for women programs have been combined and reduced at Vancouver Community College. Why? Because of funding shortfalls from the government, and as a result, women particularly — female students who would be impacted by the reduction of this program — would have been impacted in their attempt to access post-secondary education.

On the question around the employment and educational access for women programs, let me ask the minister: is she planning on reinstating these programs to assist female students to access and succeed in post-secondary education?

Hon. S. Bond: Once again, back to the basic principle in terms of how we operate post-secondary institutions in this province. Yes, the member opposite can say we're back to rewind, and perhaps we are, because it's a question I've had more than once. Institutions in this province, once they receive their block funding, make decisions about the programs that are offered. Again I refer to the very positive news release that was issued just a matter of a week or two ago from Vancouver Community College about adding seats, looking at a long-term plan and working very hard to meet the educational needs of their students. That's done on an institution-by-institution basis.

J. Kwan: No, the problem is this, Mr. Chair. The minister has one message box for all the questions. Basically, the message box is this: "I'm not responsible. Don't ask me these questions. Go and ask somebody else. It's the institution that decided to cut these programs." At the same time, this government and this minister like to claim that they are providing better educational opportunities for students. How is that so? How is it that women students, female students trying to access and succeed in post-secondary education…? Because of the government's budgeting process, because of the government's priorities in their funding of education, we now have employment and educational access for women programs that have been reduced at colleges and universities. How is that better?

I know the minister's answer will be: "Well, I didn't make that decision. No, we gave them block funding, so the institution made that decision." But you know what? Somewhere along the line the minister is going to have to own up. The minister is going to have to step out of her message box and say: "You know what? We made those decisions in terms of what to fund and what not to fund within government priorities. We decided how much education should get and how much they should not get." As a result of that, the minister knowingly put forward these budgets anyway, knowing these programs would have been negatively impacted as a result of budget shortfalls. By extension, the women in these communities, in our communities, who depend on these programs would not be able to access these programs. That's the reality of what's happened.

Let me just close with a few more comments. The government's example of doing more with less is placing financial burden on students all across British Columbia. At the University of Northern British Columbia, for example, the government is mandating increases in high-cost programs like computer science,

nursing and social work. While requiring UNBC to provide new northern medical programs, the budget shortfall for the university is about $2.2 million. That translates into a 22 percent increase in student fees.

Another specific example: Kwantlen's projected budget for 2004-05 has dropped by $1.2 million even though the number of FTEs — full-time-equivalents — will increase by at least 162. Kwantlen estimates that by 2006-07, the college will serve more FTEs than its funding is designed to accommodate. This is in accordance with the presentation by the Kwantlen faculty association.

Then at the University College of the Cariboo, tuition was imposed on students taking college preparation courses. Moreover, the home support program at the school of nursing did not run for the first time due to lack of enrolment. In fact, enrolment at UCC has experienced a 4 percent drop. The UCC faculty association has stated that if tuition fees continue to rise, students will simply not be able to afford to go, and they will not be able to afford to run the programs.

That's what this government is doing, all in the meanwhile so that this minister can get up and say: "Oh yeah, but FTE spaces are increasing." What is clear and has been established is that the government is underfunding them — underfunding these institutions. In fact, as has been mentioned before from CUFA, the new spaces the government said they were going to deliver — the 25,000 new spaces — are underfunded, and the government only provides for 56 percent of that funding.

The government may say and want to claim an increase in FTEs, but the reality is that in the education system, grant programs for students are less than what they were before. Specific programs to support women — those programs have been cut. ESL programs have been cut. Programs in the area of adult basic education have been reduced. Vocational programs targeting students for employment opportunities have been reduced under this government. That is what's happening in advanced education.

Unfortunately, questions to this minister and answers from this minister only say: "Not me. I didn't make those decisions. The institution did." But you know what? The minister can lay the blame on somebody else all she wants. The reality is that this government set these priorities, and they are hurting the students in an unprecedented way with these cuts and the tuition fee increases that many students are faced with.

Hon. S. Bond: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and ask leave to sit again.

Hon. G. Abbott: If we could take a brief recess to allow changing of the guard here.

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

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

J. MacPhail: I just want to let the minister know that I've got questions on B.C. Rail, and then I will be moving to B.C. Ferries, in case he wants to know from a staffing point of view.

J. MacPhail: The MLA steering committee that was put in place by the government to review the deal before it was announced to the public — what documents did they have before them? Did they have the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement?

Hon. K. Falcon: The steering committee, as the member may be aware, was put together to ensure that as we went through the process of negotiating with the

proponents under the tendering process, the negotiation process remained consistent with the stated objectives from the outset in terms of growth opportunity, sustainability, competitiveness and impacts on communities. They did have an opportunity on the evening before the deal was announced to review both the transaction and revitalization agreements. That answers the member's question.

J. MacPhail: Well, that's interesting. So the revitalization agreement was part of what the steering committee said. It's interesting, then, how the former Minister of Transportation didn't come clean in all of her questions about what we now know is in the revitalization agreement. But I'll get to that in a moment — how there was a lack of forthrightness there.

We now know…. The minister said, I believe — just to confirm — that the revitalization agreement and the transaction agreement are both before the competition bureau. I assume I'm recalling that correctly. Did the steering committee have access to the transaction agreement as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, they did. Member, if I could correct the record, I was slightly incorrect in one of the things I said. They actually had the opportunity to review it on the Saturday before the Tuesday announcement. I was making the assumption that the announcement was made the next day, but it wasn't made till Tuesday.

J. MacPhail: Thank you. Who briefed the steering committee on the contents? Who was at that meeting? Was Bob Virk there?

Hon. K. Falcon: The briefing did include Mr. Virk. It also included legal counsel Borden Ladner Gervais, B.C. Rail representatives and Yvette Wells on behalf of the province.

J. MacPhail: That was on the Saturday before. I believe the deal was November 25, or whatever the Tuesday was, and Mr. Virk was there.

Has the minister had any updates at all since last Thursday or last week on the progress the competition bureau is making?

J. MacPhail: I wonder when the government is actually going to ask how long the process is going to take, because we're five weeks beyond what the government predicted was going to be the conclusion of this deal.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm advised by staff that originally we had thought it might take until the end of March — March 31 — but apparently, at the time, we were also clear that it can take up to six months for this process to go through. I actually share the member's objective. I would like to hear as soon as we can, but I recognize that I don't have control over that eventuality. Hopefully, the bureau will take whatever reasonable time they need to go through the issues they need to address, but we're looking forward to an answer just as soon as we can get one.

J. MacPhail: Well, we are in the sixth month of what the minister claims he said was a maximum six-month process. I guess the government doesn't see the need to hurry this along — or actually, not hurry it along but get it completed. I'm not quite sure why.

What is the role of the competition bureau in terms of its approval process? Do they approve or deny? Can they make recommendations? Is there an appeal process?

Hon. K. Falcon: What happens is that the competition bureau will look at these, as I mentioned in one of my earlier answers to a question. There are what are called notifiable transactions, which are transactions in excess of $400 million which capture the interest of the competition bureau. The competition bureau primarily looks at the impact of a proposed transaction on a free, fair and open competition. They have a range of options, from simply having no objections to the deal in terms of its impact on fair and open competition…. They also have a range that includes adding requirements to a proposed transaction that would alleviate them of whatever concerns they may have had with respect to fair and open competition.

J. MacPhail: Then what happens? Then what does the provincial government do? Do they appeal? Do they accept? Is there a review? Do they have to go back and negotiate?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially, the way the competition bureau works is that it really is CN's process they go through. It's less of a government of British Columbia process, except to the extent that information may be required that we would be in a position to provide — which, of course, we would. What can happen is that once a decision is brought forward, whatever the decision of the tribunal is, if there are recommendations that in CN's mind are material, then they have the option to appeal. There's an appeal tribunal that the competition bureau has, and they would have that option available to them.

J. MacPhail: So it's CN that has to do the appeal? The British Columbia government is out of it completely?

Hon. K. Falcon: Any requirements imposed would be imposed on CN, because CN will be the operator. CN will be the one to which the competition bureau will be applying any requirements, because they will

be looking at CN as part of an entire field of competitors. If there aren't any requirements that the competition bureau has, it will be requirements or changes to how CN does their business, and so CN will be the one that will have the option to appeal.

J. MacPhail: If those circumstances occur, what's the relationship between B.C. Rail and CN in terms of enforcing the deal? Does CN have to eat whatever the competition bureau tells them to do and move forward with the deal, or is there a way they can get out of the deal with B.C. Rail?

Hon. K. Falcon: It largely depends on what the tribunal would suggest. One of the things I won't do is speculate on what they may or may not do. I'm more inclined to wait and see what the tribunal actually says and then deal with whatever it is that they recommend.

J. MacPhail: That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking just a general question. Does either the revitalization agreement or the transaction agreement deal with a situation where CN is asked to make changes — as the minister has just said, that would be the only party that would be asked to make changes — by the competition bureau? Is there anything in either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement that deals with that situation?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially what happens is that CN would look at whatever requirements would be imposed or suggested by the competition bureau, and CN would make the decision as to whether those requirements are material. They would have to come to the conclusion on their own whether they're material to the transaction that they've entered into and to make a decision subsequent to that as to what options they have available to them in terms of whether they wish to speak to us about whether we can resolve that issue — if it's seen to be material — or whether it's not an issue that is something that causes them concern.

J. MacPhail: I assume the minister is answering my questions in the context of what's in the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement, because I'm asking very specific questions. This isn't a touchy-feely: "Oh, let's see if the boys can sit down and work this through." I'm asking what's in the transaction agreement. Is there any language in either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement that lets CN abandon the deal based on competition bureau rulings?

Hon. K. Falcon: We've been pretty clear from the beginning that one of the conditions on this deal is, of course, the review by the competition bureau. Clearly, if the competition bureau comes forward with any recommendations that in CN's opinion are material to the transaction, then I imagine they will certainly be hearing from them and seeing whether there are ways we can deal with whatever the recommendations are that would respect the spirit of fair and open competition and also respect the ability of CN to operate under those conditions.

J. MacPhail: Is there some reason why the minister is avoiding answering my question? That wasn't my question. Is there any aspect of either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement that permits CN to abandon the deal based on rulings made by the competition bureau?

Hon. K. Falcon: Sorry, member. I thought I answered that. Maybe I wasn't clear. I've said it before and I'll say it again: one of the conditions of the agreement is that the competition bureau will review in a manner that is appropriate with CN being able to operate their business. If any requirements are imposed that are material to CN, then CN does have the ability to come back to us and see whether those requirements can be negotiated and dealt with in the context of the decision of the competition bureau.

I want to be clear. Yes, there is a requirement for competition bureau approval of this agreement that is consistent with allowing CN to operate in a manner which is viable. It's got to be material to CN for them to have further discussion with us.

J. MacPhail: So CN can abandon the deal if the competition bureau doesn't approve the deal. That's what I'm hearing the minister say.

What can CN come back…? What are the obligations under the transaction agreement and/or the revitalization agreement upon B.C. Rail and/or the B.C. government to negotiate with CN? Is there a financial obligation on either party to deal with the competition bureau's rulings? Is there a scope upon which a settlement must be reached and put back to the competition bureau? Or is it just that whatever the competition bureau rules, you'll go back to the negotiating table and try to work it out?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, the issue comes down to what, in the minds of CN, is going to be seen to be immaterial. Really, that would depend on what recommendations the Competition Tribunal comes forward with. It's not just difficult, but it's something I don't engage in, which is speculation on what they may or may not come forward with.

It is our belief, member, that based, as we indicated, on prior decisions of the competition bureau and independent assessments of the proposed transaction and revitalization agreements, there should not be any issues of enough significance that it would cause any major hurdles. But again, we await the decision. Once we have that decision, then we can better decide how we move forward.

J. MacPhail: I'm not asking for speculation. I'm asking for what's in the transaction agreement. Let me

just put the question again. If the competition bureau fails to approve the agreement as it is — either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement — CN has the right to abandon the agreement, to withdraw.

The minister says they can go, but CN also has another option, which is to go back and try to work out the differences with the government with B.C. Rail. I'm sure an organization like CN doesn't just say: "Oh, let's go back and schmooze. Let's talk." There are parameters of revisiting a transaction. Are there parameters listed in the transaction agreement upon which revisiting the deal as a result of an adverse competition bureau ruling must take place — parameters within which those discussions must take place? Are they financial parameters? What is the nature of the parameters — the legal parameters?

Hon. K. Falcon: The key issue really comes down to whether the recommendations are material, and CN would have to demonstrate that these are in fact material. Should there be that situation…. Again, I'm not going to speculate, because we think it's highly unlikely. Nevertheless, should that situation arise, they will have to demonstrate that these changes are indeed material, and we'll have that discussion if and when it arises.

J. MacPhail: Clearly, the minister doesn't want to answer that question. I expect it's because the transaction agreement has all the obligations on the side of B.C. Rail and the B.C. government and none on the side of CN. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but let's just see whether that's right or not.

Of course, this government says they don't anticipate any problems. This was the government that said everything was all right with the Roberts Bank deal, too, even as they knew it was being inundated with police allegations of wrongdoing, so I'm not sure the minister's reassurances will give the public any comfort.

I went back and looked at what the former minister said about the lease and the money. Here's a quote from December 2, 2003, in Hansard. When I asked how the breakdown per year works on the lease, here's what she answered: "The $150 million would be for the 90-year period. At the end of 60 years there is an opportunity for them not to continue on with the agreement, but the $150 million would include the 90 years, if they so choose" — meaning CN.

The minister was pretty specific back then, thank God. This minister won't give me any of those details. I'm not going to push the minister on the cost of the lease, because I know he won't answer me. Somehow, this government thinks that oops, Hansard doesn't exist, and the government doesn't have to be held to account with what their own members have said. But that's what the previous minister said.

I'm not going to explore the aspect of what price the prepaid lease is. I want to know what happens if CN decides they don't want to renew after 60 years. What's the legal process?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member's question related to the first 60-year term. What happens is that CN would give notice that they no longer wish to operate the railway. The province would then get back the right to operate on those rail lines.

J. MacPhail: Will B.C. get back B.C. Rail Ltd., which includes the rolling stock, then?

Hon. K. Falcon: Once CN provides notice, were they to provide notice — and of course, we're into the area of some speculation here — we would have no ability to determine what the state of the B.C. Rail Ltd. share structure is vis-à-vis CN and how CN 60 years from now has incorporated or what they've done with that share structure. The shorter answer is that the government of the day would engage in a negotiation with CN and determine the best way to proceed.

J. MacPhail: That's what the lease says? That's how insecure or undefined the details are? I don't believe it, because the minister is making all sorts of claims, or his government is making all sorts of claims, about what isn't a sale and what is a sale. Now he says: "Oh well, we don't know what would happen."

What happens to the stock? What happens to B.C. Rail Ltd. at the end of 60 years?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to recognize that, 60 years out, the average car life for any of the railcars is about 35 to 40 years. The average locomotive life is about 20 years, so we're talking about an entirely new fleet by the time that would come up. Clearly, what happens is that it's really only the lease term that gets terminated or extended. The operating business would be structured in whichever manner the parties agree to structure it at the time of the notice for the lease expiration.

J. MacPhail: What absolute gobbledegook — absolute gobbledegook. The minister is just, well, giving us balderdash to avoid the question.

Let me put through a couple of scenarios, and tell me where I'm wrong. The government has sold B.C. Rail Ltd. to CN, and all of the rolling stock goes, with that, to CN. At the end of 60 years, CN has the unilateral option to end its lease with this government and owns all of the rolling stock. I don't care whether the life of a railcar is 35 or 105 years. The government doesn't have any railcars. CN has them all, because the government sold them to them. So at end of the lease, 60 years, CN opts out. The government has no railcars. Is one option that the government has to find a new tenant with its own railcars?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer to the member's question is, clearly, that is an option. We've got three

years, once notice is provided, to decide whether we want to bring in another operator, to decide whether we want to get back into the operation of a railway. I think it's important to point out to the member that what the member needs to know is that we would be looking at CN over that period of time.

As I've indicated to the member, in terms of the life span of the average railcar being 35 to 40 years, we're talking about a complete new fleet turnover. That's exactly the kind of investment we not only want CN to make and that they've committed to make now, but also, in the future, we want to incentivize them to ensure that that continues. That's exactly what's going to happen.

The other thing the member needs to keep in mind is: why on earth would CN want to exit the railway business after making such a massive investment not just upfront but a massive ongoing investment in the lines — the rehabilitation of the rail lines, etc. — and also in the commitments they're making in terms of the purchases of new centre-beam cars, etc.?

J. MacPhail: Oh, CN has done a lot worse than that in downsizing across this country, so I don't know what the minister is talking about, about the great philanthropic contribution that CN would make. It's a business. It's a business, and it's a growing business because it's claiming assets. It's not a growing business per location. It's downsizing in Canada. I mean, they're moving some of the operations of B.C. Rail to Edmonton and Montreal. That's what they're doing. They're getting out of British Columbia.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it's important to point out to the member something that it's really critical she understands. Out of the ashes of former government ownership, CN has emerged as one of the largest, most successful railway operators in North America.

There's actually a reason for that. The reason is that it is now a private company. It's a private company that invests billions of dollars — not taxpayer dollars but investor dollars. Many investors, I might add, are pension funds from many of the labour unions that the member is largely familiar with. It provides ongoing security for thousands — in fact, tens of thousands — of shareholders and folks that have their retirement savings in RRSPs, and it has provided that extremely well. Why has it done that? It's done that because it has a private sector discipline.

The member talks about how they're getting out of B.C. You know, I'm frankly having difficulty squaring that with the fact that they're making a billion-dollar investment in British Columbia. I can assure you one thing about CN. This isn't an operator that makes a billion-dollar investment lightly. They make a billion-dollar investment recognizing that there's future growth. They see the opportunities in a growing British Columbia.

I am very confident that if the member looks back at the story of CN when it was a government-owned railway and compares CN today as a privately owned railway with much of its investment driven by labour pension funds and by the retirement funds of folks across this country, she will see that one of the reasons why it is such a successful railway is that it got government out of its business and that it has expanded appropriately.

Hon. K. Falcon: As a former Finance minister, that member will know that in a transaction of this size and scope, there are accounting issues that are currently being reviewed. Obviously, the comptroller general is going to have a review, as is the auditor general. Once those reviews are completed, we will be able to have a finalized answer for the member.

J. MacPhail: Oh well, when it serves the minister's purpose, he can say: "Oh, a car only lasts 35 to 40 years." That's the information on which they calculate the value of the rolling stock — but oh no. When the minister actually has to deliver something that's meaningful to taxpayers, he doesn't have the information. He hides behind accountants and accounting, which is absolute…. I mean, I can't believe how insulting it is. Well, it's insulting to me. Clearly, it's not insulting to these Liberal members.

The minister said that if CN abandons the rail lines — and it's entirely their option — one option would be that the government would have to find a new tenant. I assume that the new tenant would have to come with their own rolling stock.

The other option, the minister said, is that the government could run the railway. Isn't that interesting? He has just spent two years — his own government — attacking B.C. Rail and how awful it was for the public to be involved in the delivery of rail services, and he just lists it as an option he may be forced into. How would the government do that? How would the government run a railway?

Hon. K. Falcon: Obviously, the government of the day — and obviously, I hope it's a good free enterprise government — will decide what it wants to do, but they may reflect on the experience our government and the governments prior to us have had in running a railway. It's an experience not unlike the experience of the federal government with CN Rail, and that is that upon exiting the railway business, there was enormous investment and opportunity unleashed right across British Columbia, right across the country. I imagine they will reflect on those experiences and will make whatever decision they believe is in the interest of the public at the time.

J. MacPhail: No. Either the lease agreement or the transaction agreement must deal with these exact questions. Is the minister telling me that the transaction

agreement and/or the revitalization agreement doesn't deal with these questions? Is that what he's saying?

Hon. K. Falcon: At the end of the lease term, as I've mentioned, the government has options available to it. Whether the government decides to get into the rail business again or not will be up to the government of the day. Presumably, they'll have a multitude of things they wish to look at and decisions they need to make. That will be up to them, and I'm not going to speculate on whether or how they decide to do that.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Let me put this to the minister, if he refuses to answer the question. CN has the unilateral option to abandon the lease after 60 years. Unilateral, so the government can't say a thing to them. The minister refuses to speculate on what could happen at that point.

Clearly, it's a sale. Full and simple, it's a sale, unless he has some plans. If it's entirely up to CN and the minister has no plans for what happens after that, how can he then argue that this isn't a sale? They have no rolling stock. The government has no rolling stock. They sold it all. The minister says he has no legal plans or obligations to continue running the rail line. It will be up to the government of the day, then.

I guess, basically, what British Columbians have been guaranteed is 60 years of rail service and absolutely nothing after that — or else there's a legal requirement. Is there any requirement by this government either in the transaction agreement or the lease agreement, the revitalization agreement, to continue the operation of the railway if CN doesn't renew its option to lease after 60 years?

Hon. K. Falcon: That's why it's important that the member understand the distinction between a lease and a sale. The advantage of the way this deal has been put together is that public ownership is maintained on the railbed and right-of-way. That's important, because should CN…. More importantly, at the end of the 90-year term, should the government at its option decide not to continue with the lease, then as the owner of the railbed and rights-of-way, we could decide. The government of the day will decide what they wish to do. Do they wish to bring in a new operator? Do they wish to get back into the railway business?

The reason we will have that option goes to the very crux of the untruth in the argument the member is trying to put forward that this is a sale. It's not a sale. If it was a sale, then CN, as the operator, would have all the rights that come with a typical sale — the rights to decide what to do with the railbed and rights-of-way, the rights to decide whether to invest in that railbed or rights-of-way. They don't have those rights. They can't decide to build condos on the line from, say, North Vancouver to Whistler. Why? Because it's owned by the public; it's owned by the government. That's why we maintain that public ownership. It's critical to understanding this deal.

You know, if the member continues to perpetuate the misinformation that it's a sale when it's not, I suppose that's what the member can do and what she has the right to, but it's very critical to understand that distinction. There are no ownership rights that go with this deal on the railbed and rights-of-way. That is maintained by the public, as it should be and as the Premier committed it would be.

J. MacPhail: What I'm trying to get at — and this minister completely refuses to answer the question — is: how does the railway continue to operate if CN opts out of the lease after six years? The government has no railcars. It's got no experienced workers. I'm asking the minister to tell me how the railway continues, and he gives me gobbledegook — absolute gobbledegook. What he knows, Mr. Chair, is this: either his government is going to actually have to find another tenant who comes with their own railcars, or the government is going to have to buy rolling stock — completely.

Of course, he won't admit how much this current government got for the rolling stock, because it was probably a bargain-basement sale that CN got on the rolling stock. We know that the sum total of the rolling stock and the lease is $770 million. A lease for 90 years and rolling stock is $770 million in total. That's what we know, which he can't deny from this book, the Budget and Fiscal Plan. He won't tell us what the breakdown in that is — far less forthcoming than the previous Minister of Transportation.

Is the fact that she was forthcoming and honest the reason why she got shuffled, Mr. Chair? Is that an actual negative under this government — to actually answer questions truthfully? I guess it is, because this minister won't be truthful.

Let's get into some questions about the lease arrangement, then. The revitalization agreement, article 3, is titled "Term and Termination on Discontinuance of Operations." So 3.2 deals with renewals. It states: "The tenant shall have the options to renew this lease in accordance with the terms of the renewal options." Could the minister outline the renewal options?

Hon. K. Falcon: As we've stated publicly numerous times, the initial lease term is 60 years. CN has an option to renew for 30 years. They provide three years' notice, as I indicated, with respect to the 30-year option to renew. The second to sixteenth renewal terms are in 60-year increments. This is solely at the province's option, as I've indicated. If not renewed, then obviously, the options we've thoroughly canvassed will become available to the government of the day. I think that answers the member's question.

J. MacPhail: Why does it say: "The tenant shall have the options"? Why is there an "s" on that, if the minister is trying to say that the tenant only gets one option of a 30-year renewal?

Hon. K. Falcon: The renewal terms are provided in the schedule to the revitalization agreement that the member referred to. I think she indicated schedule P.

The tenant, according to that schedule, has one option to renew at the 60-year term for an additional 30 years. At the end of it, it indicates that the province has the sole option to renew after the subsequent 60-year intervals.

J. MacPhail: Is the "s" in "options" meaningless? Isn't that confusing? Is the plural of the word "option" meaningless, then?

Hon. K. Falcon: No. Actually, it should be exactly the way it's written, member, so the word "options" should have an "s." The reason is that if the landlord fails to exercise their option to renew the lease, then the tenant can provide notice to renew the lease for the next term.

I'll leave that answer. If the member understood it, then great; if not, I can expand.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? I thought the government said that all of the subsequent renewals after the first 30-year renewal were at the sole option of the government. It turns out it's not.

Hon. K. Falcon: The way it works is the way we've stated publicly many times. That is, at the end of that 90-year term, if the government determines to exercise its option to end the lease, the lease is over. There's no more lease. If the government of the day does not exercise that option, then the tenant has the option to renew their lease, but it is government that makes the decision as to whether that lease will continue or not at that time.

J. MacPhail: The minister said this was standard lease practice. Can he cite…? This government — well, until this government's selling off everything — owns billions of dollars of assets in which there are lease arrangements. Could he just tell me one other situation where this kind of lease exists?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes, member, I do have, actually, multiple examples. If the member would give me some time, I would have to gather them. I'm hoping they're here with me, but there is a slim possibility I left them in my office. I'll just start looking here.

J. MacPhail: We can move on. When the minister gives me examples, I'll get those leases and look at them. Perhaps we can actually shine some light on these leases. I'll be absolutely thrilled to see what leases between the government and their tenants are for 990 years — I can hardly wait — where the assets have actually been purchased by the tenant. I can hardly wait. It will be fascinating.

The minister himself referred to schedule P; I actually didn't. Let's talk about schedule P. Section 3.2, schedule P: "Renewal Options."

By the way, I'm sure the minister has got his little BlackBerry going to get that information. I want it. In fact, what would be useful is actually the copy of the leases that are like this.

J. MacPhail: Well, the minister was excited with the number of examples, and I'm supposed to take his word for it? I'm supposed to take his word that they are exactly the same? Sale of assets, tenant renewal, option for only one party to renew for up to 990 years — I'm supposed to take his word? I don't think so. If he's forcing me to FOI them in this great open and accountable way that this government operates, so be it. So be it.

Here's what schedule P says. "Renewal Options," section 2, states: "If the tenant exercises its option to renew the term for the initial renewal term, as contemplated by section 1 of this schedule P" — and that's the first 30 years — "the tenant shall contemporaneously grant to the landlord the option…to purchase the operating enterprise, as defined by the renewal purchase option, substantially on the terms and conditions contained in the repurchase option…."

Now, that's why I was asking the minister about the value of the rolling stock and what all the assets had been valued at, because clearly all that work had been done. Could the minister explain this section to me, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The repurchase option relates to the repurchase of the operating business. The repurchase agreement is between BCRC and the tenant, CN, and relates to the B.C. Rail business only. The purpose is to give BCRC the right to acquire the operating assets, facilities and related undertakings in goodwill relating to the railway business and its operations.

J. MacPhail: Are those the terms of the repurchase option? How does a price get determined?

J. MacPhail: Okay, but it's not a sale. Isn't that interesting? Purchase at fair market value, but in Liberalspeak that's not a sale. Interesting. The government sells off everything — and we'll get to the railbed and discontinued lands in a moment — they have no rolling stock or assets of their own, they have to repurchase all of them, and yet that's not a sale of the railway. It's at fair market value that the taxpayer has to buy it back. Interesting.

If there's a determination of fair market value, wouldn't there have to be a determination of fair market value of what the assets are right now? And what is that? What's the fair market value of the assets today?

Hon. K. Falcon: I've already gone over that. Those issues are being reviewed by the comptroller general and the auditor general, and as I indicated to the member, that is a process that's currently underway.

One of the things the member does have a challenge understanding is the distinction between the lease between the landlord, i.e., the government — the owner of the railbed and rights-of-way — and the operating rights on the railway. The member appears to be astounded by the proposition that at the end of the term there would actually be, should the government of the day wish to get back into the railway business, a provision that requires the landlord to acquire the rolling stock at fair market value. That apparently surprises the member.

I should tell the member, as I've indicated before, that during the term of the lease there will be an entire turnover. We know for a fact that there will be an expansion in terms of the rolling stock, because we know that CN is committed to 600 centre-beam cars, for example. We know they've committed to the refurbishment of 1,500 of the existing railcars, but we also know that over that period of time there will be a whole new set of equipment on the railways in terms of both locomotives and railcars.

The other thing that is somewhat unknown is that we also don't know what the rail business will look like during that period of time. We do know that CN is making a significant investment in the province. They're doing that because they wish to grow and expand their operation, and that's exactly what they'll be doing.

J. MacPhail: Wow. What a great deal. CN invests to make a profit that the taxpayers no longer get, and the minister's saying: "Well, of course we have to buy it back." Yeah, of course we have to buy it back, because this government sold it to CN. He pretends as if the world would have stood still if this sale hadn't occurred. It's interesting how little he understands about economic growth — how little.

Let's just go to the issue of section 3, where we talk about the 990 years. Here's what it states in section 3:

Now, given that the former Minister of Transportation said the full prepaid lease of 150 million bucks would be for the 90 years, putting that in conjunction with this clause, can the minister explain the section I just read into the record?

Hon. K. Falcon: The basic rent is the rent payment. Of course, the portion of the $1 billion payment from CN to BCRC is part of the investment partnership. That's the apportionment that the accountants are currently working through.

The additional rent refers to the moneys that would be payable by the tenant under the lease for subsequent lease terms. That would commence with the initial renewal term of 30 years that the member had indicated and that we talked about and applies to each and every subsequent renewal term.

The amount of additional rent, of course, would have to be negotiated between the landlord and tenant at the time of renewal. The reason you state that is because it will largely reflect the market conditions at the time. The government of the day, of course, will have the opportunity to examine other leases and determine what the appropriate amount of additional rent will be at the time.

J. MacPhail: The former Minister of Transportation said something different. She said that the full prepaid lease payment of what she was estimating as $150 million would be for 90 years if the tenant decided to renew for the 30 years. Was she wrong?

Hon. K. Falcon: I should let the member know that I am attempting to try and identify all of the previous questions that have been asked with respect to this. The member probably appreciates that I don't know all the questions and answers, though I haven't found one that would perhaps mirror exactly what the member is saying. She might be able to enlighten me on that.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, that's okay, member. I'm not trying to get the member excited. I'm just trying to point out that I'm not familiar with it, although I'm making an honest attempt to try and ascertain where it was.

One thing I can do is certainly clarify, I think, by way of explanation, in my description between the basic rent and additional rent. I hope that enlightens the member. With respect to previous comments, I'd be interested, specifically, in…. Maybe the member can help me find it, so I can understand the context in which the answer was given and perhaps see whether it is consistent with what I've suggested.

J. MacPhail: I read it into the record about an hour ago, but I'd be happy to do it again. The former minister said on December 2, 2003: "The $150 million would be for the 90-year period. At the end of the 60 years there is an opportunity for them not to continue on with the agreement, but the $150 million would include the 90 years, if they so choose."

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I'm trying to find that comment. I'm looking at the question and answer from the member to the minister at the time, and I note that on prior questions the minister was quite clear that the

term is 60 years with a 30-year renewal — in direct answer to a question of the member. I think I've helped to clarify that for the member.

J. MacPhail: Well, thank you. I do appreciate that. Perhaps the minister could answer my question, then, because that didn't have anything to do with my question. Is the prepaid lease for 60 years or 90 years — the cost of the prepaid lease that this minister has already booked?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly, I'll repeat what I've already said in terms of trying to clarify that for the member. The basic rent, as I've indicated to the member, is the rent payment resulting from that portion of the $1 billion payment from CN to BCRC as part of the investment partnership. That's the information that I indicated to the member is currently the subject of an ongoing accountants' look at the appropriate apportionment and treatment that we've discussed earlier.

I then indicated that additional rent is the amount of money payable by the tenant under the lease for subsequent lease renewal terms, commencing with the initial renewal term of 30 years, and it applies to each and every subsequent renewal term. The amount of the additional rent would be negotiated between the landlord and tenant at the time of each lease renewal.

Hon. K. Falcon: No, not at all. In fact, I would suggest that the questions asked were not asked in such a manner as…. There was probably lack of clarity about what the questions and the answers were, quite frankly, because I don't see anything here that indicates there's anything inconsistent with what I've just stated at all.

Let me just see how I could make the question or the answer so it would jibe with the minister. Let's go through it one more time. I don't know why the minister just doesn't stand up and say: "Sorry. The previous minister got it wrong." It's to his advantage, because it's not quite as big a sellout. I don't know why he doesn't want to do this.

J. MacPhail: It says: "So how does that" — we were talking about the lease; we were asking about the terms of the lease — "break down per year?" From December 2: "The $150 million would be for the 90-year period. At the end of the 60 years there is an opportunity for them not to continue on with the agreement, but the $150 million would include 90 years, if they so choose."

J. MacPhail: Do I have to do the research for the minister as well? All right. Let me sit down and I'll get it, Mr. Chair.

I don't know how you do this for Hansard. It's between 1505 and 1510 on December 2. Here's the dialogue.

Me: "We have a $150 million lease for 60 years, and it's CN's option to extend it for another 30. Is that correct?"

Minister: "The $150 million would be for the 90-year period. At the end of 60 years there is an opportunity for them not to continue on with the agreement, but the $150 million would include the 90 years, if they so choose."

How is it that my questions didn't pertain to the exact issue that I'm asking now?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, I do want to be clear that I'm not trying to suggest that. What I'm trying to suggest is that I'm trying to find the actual section you're talking about so I have the opportunity to avail myself of the debate you're referring to. I've been trying to do that while we've been talking, but in the most bizarre, amazing circumstances, mine actually ends at 1505. I'm going to attempt to get that for the member so I can actually follow and read that.

Hon. K. Falcon: I am looking through the questions, and I want to thank the member for lending me those. I did have my staff run down that particular section for my benefit. I appreciate that.

I think there are two things that I have identified here, member. One is that in the line of questioning, you had asked whether the lease was for 60 years and did CN have the option to extend it for another 30. Is that correct? And the minister answered yes. Then you asked how much the lease payments would increase if CN exercised that option. The answer goes on to state that it would be for the 90-year period. At the end of 60 years there's an opportunity to continue on, but the amount, which was an estimated amount that had been heavily qualified by the minister, would include the 90 years if they choose.

I can see that in the second part of the answer…. In the first part of the answer she was bang-on correct in terms of the fact that it's a lease term of 60 years with CN's option to extend for another 30. But I can see that the former minister's answer on the second part could have been clearer as to the clarification that I've just

made with respect to the basic rent and the additional rent. Hopefully, I've helped to clarify that for the member.

J. MacPhail: No. Either the former minister is wrong, or she's right, and this minister is wrong. Come on, Mr. Chair. Why are we playing games here? There is one person in this Legislature asking questions about this deal, so what's wrong with the minister coming clean on what the facts are? What is wrong with that?

There is no confusion in the debate in December — none. I am completely insulted by his answer. He has stooped to a new low on that answer he just gave. First of all, he denies that he knows the figure of the prepaid lease. The previous minister gave the price of the prepaid lease. She said it was 150 million bucks. I'm not going to push the minister on that. He refuses to give that information.

Hon. K. Falcon: With respect to the prior discussions, I do think it's important to recognize that the minister was qualifying the issue of the $150 million, correctly pointing out that that's being worked through, of course, through the accounts, the comptroller general and, eventually, the auditor general.

The short answer to the member's question is yes. It is for the 60-year term, and I think I've already gone over the basic and additional rent discussion.

J. MacPhail: So the prepaid lease is for 60 years. Doesn't that make the deal a little better? What's the minister so embarrassed about, saying that? I'm actually going to have to take back an iota of insult I made about this government.

The lease, which the then minister said was for 150 million bucks — this minister refuses to say a figure — is now for only 60 years. The prepaid lease covers only a 60-year period. Well, that's good. All the more reason, perhaps, why the deal should be made public, because the transaction agreement was available to the then minister of the day. We just confirmed that the transaction agreement and the revitalization agreement were available at the time, and everybody had been briefed on it. The same people are advising this minister who were advising that minister, and it turns out she made a mistake. What's wrong with admitting to that?

Tell me, does the transaction agreement and the revitalization…? Are those the only documents that went to the competition bureau? Is the value of the prepaid lease not…? Did the government not have to submit that to the competition bureau? Like, the value of the deferred revenue, the value of the assets — did none of that have to be submitted to the competition bureau? Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: The transaction, the revitalization agreement and the schedules therein have all been provided to the bureau. Of course, any additional information that the bureau would require or request, we would happily provide that to them too.

J. MacPhail: I knew that. My question was: did a calculation of the net book value of disposed assets and deferred revenue have to be submitted to the competition bureau? Was it submitted to the competition bureau?

Hon. K. Falcon: My staff advise me they're not entirely certain. They don't believe so, because those accounting issues would, of course, be germane to the province. They would have no particular interest to the competition bureau. We will try to clarify that for the member and get that back to her.

J. MacPhail: Perhaps the minister could explain to me how, when I ask him questions about what he has or has not given to the competition bureau, he's fully informed, but in other circumstances, he has no information.

What is it about determining…? The competition bureau has no say or requires no information about the nature of the exchange, the purchase price or the value of assets or anything? That's not part of the competition bureau's purview? Is that what the minister is saying? Or what the lease cost is? The competition bureau isn't interested in the lease cost?

Hon. K. Falcon: The competition bureau mandate, when they are made aware of a transaction through the triggering of a notifiable transaction…. As I've discussed earlier with the member, any notifiable transaction in excess of $400 million automatically engages the scrutiny of the competition bureau.

They review the transaction to determine whether it might result in a lessening or prevention of competition, substantially, in the marketplace. The information the member is discussing would have interest for the competition bureau only if it was in some way germane to the overall task of the bureau, which is to determine whether the transaction would be resulting in the lessening or prevention of competition, substantially, in the marketplace.

J. MacPhail: Well, yeah. If CN is getting a real deal on rent for 60 years, doesn't that lessen competition? Isn't that an input into determining fair competition? "Hey, CN. Here are our rail lines. Pay us a pittance." Wouldn't they be interested in that? I expect that the competition bureau has all of this information, as does the government right now.

Let me put this to the minister. The Minister of Finance has listed that the net book value of disposed assets — that would be the rolling stock — and the deferred revenue — that would be the prepaid lease — totals $770 million. Those are the two parts to that figure. If the lease payment ain't $150 million, if it's lower than $150 million, that's interesting. And if the prepaid lease is higher than $150 million, that means the gov-

I don't know why the minister won't just come clean and tell us how that $770 million is calculated. Did they just make it up out of thin air? Really, I don't think so, but I guess any part of that answer might be embarrassing. A lease that for 60 years…. I'm correct in saying that whatever the cost of the prepaid lease is as part of that $770 million — in that cost book, there, on page 60 — is for a 60-year period only. I'm correct in that, am I?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member knows, the office of the comptroller general's accountants reviewed and, of course, had access to the lease provisions when they made that determination. They obviously had access to that information. They've made that determination based on the review of the lease provisions.

J. MacPhail: Yeah. Mr. Chair, I'm just going to ask a simple question. I've just advised my colleagues that I want to move on with this as well, but I asked a very simple question. I was actually just trying to confirm the information that the minister gave me previously. I want the minister to just say yes or no.

On page 60 of the box that describes the B.C. Rail investment partnership — this is the information that the public relies on, the financial information — it talks about impact and government operating statement. It talks about the gross transaction proceeds, and then it says: "…less net book value of disposed assets and deferred revenue."

There are two parts to that. One is what the government got in value for the assets that it sold to CN, and the other, the deferred revenue, is the prepaid lease. Does that deferred revenue for the prepaid lease cover a 60-year lease period for CN? That's all I'm asking. Yes or no?

Hon. K. Falcon: I thought I'd answered that a couple of times, actually, so I apologize if I wasn't clear. The answer is yes.

J. MacPhail: Good. The minister didn't answer that question, so thank you very much.

Special rents. It says that special rent will not be paid for the 30-year…. I'm reading the clause of section 3 that says this: "…for a further renewal term — the 'Second Renewal Term' — of sixty (60) years…." In other words, it goes on to say that the renewal terms will be for periods of 60 years, "except that no rent shall be payable other than additional rent, the landlord and the tenant acknowledging that the special rent will have already been paid pursuant to section 5(2)," section 3(4) and 15(1)(b). So we're now at the period from 90 to 150 years. That's what this clause is talking about — 90 to 150 years — and then 60-year renewals after that.

Hon. K. Falcon: The special rent is a one-time payment which is given in consideration for the renewal options that we as the province have provided for, as I've indicated earlier, at our sole discretion in the lease agreement.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Special rent. Let's just go through this. For the period of the first 60-year lease, it's prepaid, and the figure has already been booked as part of the deal. The minister has just said that. That's what's booked in this fiscal plan, the '04-05 to '06-07 fiscal plan.

Is there a special rent payment for the sixty-first to ninetieth year, the first renewal option? Is there a special rent paid for that period of time?

J. MacPhail: No, I'm trying to figure…. According to the clause that I just read into the record, special rent doesn't apply after 90 years. Sorry. I'm actually trying to figure out who gets paid what. We could actually do a flow chart here. Prepaid lease — we've got it down that the prepaid lease only covers the 60 years.

According to the clause that I just read into the record of section 3 of the revitalization agreement, special rent doesn't apply for the first 60-year renewal, but in between the prepaid lease of 60 years and the first 60-year renewal, there's a 30-year renewal. Does special rent apply to that 30-year renewal, and if so, how?

Hon. K. Falcon: Member, this is a one-time payment. This is a one-time payment that's provided in lieu of the recognition that there are renewal options provided in the lease. That includes, frankly, every renewal option from the original 60 years on — in other words, the CN option for 30 years and the province at its sole discretion on the subsequent 60 years — so that's a one-time payment for the rights to have those renewal options.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, special rent doesn't apply…. It says right here special rent doesn't apply for the second renewal term, which is of 60 years, so the only thing that applies for the renewal of 60 years is the additional rent, not special rent. What period does CN pay special rent for — zero to 90 or 60 to 90?

Hon. K. Falcon: I actually answered that. It's a one-time payment, paid for the renewal options. I thought I was fairly clear in stating that that's all the renewal options, so all the renewal options that are provided under the agreement, which we've thoroughly canvassed…. This was a one-time payment made by CN in recognition of the renewal options.

Hon. K. Falcon: That forms part of the $1 billion transaction, which of course, subsequent to the competition bureau review, will all be fully disclosed and released.

J. MacPhail: It's a one-time payment. Like, is it going to change? Is it flexible? We know what this government means when they say flexible. It's a one-time payment. Why is the minister not saying what it is? Is there some secret to it?

Hon. K. Falcon: No, member. There's absolutely no attempt whatsoever. What we're trying to do is just be clear about the fact that all of this information, as we've indicated, will be fully disclosed upon completion of the competition bureau review. Once that review is completed and the transaction closes, all of this information will be made available to the member.

J. MacPhail: Where is the one-time payment calculated in table 1 on page 60 of the three-year fiscal plan?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member will know that that's part of the $770 million of the net book value of disposed assets and deferred revenue.

J. MacPhail: Okay. So now we have this current Minister of Transportation saying that the one-time payment of special rent, the prepaid lease and the net book value of disposed assets adds up to $770 million. I wonder if that's where the former Minister of Transportation got confused and said that the prepaid lease covered off the 90 years.

There are two types of rent according to this document that got leaked. Special rent. Special rent has already been collected by the government. It's part of the prepaid lease — or deferred revenue, let's say. Additional rent — how's that calculated, and when does it kick in? It kicks in at the sixty-first year. So the only extra payments this government gets in the way of rent from the sixty-first year on is under the definition of "additional rent." That's what I understand so far. How is that calculated? What's the process for calculating additional rent?

Hon. K. Falcon: Two quick points. One is that the member does know we haven't collected anything, actually, until such time as the transaction subsequently concludes. In terms of the whole rent question…. We've gone over this, member, but I'm happy to go over it one more time. The additional rent is the amount of money that would be paid by the tenant at the end of the different terms of the lease — that is, amounts that would be negotiated between the landlord and tenant. The governments of the day will base their negotiations on a whole range of issues that I imagine they'll look at — based on the state of the rail marketplace at the time of the lease renewals. And they will have the option to negotiate the additional rent.

J. MacPhail: Is the revitalization agreement and/or the transaction agreement silent on the terms of renegotiation for that additional rent?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member can probably recognize that at the end of a 60-year period and subsequent 60-year periods, we want to ensure that the landlord — i.e., the government, the taxpayer — at that time has the ability to negotiate whatever additional rents they feel are appropriate and reflect the market conditions of that time.

J. MacPhail: Are both the agreements — the transaction agreement and the revitalization agreement — silent on the terms of renegotiation for additional rent? Yes or no?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've indicated to the member, the issue of the terms of the additional rent is something that is going to be subject to negotiation between the landlord — i.e., the public — who maintains ownership of the railbed and right-of-way, and the operating tenant — be it CN or another operating tenant, depending on which term of the lease we're talking about. That will be negotiated between both of them at the time of renewal.

J. MacPhail: The fact that the minister refuses to say that either of the agreements contains terms and conditions for renegotiation of added rent…. And that's normal. He's going to show me leases where that's completely normal that they don't address those issues. Gee, I can hardly wait. Normal takes on a whole new meaning with this government — paranormal maybe. Let's turn to section 3.5.

By the way, Madam Chair, sitting across on March 2, when I was in the estimates of the Minister of Finance and when I asked him these questions about the B.C. Rail deal, here's what he said. This would be March 2, so I'd be happy to get the exact time of the Hansard debate. Here's what the Minister of Finance said when I was asking him questions about booking this deal. "My knowledge is that this is done out of the Ministry of Transportation. As my deputy has advised me, Chris Trumpy is the lead on the B.C. Rail file as well as the lead negotiator." It's time for the minister to stop jacking us around — well, me; no one else is asking questions — on passing the buck on this. It's his responsibility to answer these questions.

Article 3.5 outlines the process of discontinuance. How long before CN can discontinue lines?

Hon. K. Falcon: Let me preface my remarks slightly. Referring to what the member just said, I'm actually going out of my way to try and be as responsible as I can in answering that member's questions. She's asking many questions on the basis of a leaked document, which was illegally leaked, and I am cooperating as fully as I can within the constraints….

Hon. K. Falcon: No, there's not a question of a witch-hunt. The member asks if I have a witch-hunt. Of course not. In fact, I would never do such a thing, but the member does know that there are important issues of commercial privacy here and important issues associated with a large transaction like this that are subject to review by the competition bureau, which is ongoing.

To answer the member's question directly, CN cannot apply for operational discontinuance until such time as five years after the effective date that the conclusion of this deal has been passed.

J. MacPhail: I wonder why the minister says the document was illegally obtained. How does he know it was illegally obtained? He makes an accusation like that, and isn't it shocking that he has to answer questions on this document? It turns out he's having difficulty answering the questions. A lot of information there can't be had because of this great big competition bureau secrecy.

He also admitted that there's no requirement to keep the information secret from the competition bureau — none whatsoever. He also admitted that there's no requirement — of either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement — to keep the documents secret. It's his own government's desire to keep it secret — full stop.

Here's what the revitalization agreement says about when the five-year period expires, which the minister just referred to. I'm reading section 3.5(a):

Hon. K. Falcon: As I've indicated, there's the five-year prohibition on discontinuance. Subsequent to the five-year period, CN would have to apply for operational discontinuance. That's through the Canada Transportation Act, the CTA. That's the process for short-line operators that would then invite the opportunity for government as the owner of the railbed to consider options with respect to local governments or first nations in respect of those lands.

At the end of that process, there would be…. In effect, if the land is discontinued, it reverts. The ownership, of course, maintains with the owner of the railbed and right-of-way. If at the end we have no takeup on those things, then the reversion is solely to the province so that the province now is in complete control of the rail line.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, let me…. The minister described what happens to a discontinued land. He didn't in any way describe what a discontinued land is. You've got to have a description of a discontinued land in order to have an action upon it. What is the description of a discontinued land?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially, discontinued lands are lands that are no longer used as a railway and that revert to the province. That's sort of the simple explanation. I'm trying to explain a process that is a little more complex than that simplified explanation.

Essentially, if CN no longer wishes to operate a railway on some section of our rail line, they apply under the Canada Transportation Act, the CTA, for operational discontinuance. If the CTA process concludes without a rail operator — in other words, a short-line rail operator — assuming the option to take over the operation of those lines, they then become operationally discontinued lands. Those operationally discontinued lands…. What that means, then, is the lease on that portion of the track then reverts to the province under that process.

J. MacPhail: The minister, the last time we discussed this, said that he'd paid $600,000 to real estate advisers to sort out all of the titles — thousands of them, there were. I assume he's got all those titles sorted out now, and I assume that he's very clear on what lands could become discontinued lands. Could a railbed be a discontinued land?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm trying to explain this in a way that hopefully is even clearer than what I thought I'd already done. CN has the right to occupy and use the leased lands for railway purposes only. If they don't exercise that right, they can choose to go through operational discontinuance, which is the process that I outlined in my previous answer.

I'm not even sure, to be candid, that I understand the nature of the member's question regarding railbed and rights-of-way, because operating on a railbed and right-of-way is…. They're the same thing. They're essentially the same thing. If you're operating on a railbed, it's also the right-of-way.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, it is the same corridor, but they're different sizes of land.

What is so difficult about answering a question? Does discontinued land include railbed? I assume the minister is saying it does include railbed. I assume the minister is saying discontinued land includes right-of-way. Is that correct? Is that what he's saying?

J. MacPhail: Okay. So we have an agreement now that allows for the sale of the right-of-way and railbed. How does that jibe with the Premier saying that he wasn't going to sell the right-of-way and the railbed? I guess it doesn't. I guess the minister is going to stand up and say: "Oh, but it's our option whether to sell it or not." Yeah, but it's still an option to sell. It's an option to sell for $1. Then the minister, as an explanation of why they actually are saying something different than that the railbed and the rights-of-way aren't up for sale…. They're explaining the fact that they're up for sale because they may have to force CN to buy it for a buck to fix a tunnel or to fix something if they've polluted.

Rolling stock is for sale lock, stock and barrel — lock, rolling stock and barrel. That's for sale. That's gone. Right-of-way and railbed can be sold for a buck. It's the government's option to sell it. The Premier didn't say: "Don't worry. It's staying in public ownership unless we decide to sell it. Then there are very clear terms of how we have to sell it, and we have to give it away for a buck to CN."

How big are the parcels of discontinued land that it's determined would cost a dollar?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think the member is clearly not understanding this very important thing. The member should know that there is no difference than what we have today. We could sell land off today at any time under B.C. Rail. I think the member, if she is going to ask questions…. I realize I'm giving enormous latitude here, because we all recognize this has very little to do with my '04-05 estimates. Nevertheless, I'm happy to canvass all this fascinating….

Hon. K. Falcon: The member, as I understand, is having some challenge with this clause, so I'll explain to the member why it's there and why our government actually thinks about things like this. We want to put provisions into place that will protect the taxpayer down the road. That's why we insisted this clause be there. We want that clause there. As the member well knows, it's at our sole discretion and, in fact, at the sole discretion of a future government to exercise this clause. That member may not be able to anticipate it, but actually, we think that some of these things are anticipatable. For example, there may be safety issues associated with a tunnel that the government of the day may want to think about. We certainly don't want to have a situation, for safety or for environmental reasons, where we allow a future operator, who could be a very shrewd operator, to decide that there is an operational discontinuance advantage to them that may save them on some future costs associated with pending safety or environmental issues. That's why we actually insist that that clause be there.

As I've been very clear in stating many, many times before, the member should know well that prior to exercising that option, the government of the day, of course — absolutely, without any shadow of a doubt — would respect all of its constitutional obligations associated with first nations. I might also add, as I've repeatedly stated throughout my estimates, that I'm someone that is very optimistic. I'm optimistic by nature, and I'm optimistic about the fact that with the record of this government, this Premier and this Attorney General on working with first nations, I have little doubt that by the time the first lease comes due, we will actually have resolved many if not most first nations issues.

J. MacPhail: How big are the parcels of discontinued land that would cost a dollar?

Hon. K. Falcon: Frankly, it's impossible to know until such time as an application for operational discontinuance is made. At that time, that's when we would, obviously, know what we're talking about.

J. MacPhail: Well, then, what's the process for determination? It's five years down the road from now. What's the process?

Hon. K. Falcon: Each case would be unique. There would be things that our government would look at that would be important to us. We would be thinking about first nations issues. We would be thinking about local governance issues. We would be thinking about some of the safety issues and perhaps environmental issues. Obviously, that would depend on the circumstances of each case, and I imagine future governments may have different issues that they'd need to consider when they are looking at that situation.

J. MacPhail: I can't imagine why they would be different. The law of the land applies.

Is there no process in either the transaction agreement or the revitalization agreement for determining a sale of a discontinued land? Is the minister somehow saying that it's up to the political will, behind-closed-doors cabinet, to decide these issues? Is that what he's saying?

Hon. K. Falcon: As the member knows, there are all kinds of government procedures and policies that we

go through today before we make a decision. As I pointed out to the member earlier, there is nothing right now that is stopping us from engaging in that process today if we wish to. Of course, we would take….

Hon. K. Falcon: No. We would take, of course, all the important things into account. We would consider very carefully all the first nation constitutional obligations that we have. We would consider local government issues. We would consider a whole range of issues today, just as we would likely consider those issues down the road — although, being an optimistic person, I'm hopeful that we will have made very, very significant progress on some of the issues that today may be an issue.

Again, I think I've answered this pretty well. I think every case will be different, and every government may have different options that they look at and different factors that they include as part of their process of coming to a decision.

J. MacPhail: Well, isn't that interesting? You have the Premier saying: "Don't worry. B.C. Rail's not sold, because we're not selling the rights-of-way or the railbeds." Then you have an agreement that gets leaked and that says: "Oh yeah, we could sell the right-of-way or the railbed. By the way, we're going to sell it for a buck." All of that process could kick in after five years — and the government then saying: "Well, we need to have that right to do it in case there's some environmental damage or a tunnel's going to fall down." But oh, we don't have any process in place for actually determining how discontinued lands are parcelled. We don't have any process.

Wow, that's good government. That's really good business management. First of all, it puts to the lie completely the Premier saying that the right-of-way and the railbeds can't be sold. He's promising they will be sold under certain circumstances. In fact, the minister goes out of his way to say: "We may have to force a sale if CN is bad and pollutes. But oh, by the way, we don't have any process in the agreement to determine how that is going to occur." Interesting.

And the minister says it's always been thus. Well, yeah — except that this government, every day, stands up and says: "We not going to sell the railbed and the right-of-way." Every day they stand up. They somehow think people believe them, but as I like to say when I talk about this government, we're not idiots. Let's just put to the test what would be the test the minister would put in place to force a sale if CN pollutes.

Actually, Madam Chair, this is quite a lengthy discussion. I've got to read into the record about three or four pages of dialogue between the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection and myself and between the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management and myself about this very issue. On April 27, I had a debate with the minister on this. It was very interesting. And I had a debate with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection…. I'm trying to figure out the date. I'll get the exact date for that.

Anyway, Madam Chair, that's going to be a rather lengthy…. Oh, that was April 19. I'm sorry. On April 19, I debated this very issue with the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection. Then on Thursday, April 29, I debated it with the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management. Very interesting, what they had to say about who's responsible for cleanup.

Noting that, I move that we recess until whatever time they…. I move we recess.

J. MacPhail: Madam Chair, I expect this will be the last area that I'm going to explore on B.C. Rail. Then I want to move to B.C. Ferries, but I'm at the wishes of the government members about what they wish to explore after that.

We were talking about discontinued lands before the break — the government's admission that they will sell lands that could be right-of-way and railbed. The minister — I've heard his explanations over and over again: "Oh my God, this is to protect the public interest. We need to be able to force the sale of a discontinued land, because who knows? CN could have a spill and could pollute." I thought, well, I've been around for these three years of this government, and did they change the law? I mean, they've done a lot of backtracking on environmental legislation, but I don't recall them changing the Waste Management Act from what the previous administration put into place.

I pursued with various ministers a series of questions. I want to just outline them in terms of exploring the Minister of Transportation's explanation of why they would have to sell B.C. railbed or B.C. Rail right-of-way for a buck. This minister, the Minister of Transportation, said on April 27 that the $1 discontinued lands clause was there for issues relating to environmental cleanup. I have the attached excerpt from Hansard for the minister's edification.

The Minister of Transportation stated that the discontinued lands $1 sale clause was there to avoid the possibility that the taxpayer would be on the hook to

pay for environmental cleanup costs. He did it again today. The ministers who are actually responsible for the area of environmental cleanup tell a very different story. All of this is in Hansard, and I'm going to quote from Hansard. On April 19 of this year I asked the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection….

Me: "As I understand it, a contaminated site cannot be sold and the seller abandon his or her responsibility for cleanup. That is a joint and several liability. A sale doesn't negate or do away with the obligation to clean up the contaminated site. Have I got the basic understanding of the law?"

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: "The owner, by selling the property, doesn't negate his liability in the property." In this case, the owner would be the government. It's Crown land. So the government isn't off the hook by a sale.

Even the new Environmental Management Act, which is currently being implemented, will not see a change in the issue of liability on contaminated sites. I asked the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection if anything was going to change in the future in this matter.

Me: "Will the minister guarantee that his government is not going to change the premise that selling land releases the seller from his or her obligation to clean up a contaminated site?"

The Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection: "At this point in time, it is not the government's intention that a mere sale of the land would actually release you from your obligations to look after the land."

Again, the owner of the land here is the government. I thought, well, that doesn't jibe with what the minister is saying, because the obligation is with the government, the owner of the Crown land, no matter. Then I went and consulted Bill 57, the Environmental Management Act, which was passed last year. True to what the Minister of Water, Land and Air Protection said, it says exactly the same thing. I'm quoting from Bill 57:

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management also confirmed that the sale of discontinued lands has no bearing on the issue of environmental cleanup. I asked the Minister of Sustainable Resource Management what laws apply to the cleanup of Crown land. This was last Thursday, April 29. He, too, confirmed that the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection oversees this responsibility.

The Minister of Sustainable Resource Management: "On a railway right-of-way, if there were a spill, 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." I think he meant that Water, Land and Air Protection was responsible for the administration of the Waste Management Act.

The Waste Management Act and the Environmental Management Act apply to both private and Crown land. Both the seller and the buyer have responsibility for cleanup. A sale and change in ownership does not affect that at all. There is absolutely no justification for the government's ruse that they need to force a sale on CN in order to have polluted lands or environmentally contaminated lands cleaned up. That excuse for the sale of discontinued lands for $1 is completely invalid.

If the land were polluted, contaminated, the government, as the owner of the Crown land, would be responsible, and even if they sold the land for $1, the responsibility would then be shared between the previous owner of the Crown land and the new buyer. Would the minister care to comment?

Hon. K. Falcon: Certainly I would. One of the things that I think this member needs to understand, and understand clearly, is that the reason why a government like our government actually thinks about things like this is because the fact of the matter is that we actually don't know what a future government may do. We don't know what the world of legislation is going to look like in ten years — much less 60 years. It is important that we recognize that we have a clause there that actually is inserted and put there at the sole discretion of the government of the day — I underscore that: the sole discretion of the government of the day — to ensure that the public interest as they define it is protected. Forcing ownership of land transfer may be part of that necessary application of protecting the public interest.

Now, the member canvassed the environmental landscape. Well, that's true. Actually, I agree. I wouldn't disagree, I don't believe, with anything the member said there. In fact, I think she canvassed it quite well. But the issue is that we have to think about a future situation that may be different. A future government may or may not do something that would underscore or undermine the current protections that we have in place.

I also want to emphasize something else to that member, and that is that I mentioned that there are several categories of concern that we want to have this clause in place to look after. Environmental was just one of them. Health and safety are others. You know, I need only, as an example, point to a situation, which is actually not uncommon in the rail business, where you may have a housing subdivision below a railbank, and you get a situation where you start to have some slumping of that railbank. That can create not only a safety issue but a fairly significant liability issue. That is something the government, as the owner of the railbed and rights-of-way, is going to want to be very, very aware of, and we want to ensure that we protect taxpayers from any responsibilities that may be associ-

I'm just giving sort of examples off the top of my head. I think the member needs to recognize that it's actually really important. Maybe this demonstrates an important distinction between our two governments — that we actually think very, very carefully about unintended consequences down the road to ensure that we protect the taxpayers and we protect the public interest for events that down the road may be unanticipated. Certainly, there have been and often are examples of where you have unintended consequences down the road. We wanted to make sure we thought about that, and we very thoughtfully put in a provision that would protect the landlord from that kind of inevitability.

J. MacPhail: Very interesting. The minister's trying to say that this is going to be way down the road. No, Madam Chair — five years from now. Isn't it interesting that he's admitting that there could be another government five years from now? I think that's pretty much a slam dunk — that there'll be another….

J. MacPhail: Well, this clause kicks in five years from now. Phew. Thank God somebody has a dose of reality amongst this Liberal government and understands they probably won't be in power five years from now. I think it's a pretty safe bet to say they won't be in power one year from now but for sure five years from now. The Minister of Transportation has just admitted to that.

The current law, as he finally has to acknowledge…. Not one single Liberal MLA has worked this out and said: "Hey, wait a second. The current laws of the land don't require you to sell the discontinued lands for a buck. Hey, Mr. Transportation Minister, your logic doesn't work with the current laws of the land, so what are you on about?" No, I had to do that. It turns out that the minister says: "Yeah, the current laws of the land don't allow me to make my justification around environment cleanup, but five years from now, probably, because there'll be a different government in power."

Hallelujah. A dose of reality. Let's get him on BCTV. Let's get him on BCTV acknowledging that there will be a change in government and that his government needs to protect against that vile new government that will be in charge in 2009, and that new, vile government might change the laws. Well, I doubt that very much, unless there is a new new government. But surely…. I won't even go there.

We now know that this minister is acknowledging that it won't be his government. There is no justification under the current laws for this silly argument that we have to force CN to do the environmental cleanup, because the laws of the land, which the government has admitted will not change, require both the seller and the purchaser to do the cleanup.

There's also a principle, this other argument, that — oh, my God — if an embankment is impaired because of the use of the rail line and CN abandons it and we want to build condos underneath that rail line — the tunnel — that somehow we require them to be forced to buy the land in order to have any liability. Well, I don't think this government has yet changed joint and several liability laws. In fact, the Attorney General keeps saying: "Oh no, we're not going to do that." The current law of the land would hold B.C. Rail, the government and the railway liable for any change that causes damage as a result of the scenario the minister outlines.

That's the joint and several liability law. When I explored it with the former Minister of Transportation, she was not going to change that. She was not going to change that law. Is the minister planning on changing that law?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member knows full well that the issue of joint and several liability is an issue of the Attorney General, and she should explore that with the Attorney General.

J. MacPhail: Yeah, very, very good. Yeah, it's an issue of the Attorney General, and the Attorney General has not changed the law. So the minister's explanation around all of this is just pure fantasy, or it's a prediction of how he is going to erode the current protection around the laws that I have just listed. His government is going to erode those laws to make his predictions come true, because there is nothing in the current legal situation that would require this minister to force a sale upon CN to uphold their legal responsibilities — nothing. There is a range of legal protection now for the circumstances that he lists.

It gives me no pleasure, absolutely no pleasure, in poking gigantic craters, holes, in the arguments made by the minister, but I am saddened by the fact that I am the only person who asks these questions. I am deeply saddened by the fact that it has taken days and hours of debate where the opposition is the only one challenging the government on their spin, on their illogic and on their complete misdirecting of the public from what the real facts are, from their secrecy around this B.C. Rail deal that they refuse hold up to public scrutiny even though there's no requirement anywhere for them to keep it secret.

As a concluding remark, I would urge this government to make this deal — both the transaction agreement and the revitalization agreement — public as quickly as possible. Because here's what's happening: all of the potential of this sale is being eroded by this government's secrecy, obfuscation and inability to deal with the facts around what the substance of this deal is.

What do I mean by the potential of this deal? I disagree with the sale completely. I think when politicians make a promise, they should stick to it. I don't think

they should waffle. I don't think they should somehow say that circumstances have changed. I don't think they should mislead. The fact of the matter is that the government has, on all of these counts.

The only vestige left for this deal is some sort of economic viability, and that economic viability is being eroded every day because investors who may come to this province are suspicious, are worried about the instability that is created around such a deal because of its secrecy. They're worried about the legal ramifications of this government plowing ahead with this deal — the legal ramifications around first nations matters.

Whatever reason this government decided to reverse its promise to not sell B.C. Rail for is being completely eroded by the government's inappropriate, less than forthright handling of the B.C. Rail deal. On that basis, Madam Chair, I would urge one of two things. One, that they release all documents that they can relating to this deal, given the principle of commercial viability under the Freedom of Information Act — and frankly, the Freedom of Information Act only applies when a deal is being negotiated, not after the fact. This deal is concluded. Or, two, that they put this agreement on hold until the courts have dealt with the investigation into the B.C. Rail deal and until first nations have been satisfied that the test of duty to accommodate and consult has been met.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just prior to questions I thought I'd take a moment to introduce staff that are joining me here today for this section of the questioning during estimates. I am joined, of course, by my deputy, Dan Doyle, who was here during the previous session too — the latter part of it at least. I am also joined by Kathie Miller, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation Planning and Policy. I am further joined by Frank Blasetti, the Assistant Deputy Minister of our Partnerships Department. I am also joined by Sharon Moysey, the executive financial officer of the ministry.

Hon. K. Falcon: Because it's an independent authority of government. The member may recall that from her prior canvassing of the legislation.

J. MacPhail: So it is true. The government made it an independent authority so B.C. Ferries doesn't have to show up and answer questions. Interesting.

Hon. K. Falcon: It's $105 million of provincial dollars and about $25 million of federal dollars.

J. MacPhail: I must say it's very interesting that B.C. Ferries doesn't have to show up to answer any questions to the elected representatives — very interesting, but not surprising. I've noted some very interesting similarities between the B.C. Rail deal and some of the language surrounding B.C. Ferries. There are some disturbing similarities between the government's explanation around the B.C. Rail deal and the explanation they gave for making B.C. Ferries an independent authority. I must also say that it's really sketchy. Let me just read it into the record.

Then they list nine individuals. I'm going to go through and ask the minister where each of these meets the test of representing professional business, coastal regions and labour.

Hon. K. Falcon: On the first part of the member's question with respect to how each of the individual members subscribes to the outline, as the member pointed out, with the community at large, government, labour, etc., I haven't got all of their biographies here. I don't know if my staff have those, but if we do, member, I'll get back to you with some more information in that regard.

With respect to the question of the remuneration of directors, I'll just quote directly from the bill. I think it was Bill 18 at the time. Section 14(2)(a) said: "(a) the director is entitled to an allowance, in the amount and on the terms established in the bylaws of the Authority, for actual reasonable expenses necessarily incurred in attending the meetings referred to in subsection (1)."

Hon. K. Falcon: That's not outlined in here. That would be up to the authority.

J. MacPhail: Yes, and how much is that? Is it a secret? How does one find out? By the way, my staff called B.C. Ferries. They got back days later and said there was no annual report. So what is it? Is this like a secret organization? It isn't even subject to the regular public purview of other bodies? How much are the directors being paid?

Hon. K. Falcon: That would obviously depend on what those allowable expenses, the reasonable ex-

penses, are that are associated with the performance of their duties as directors. As the member, I think, may have pointed out, she didn't think there was an annual report. There is a requirement for an annual report from B.C. Ferry Services. That annual report must be filed at the completion of their year-end and, obviously, the subsequent auditing and closing off of the books, etc. That annual report would have the information available for the member.

J. MacPhail: The '02-03 report didn't have that information, so is the government guaranteeing that the '03-04 report will?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. That was under the old ferry corporation in '02-03, I believe.

J. MacPhail: Maybe the minister would like to go through the history of when this new authority was set up and when the new board of directors was in place, because I believed the board of directors was in place for one year. Maybe the minister could guide us, who are just ordinary schleps, on how we hold the new corporation accountable. When do we get to actually see what the $105 million of taxpayer money is being spent on? How do we go about that?

Hon. K. Falcon: Within 180 days of the end of the fiscal year, they are required to hold an annual public meeting relating, obviously, to the management and operation of the business. In holding such a meeting, there's a requirement in the legislation that they have to publish the notice of such a meeting 30 days prior in the newspapers to ensure there's afforded a reasonable opportunity to the public for the asking of questions and the expressing of views.

I'm summarizing this for the member. There's also a requirement to present and distribute copies of the most recent audited financial statements. I'm just looking at whether there's anything else that would be germane to the member's question. Obviously, they present and distribute copies of their annual report and present and distribute the business plan for the current fiscal year.

J. MacPhail: What has the government received so far, and what meetings have been held so far?

Hon. K. Falcon: As I indicated, it's within 180 days of the fiscal year-end that all the issues I just outlined in terms of the annual meeting and the audited financial statements, etc., are all presented, reported and available to the public for questioning, etc. That fiscal year-end just ended March 31, so it will be within the next 180 days subsequent to the end of the fiscal.

J. MacPhail: So we're, let's see…. March 31. We may by — what is it? — September, then. Is it six months? Is that what it is? Sorry.

How does the government liaise with B.C. Ferry Services to find out how the 105 million bucks are being spent? I understand it's for a service contract. What are the requirements for B.C. Ferries to report to the government on that service contract?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are essentially four elements here with respect to the service fee and the issue the member raised. One is that there's a fixed payment for the designated routes — I'll provide the breakdown if you want, if that's helpful — of $91.9 million annually, paid monthly in advance. That is reconciled quarterly and adjusted based on performance measurements that we put in place.

The second is that there's a reimbursement for what we call the social programs. That would be based on actual costs. Those are things like senior citizens discounts, the transferring of patients who are ill for emergency reasons, etc. That's based on whatever those actual costs are. It's paid to B.C. Ferry Services upon receipt of a detailed monthly invoice outlining exactly what those costs were. That represents about $8.7 million per annum, based on sort of a historical….

The third is a service fee for what we call the unregulated routes. These are the contracted routes that have historically been part of the ferry corporation. Obviously, we can ask for, at any time, copies of those contracts. That is paid quarterly. It's a fairly small amount in the scheme of things. It's capped, actually, at $1.7 million per annum.

The fourth is the federal government subsidy I alluded to earlier, which is paid in quarterly instalments. That equals $24.5 million annually.

Hon. K. Falcon: Key ones, for the benefit of the member, are defined as the minimum number of round trips to be delivered daily, the total yearly number of round trips on some of those routes, the number of hours a day during which sailings will be provided and a commitment that capacity will be comparable to the capacity provided to move the previous year's traffic.

J. MacPhail: Could the minister give me the results of the latest quarterly?

Hon. K. Falcon: Ferry Services met the core service in all the routes but the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale route. The member may recall that there was an engine room fire in the Queen of Surrey back in May that caused a disruption on the Horseshoe Bay to Langdale route. That resulted in Ferry Services, under the provisioning of our agreement, having to forward a cheque to us — the government, of course — in the amount of $34,281.12 in recognition of the disruption that failed to meet that particular core service requirement.

J. MacPhail: I would prefer that the minister actually give me some substance. What is the quarter he's

talking about? What are the performance measures that were met? What are the numbers, and how do they change from the previous quarter? Could I have some meat on the bones, please?

Hon. K. Falcon: The staff advise me that the level of detail that would be required to go through all of those performance indicators — how they were met, how they compared to the quarter previous, etc., per route group per month, etc. — would be a massive undertaking. I will give a commitment to the member that we will provide a full and detailed briefing for the member, and you can go through that in great detail. It will require a fair bit of work from staff to pull it together, which they're happy to do for you.

I think the critical thing at the higher level that might make sense and help the member is that over the course of the last year, there was only the one performance standard, which I outlined, having to do with the Queen of Surrey, that wasn't met. That was due to the fire on the Queen of Surrey. That was dealt with under the performance indicators we have, and the reimbursement was made to the province.

J. MacPhail: We spend a lot of time at Public Accounts talking about performance measures, performance agreements, outcomes. I find it a little bit weird, quite frankly, that the ministry says they have to pull this information together. The ministry has a service contract with B.C. Ferries Services for $91 million. I assume that the contract is based on the performance measures the minister just said everybody met.

Well, what's to pull together? There are performance measures, there are outcomes, and there are consequences. The minister has just listed one consequence: $34,000. I find it unbelievable that $105 million of tax money requires this great effort that the minister doesn't have at hand. It's quite unbelievable.

There were other incidents of ferry breakdowns, ramming of docks, delayed service, no service. How were all those accounted for? Several vessels have been put out of service over the course of the last 12 months on at least four different occasions. How is it that the performance measures have a penalty on only one of those?

Hon. K. Falcon: The contract has a provision for temporary service disruptions. The issue is whether a threshold is breached. If that threshold is breached, which is essentially the threshold that says if it's longer than a short-term period, then there are penalties that are going to be imposed…. Perhaps I'll read into the record for the member the provision under the temporary service disruptions. It states that "the core service level in relation to each designated ferry route includes an allowance for a short-term, temporary service disruption if (i) the disruption is for a duration of not more than twenty (20) consecutive days, (ii) the disruption is due to any one or more of the following circumstances…."

There are a number listed, which include vessel or dock breakdown or mechanical failure, situations that compromise safety, the tasking of vessels for emergency response, bad weather, maintenance to vessels or docks, sinking or grounding of vessels, fire or labour disputes except lockouts initiated by B.C. Ferries, then "(iii) the aggregate of all temporary service disruptions for the calendar year does not exceed thirty (30) days."

J. MacPhail: Does the aggregate allow for the corporation to exclude those circumstances the minister just listed, like grounding of vessels and that? That gets to be excluded from the 30 days? Or is it included in the 30 days?

J. MacPhail: So for the last whatever reporting period, a quarter…. Or tell me how the corporation met that performance measure. What was the aggregate of days out of service?

Hon. K. Falcon: The only one that breached the threshold, which I indicated, where the disruption was not for a duration of more than 20 consecutive days, would have been the example I had indicated to the member, where the Queen of Surrey, I believe I indicated, had a fire. That caused it to be disrupted for a duration that exceeded the 20 consecutive days.

J. MacPhail: Do I take it that all the other disruptions in services, including the categories listed by the member, totalled less than ten days?

J. MacPhail: I'm confused. I would like a written report, please, as soon as possible on the performance measures — as many quarterly reports as the minister has received in terms of the meeting of the performance measures. Thank you.

Now, here's another quote from the debate around setting up this Ferry Services corporation: "Because the new corporation is structured on a commercial basis, the province must receive fair return. The government will hold an investment in the form of non-voting preferred shares and will receive a return on this investment annually." What is the rate of return on investment for the most recent fiscal year?

Hon. K. Falcon: The rate of return for the non-voting preferred shares was 8 percent.

J. MacPhail: What is the fiscal year-end value of those non-voting preferred shares?

J. MacPhail: What is the forecast rate of return for next year? I'm just asking for a forecast; that's all.

Okay. "In addition, the province will also have an investment in the form of a debenture that will receive interest at a market rate. The combination of these investments represents the fair market value of the new corporation." What's the size of the debenture, and what's the return?

Hon. K. Falcon: The size of the debenture, the principal amount, is $427.701 million. The interest rate is 5.18 percent.

Hon. K. Falcon: The debenture has a three-year term ending March 31, 2006. Interest is paid twice a year, semi-annually.

J. MacPhail: Is it paid in full at the end of the three-year term, or are there periodic payments required?

Hon. K. Falcon: The principal may be repaid in whole or in part at B.C. Ferries' option without penalty.

J. MacPhail: Is the fair market value calculated on what the government's rate of borrowing would be in the marketplace and therefore just the replacement value of that rate of borrowing, or is it commercial market rates, which are higher than the government rate?

Hon. K. Falcon: It would be based on an indicative credit rating obtained by B.C. Ferry Services from Standard and Poor's.

Hon. K. Falcon: We don't know that exactly, but we're going to get it for the member. We believe it's A-minus.

J. MacPhail: Yes, I'd be very interested. I can hardly wait to see how Standard and Poor's give a credit rating where the entire backing is from a government…. Well, maybe it isn't. It appears like this corporation has $500 million of government underwriting — $75 million plus $427 million. What is its capitalization, over and above that?

Hon. K. Falcon: In terms of what I think the member was likely driving at, capitalization, in this case where we have an independent authority model, would be the summation of a bunch of things — like retained earnings, value of capital leases, the debentures that I talked about, the non-voting preferreds that I talked about — all of which will be information that will be released upon…. Well, actually, their year-end was March 31. Their audited financial statements which will have all that information for the member will be coming forward within the next 180 days.

J. MacPhail: Well, gee, I would have thought the government would have known what the capitalization was, seeing as how they're underwriting the corporation for $427 million. I thought they would have had that information at their fingertips to see what kind of good investment it is.

The act provides for a long-time contract between the province and B.C. Ferry Services to establish the ferry system. We've already talked about that. The coastal ferry services contract is a binding agreement between the province and B.C. Ferry Services with an initial term of 60 years and is subject to renewal, so I thought I'd better ask: what are the terms of renewal?

Hon. K. Falcon: Probably the easiest thing to do is just read the term and renewal into the record right out of article 3 of the agreement, rather than anticipating, obviously, questions that the member may have. It says:

J. MacPhail: Could I have a copy of that, please? The minister said yes. Thank you.

Is each lease agreement per vessel or per route? How is the lease agreement structured?

I used the wrong terminology. The minister didn't mention "lease." It's a contract. Sorry.

Hon. K. Falcon: There's one contract for all the services provided. The contract, I should point out, does differentiate between route groups. They've got major routes, minor routes, northern routes, etc. I'd be very happy to get the member a copy of the contract, which is public — in fact, not just the pages you requested, member, but I'll get you the entire contract.

Did I hear correctly — and I'm just doing this from hearing it verbally and not looking at it — that if either party decides not to renew or the government exercises its option not to renew after 60 years, the government has to purchase the outstanding shares for a value of 20 years? In other words, the buyout option is a 20-year buyout? Or did I misunderstand that?

Hon. K. Falcon: The province may essentially elect to purchase — actually, I'll just quote directly: "…all of the issued and outstanding shares of B.C. Ferries as a going concern at fair market value on the end date, with fair market value determined as if the agreement had been renewed and extended by B.C. Ferries pursuant to section 3.04 for one additional period of 20 years."

J. MacPhail: All right. So they buy out the person who could have renewed the contract as if it were in existence for 20 years, and then they have to find a new service deliverer for that same 20-year period. Is that how I understand it?

Hon. K. Falcon: Essentially, what we're saying here is that the province may elect to purchase all of the issued and outstanding shares of B.C. Ferries, as I read into the record there on subsection 3.03(a), or it can elect to solicit proposals from other persons that are interested in providing the ferry services on any one or more of the designated ferry routes commencing on the end date.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Sorry. This will help when I get the contract. By the way, does the government have a digital PDF version that they could just send us?

All right. That would be the best — both the contract and the lease if they're two separate documents. Yeah. Great. That's fine. Thank you.

These are not questions that I know the answers to. During the period that the government has to determine fair market value, as if the contract had been in place for 20 years, that will determine the purchase price that the government must offer to the service provider. They pay that out. Then they also have to provide a replacement service provider — is that correct? It's either government themselves or establish a new contract.

J. MacPhail: Okay. Well, I'll be very interested…. If I could have that PDF version as soon as possible, I'd really appreciate it.

How is the price of the contract established — yearly? What's the renewal term for the price of the contract? As the minister listed it, it was like $91 million plus $1.7 million plus $7.8 million for a total of about $105 million, and then the federal subsidy on top of that. How does the price get determined?

Hon. K. Falcon: After the first five years, every four years it is negotiated between the government and B.C. Ferry Services.

J. MacPhail: Is there an option to terminate the service provider if they don't deliver to a certain level within the 60-year period?

Hon. K. Falcon: Yes. The answer is there are, essentially, standard default provisions within the contract that allow that.

J. MacPhail: I assume I'll be able to get all these answers from the contract.

Now, another quote: "With regard to land transactions, in order to preserve public interest over the long term, this legislation transfers B.C. Ferries terminal land and improvements to the province. B.C. Ferry Services and the province will then enter into a long-term lease of these facilities." I assume these lease arrangements are over and above the service contract. I'm just going to assume that.

I wouldn't have been too concerned about the language in the lease until now. I'm a little bit more curious, given the B.C. Rail deal. What are the terms of the lease for the terminal land and improvements?

Hon. K. Falcon: The term is 60 years, with a one-time renewal option of 20 years.

J. MacPhail: A one-time renewal option of 20 years. What is the price for the lease? How is that renegotiated?

Hon. K. Falcon: The prepaid lease is valued at $330 million, based on the fair market value of the land and facilities.

J. MacPhail: Does that prepaid lease include the 60 plus 20, or just the 60?

J. MacPhail: Okay, so $330 million for every single terminal and improvements.

Does the minister have a list of what that prepaid lease list includes? I'm not asking for it now, but I would like a copy of it.

J. MacPhail: It also goes on to say: "Under the lease, B.C. Ferry Services will then be given ownership of the existing facilities and will own any new facilities for the duration of the lease. At the end of the lease term all facilities will revert to the province. The services of ferry terminals will be diligently managed, operated and maintained in accordance with the terms and conditions of the terminal leases."

At the end of the 60 years, there's one renewal clause for 20 years. Let's say that renewal clause is invoked and carried on. Then, at the end of 80 years, does everything revert to ownership of the province?

J. MacPhail: There is only one renewal clause and nothing after the one renewal clause for either party to invoke in terms of continuation of the lease. Is that correct?

Hon. K. Falcon: After the 80 years the member referred to, the lease reverts to a month-to-month, with lease payments based on fair market value.

J. MacPhail: At the end of the 80 years, if the government decides to continue on a month-to-month lease, what happens to the facilities?

J. MacPhail: Just to be very clear, when the lease expires either at 60 or 80 years and B.C. Ferries doesn't renew, the province doesn't have to buy back the facilities. The facilities revert to ownership of the province, with no buyback provision by the government.

J. MacPhail: Is there any distinction between facilities that were acquired upon the original lease and new facilities obtained during the lease?

J. MacPhail: That completes my questions. I thank the minister and his staff for the debate. I turn it over to my other colleagues.

D. Hayer: Thank you, minister. First of all, I want to thank your staff and your ministry for helping us every time we have some difficult questions about transportation. Over the last three years they've been very helpful. They have had many meetings with my community members, especially in the Surrey–Fraser Heights area, the Surrey-Tynehead area, the Surrey-Fleetwood area and the Port Kells area. Every time we needed a meeting, they were able to come over there and meet with the constituents, be it about the south perimeter road or other concerns. Sometimes we have had up to 400 to 500 members of a community come over and meet with your ministry, and they've been very helpful over the last three years.

I have a few questions. My first question: I understand that as a part of the border infrastructure program, Highway 10 and the Pacific Highway — 176th Street — and Fraser Highway will be expanded to four lanes. Can the minister please provide me with a time line for the project pertaining to this expansion?

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member's comments with respect to staff and the constituents of Surrey-Tynehead, who I know have had many issues and concerns related to proposed highways. I appreciate those comments. I think our staff does work hard to try and ensure they have every opportunity to work with local communities to try and ensure that we come

forward with solutions that, as best we can, work well within the various demands that may be made from different groups within a community.

With respect to the construction project that the member is talking about, it's something certainly near and dear to my heart. We have, in partnership with the federal government, as the member may know, engaged in one of the most massive border infrastructure improvement programs we've seen in the province, certainly in the last 25 years. We have almost a quarter billion dollars being invested in border infrastructure improvements and interchanges that are going to form part of that.

This is always a question that I'm constantly asking my staff and constantly reminding the mayor about. He's always asking me: "When do we get the trucks out on the road?" We have a couple of challenges that are reasonable challenges. They are typically associated with land acquisition and negotiations with property owners, obviously along the No. 10 and 176th Street.

There are also issues associated with environmental studies and research that need to be undertaken to determine what environmental impacts there are, if any, and then how we ameliorate those particular environmental impacts. There's also soil evaluation that is being undertaken to determine what work we have to do in the soils.

One of the challenges on both the No. 10 and Highway 15 corridor is the soil. As you probably know, because there is lots of farming and agricultural land in those areas, it's great soil for farming, but it's not so great for roadbuilding. Because of that there is a significant amount of preload required, which is the piling of the sand on a height that's dependent on how soft the soils are.

What I can tell the member is that on Highway 10 the preloading is going to commence this year on certain sections where we can commence the preload work. On Highway 15 we will also be commencing not just preload, but largely in the area through Cloverdale itself — from No. 10 right up to 68th Avenue, where you've got a harder-pack clay undersoil as opposed to the softer agricultural soil north and south — we will be undertaking construction in that period in terms of the road-widening work, etc., this summer.

The short answer is this summer. The longer-term answer is that over the course of three years we are anticipating completing the entire works.

D. Hayer: I hope we can start preloading some of Highway 15, which is also called 176th Street or Pacific Highway in my area, from 80th Street onwards. If we can start preloading some of that starting this fall, or as soon as possible, so that people can see that you're actually going to do it…. A lot of times the government comes and they make a lot of promises. Then the election comes, and they seem to forget about it. We want to make sure we don't end up being the same way. If we can start the preloading, hopefully they can start realizing we actually will be building 176th Street right up to Highway 1 in my constituency. Thank you very much for that answer.

My second question: many of my constituents have to commute to Vancouver for work each day, to go shopping, for enjoyment or to see the family north of the river. They're forced to cross the Port Mann Bridge. It can take them upwards of 45 minutes just to reach the Port Mann Bridge in my riding, and it should take them only maybe four to five minutes.

Can the minister please tell me what is being done to either twin or expand the Port Mann Bridge? What sort of time line are we looking at for this project's completion? Will we also look at maybe four-laning Highway 1 from 200th Street all the way to First Avenue in Vancouver, going east and west?

Hon. K. Falcon: This is a subject near and dear to my heart too, as a fellow MLA with the member for Surrey-Tynehead, who has done just an excellent job of helping bring the concerns of not just the residents of Surrey-Tynehead but indeed all the folks south of the Fraser — including the member for Langley and the member for Surrey–Green Timbers, who's also here, and other members. We all share in this concern.

That is part of a larger program we are looking at called the Gateway project. Staff are now working in consultation with communities and regional levels of government in determining what the scope of that project could be. Certainly, we recognize — in many parts as a result of interventions from the members for Surrey-Tynehead, Surrey–Green Timbers and the members for Langley and further up the eastern corridor — that this is a huge issue for those that, frankly, don't have great public transit alternatives. A lot of people forget that when they talk about the folks that live south of the Fraser. Because we don't have great public transit alternatives, many of the folks that live in those areas are required to use their own vehicle transportation to get work, wherever that may be. Typically it is, at least in many cases, over the Port Mann Bridge, and then it may divert off into Pitt Meadows, Coquitlam, Burnaby, Vancouver or whatever the case may be.

Part of the scope we are looking at is exactly as that member indicated, which would include a widening of the No. 1 from First Avenue in Vancouver right out to 200th. It would include a twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. It would include, of course, the south perimeter road, which the member knows has engaged the interest of many members of his riding who are interested in how that road, once constructed, would look.

As we continue through that discussion with the residents and the communities that would be affected or impacted by the proposed Gateway project, we will have a better sense as to what exactly that scope will be. We're getting very close to hearing from many of those communities. Once we have that scope we will also have to, of course, figure out how to pay for those improvements. That is something we are also spending a considerable amount of time on.

I do want the member to know that as someone who resides south of the Fraser, as someone who drives that Port Mann Bridge very, very regularly at all times of day and night in different times of the year, I am as aware as probably almost anyone else of the challenges of doing nothing, and what the implications are of a government — any government, including our government — not doing anything.

I appreciate the member bringing that forward. It is actually very much a high priority for me to gather all that information together so that once we have that information, we can engage in some consultations with communities to determine how we can move forward and address this very pressing issue.

D. Hayer: My last question. Are there any time lines, maybe, that my constituents can take a look at? Any possibility of 2005, '06, '07 — or before the Olympics?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's difficult to nail down a time line, and I'll tell you exactly why. It's certainly not because of evasiveness, and it's not because this isn't important. It's really more because what we need to do is try and nail down the scope, try and determine as best we can — not to the exact penny but very close — what the cost implications are, and then engage, I think most importantly, in a discussion with members of the respective communities that would be impacted and benefiting from this proposal. It's important that we hear back from those communities in terms of some of the options we need to look at, in terms of how we can pay for this. Once we enter into that discussion and have that discussion and get that feedback, then and really only then will we be able to say what time frame we're looking at, more realistically.

D. Hayer: As you are aware, at the last consultations we had about the budget process, the Surrey Chamber of Commerce and some other members came out and said they'd like to see that bridge going and the south perimeter road as well as the widening of Highway 1. They said they don't mind even looking at some sort of toll option if it's going to allow them to shorten the travel time. Also, the mayor of Surrey has gone on the record saying they support it. My constituents feel that rather than leaving the transportation problem the way it is — as it has been left for the last 15 or 20 years without any major improvements there — many of them tell me they would rather pay a small amount of money in tolls rather than being stuck in traffic, wasting time, burning extra fuel and causing more pollution in the air by being stalled on Highway 1 or over the bridge.

My last question to the minister is: as your ministry is aware from my previous discussions about the Transportation ministry over the last three years, there is a need for an overpass improvement on the 160th Street interchange on Highway 1. Can the minister please tell me when this project is likely to occur? It is of great concern to my constituents and is an issue that I have been raising since the election of 2001. It's a very minor issue, and maybe without spending millions and millions of dollars they can make some changes to the lane. Instead of having a left lane only and the straight going, they can have one lane made left only and the other one can go straight and make a right without making major expenditures, until we make the other project. They can spend some money to make improvements.

The city of Surrey has told me this is a Ministry of Transportation problem and not a city of Surrey problem. At one time, both departments couldn't agree on whether it was a city of Surrey problem or a Ministry of Transportation problem of the B.C. government.

Hon. K. Falcon: I appreciate the member bringing that up. Again, that's a crossing that I had the joy of experiencing one recent morning when I was scheduled for a meeting downtown. I thought that rather than take the 99, which actually would be quicker for me, I wanted to specifically drive that route during a rush-hour period so I could experience it firsthand. It's been a while since I've done it during that time of the morning, and I did experience it. Needless to say, it wasn't an experience that I would recommend to many people.

The idea that the member brought forward is actually a very good one. Our staff did look at this, along with the city of Surrey. We spent a considerable amount of time looking at it. The challenge was that while the idea on the surface would appear to — operationally, at least — have solved one problem, it ended up creating some other problems. Those were largely tied around the fact that the bridge itself is of a fixed width. That creates some challenges that make it difficult when you have to have the right-turning lane and the through lane — to be able to have traffic, particularly trucks, trying to navigate that.

What we can do for the member is we can have staff sit down and review what we discovered in that process of working with the city of Surrey in terms of the challenges we face there. The member may have some alternative suggestions once he looks at the information that we found working with the city of Surrey, but I will say this. One of the pieces of the Gateway project would involve looking at this exchange. It would seem to me that we would have to ensure we include an analysis and examination of improvements we could make at this exchange if we're going to be making that kind of massive investment on the balance of the Highway 1 and twinning the Port Mann, etc.

That is something that we are going to be studying very carefully, for the member's information.

D. Hayer: Thank you very much, minister. I appreciate your staff's response and your response. Maybe we can have your staff meet with my constituents from the Fraser Heights area and Fleetwood, just like they've done in the past, to help them out and explain to them

their concerns — so that they can hear directly from the persons who have the information on both sides and have experience on it, so that they can see the pros and cons of it.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move we rise and report resolution 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.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY