Hansard -- Thursday, October 6, 2005 a.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 2 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Second Reading of Bills		533
	Teachers' Collective Agreement Act (Bill 12) (continued)
	D. Routley
	R. Austin
	D. Thorne
	J. Brar

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		547
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues
	Hon. I. Chong
	N. Macdonald

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate of Bill 12, and in Committee A, for the information of members, is the estimates debate on the Ministry of Community Services.

D. Routley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thanks to my friends for this early morning boost of energy.

I appreciate the right to speak on public education in this fine House, but I do so in a very solemn way today. I'm very sad to be rising in opposition to a bill that I feel perpetuates the very conditions that have caused the greatest disruption in our classrooms, and the disruption and the attack on public education in this province that brought me to this House.

I rise to speak about public education because of my family. My grandmother, my mother, my sister and my wife are all teachers. My father was a very conservative school board administrator who would never have stood still for the kind of devastation that has been wrought in our classrooms in the past four years.

I stand here as a school trustee moved to run after witnessing, as a school board employee, the choking of a fine system and the desperate efforts of those dedicated people who serve our children to cope with the conditions that they've been dealt. I rise here to speak for the parents who have seen their classroom conditions deteriorate and their children not receive the services they need. I rise here for the students who I administer — those special needs students who have paid the biggest price for the neglect of the B.C. Liberal government.

This bill, combined with other Liberal education policies, is a recipe for disaster for public education. We've been told that negotiations are fruitless, thus the imposition of this bill. What British Columbians are waiting for is a free collective bargaining process with two participants, two partners who want to progressively sit down and deal with the issues that confront our schools. We have heard references to other negotiations that have led to imposed settlements by other governments.

Mr. Speaker, all German shepherds are dogs, but not all dogs are German shepherds. In fact, what teachers have witnessed in B.C. Liberal legislation pertaining to education is an attack on the conditions that they work in and an attack on the conditions that our students learn in.

We need a government that will show a progressive role model to our kids and will reach out with a hand of respect and trust to teachers and to our communities. We need two parties, not one that comes armed with the hammer of legislation and a mandate not to bargain. The foundations of successful free collective bargaining are trust and respect. Parents know this. British Columbians know this.

British Columbians have a gut sense of fair play that has been offended by the B.C. Liberal government in its dealings with teachers. We have seen cynical acts by a cynical government.

They say they put students first, but we have seen a per-student funding formula with implications that are devastating to our schools. As all of us know, we were in a demography that saw fewer and fewer children, and this is the time they chose to fund our schools per-student so that every student who doesn't show up at our doors each year takes with them their full funding envelope. They take with them the heating bill. They take with them the administrative bill, which is going up every year. They take with them the costs of maintenance. All of those costs stay. All of those costs remain for us as school trustees to deal with. All of those savings, those cuts, come out of our classrooms.

That is why we have lost 2 percent of our students in our school district and almost 10 percent of our teachers. That is why, provincially, we have lost 2 percent of our students but 17 percent of our teacher-librarians. That is why school boards closed 113 schools — because they couldn't keep them open with the underfunding they were receiving from the Liberal government. That is why we see 2,600 fewer teachers in our schools this year.

At the same time, the B.C. Liberals asked us to make the Orwellian conviction that fewer students and more funding should equal fewer services. They have raised our chocolate rations from five grams to three grams, and British Columbians can see through this veil.

They have declared us an essential service — the only jurisdiction in North America to do so. They do so, not interested in maintaining the service but interested in their restrictions on free collective bargaining that that designation permits. They have downloaded an unfunded contract imposition that took hundreds of millions of dollars out of our classrooms. Every student, every teacher, every library and every small school have paid the price for that decision.

They have gone to class-size averaging, which has resulted in a yearly sifting in pursuit of money savings, not better learning conditions — teachers not knowing where they worked until the end of September and students not knowing who their teacher really was until the end of September. How can this be putting students first? How can this be in the interests of par-

We saw, during this period of cutbacks, a great flexibility offered to school districts. It was called non-targeted funding — non-targeted funding during cuts. Non-targeted funding: make the cuts wherever you choose. I've seen what that has resulted in.

In my own school district in Cowichan Valley we have the highest proportion of people living with disabilities in this province. We have a very high special needs population in our school district. I sat beside a school trustee who tried to explain why, after the school district I represent received $900,000 in additional assessments for newly designated special needs students. I witnessed our school board take more than half of that money and put it back to fill the void left by the Liberal funding formula. The explanation, Mr. Speaker, will make you shiver. I was told that the generator is no longer the prescriber. "Yes, we recognize your need. Here's the money. Do with it as you please."

MSP premium increases cost us millions. Energy costs are going through the roof, costing us millions. It does no good to say, "We fund more than anyone ever has," offer ten and bill for 50. That does no good for our students. Parents can see the result of that policy.

What the government took when they stripped the teachers' contract was taken from our children. What the government took when they stripped the working conditions and learning conditions from the teachers' contract, they took from our classrooms.

This government is tearing down the walls and fracturing the foundations of public education. This government has failed to defend the universality and equity of access insisted on in the School Act. This government has failed to protect the principles of universality and accessibility. They have cut special needs students'….

They have closed small schools in small communities. For our most distant small schools in our own community, as in other rural communities, we used to receive something called an outlying schools grant. Under the three-year funding proposition, the B.C. Liberal government made it very clear to school districts that we could close these schools in the first year of that envelope and keep that extra funding for three years — another carrot, another incentive to chip away at the foundations of universality and equity of access.

Schools of choice and cross-boundary choice without support left my school district transporting 200 students 20 kilometres per day back and forth between high schools, depending upon which they chose. Like it or not, we had to do it. We were left with that responsibility, but without the support. Responsible people and a responsible government stand behind their acts, support their own decisions. They don't run from them, don't hide in a veil of secrecy, don't point the finger of blame at the other parties.

Parents and students numbed by the shock and awe of the effects of B.C. Liberal policies in public education look on in wonder as this dirty work is spun to the public as needed medicine. They cover up the effects of these cuts with meaningless accountability contracts.

We are asked to set goals for our students — in literacy, 1-percent increase; in numeracy, 2-percent increase. This is taken from sample populations of 30 and 40 students. But it's not the same students each year. In fact, it's a few more the next year, but different students. So even the variance, statistically, is greater than 15 percent. Yet we are reporting a 1-percent gain, when statistically it's very easy to show that we may be experiencing a 15-percent failure rate — a decline. That is spun to the public as an increase. "Look how well we're doing with less." Does this justify more cuts? By the imposition of this bill British Columbians can only interpret that it certainly does.

The legitimacy of data is questionable, but what is not questionable is the fact that…. A history teacher in our high school told me that before the data-driven mandate of the B.C. Liberal government, he would require three to four major research projects from his students. Since that time he gets one. What we lose is the overlap of curriculum. All the skills those students would gain through research, all the skills and independence they would gain through those projects is gone so that we can report that 1-percent increase on a variance of 15 percent.

British Columbians require a more responsible approach to public education. British Columbians require a government they can trust with public education and public health. Teachers require a partner they can bargain with in good faith and trust, not a partner who hides behind the veil of the British Columbia Public School Employers Association.

They say: "We put students first." Was a four-day school week putting students first? I don't think so. Three percent fewer students, 7 percent fewer teachers, 17 percent fewer teacher-librarians, 23 percent fewer special needs teachers — is that putting students first?

When our district was forced, through underfunding, to cancel its therapeutic riding program, was that not cutting from a core program for those students? Was the therapeutic riding for those students not just as important as math and English for my daughters? It certainly was. I say that what they mean is that students are out the door first. Nobody moves; nobody gets hurt. It's cynical.

On May 17 British Columbians called out to this government, to this House, for balance, and this government hasn't listened. This government hasn't heard parents. This government hasn't seen its own work in the classrooms.

I stand outside some of our schools, and I listen to parents talk about the deteriorating conditions. It's cold in the morning. I can see their breath. It's a vapour. The unfortunate part is that, just as that vapour, those opinions seem to disappear. Those opinions are not recognized in this House, except, of course, on this side of the aisle where we call out to this government to respect teachers, to stand up and improve public educa-

tion — not dilute it, not chip at its foundations, not vilify those who give service to our students.

We call out for a government that will reach across this aisle, shake hands with the public and listen to them. They don't hear.

Underfunding is the issue — underfunded schools, underfunded classrooms, underfunded students. Special needs students, class sizes, small schools — parents and students see that public education is underfunded from a government that they see bent on privatization and dismantling. Parents and students know that funding is the bottom line, but the bottom line of this government has created an exploding deficit in learning conditions.

Teachers are faced every day with unmanageable classroom conditions. It does no good to point to classrooms of 20 and 30 years ago and compare numbers. We all know our society has changed. We all know our classrooms have changed, at least those of us who visit classrooms and those of us who have children in classrooms. We can see it. We see it every day. I see tears shed over it every day.

This bill prevents our children's learning conditions from being discussed. This bill prevents teachers from having a role in determining those learning conditions which, of course, equate to teachers' working conditions. This bill takes the government's hand with a hammer and applies it to public education. This bill digs a hole. The hammer beats public education into the shape of the hole. It's up to us as British Columbians to pick it up again.

British Columbians expect this government to be progressive. They expect this government to be one that resolves conflict, doesn't create it. British Columbians expect a responsible approach to the lives of their children. This bill perpetuates conditions that we have seen assault all of those principles. It's not too late for this government to withdraw this bill. It's not too late for this government to extend a hand of trust to teachers and to students. It's not too late for this government to live up to its responsibility to protect public education and to create conditions in our society that allow for success. The bottom line is: listen. The bottom line is: negotiate. The bottom line is: build up; don't dismantle. Restore our public education system. Do not destroy it.

Working people know that teachers are there for our children. Working people know that properly funded public education delivered by our enthusiastic and devoted professional teachers is the key to our children's future. We know that this is the cornerstone of equity and democracy. We working people know that the partners — teachers and government — have a solemn duty to negotiate for the benefit of our children, for the health of our democracy and for improved public education. I call on the members to withdraw this bill. I call on the members opposite to extend that hand of respect. Negotiate for the future of our children.

As a school trustee I have sat in a dissenting vote, voting against the cuts this government has imposed on our children. I have sat there and watched these measures being imposed on our most vulnerable children. I listen to the parents. I listen to the teachers. I listen to the students. And they are dismayed. They have a great expectation of us — a much higher expectation than what we have seen delivered by this government.

This is indeed the most wonderful place to live, to work, to invest and to grow up. It should be. It should continue to be, but for it to continue to be that, we must do our part. We must stand behind those services that provide all children with the opportunities that perhaps we could not afford but for these public services. We see a government that's bent on changing all of that.

Public education is, in the end, about modelling. Both sides in this dispute — and I'm not talking about BCPSEA and the teachers; I'm talking about this government…. This government and the B.C. teachers have a solemn duty to sit down in good faith, stop pointing the finger of blame and negotiate for the betterment of our children.

My father, as I've said, was a conservative fellow. I've also shared in this chamber that we saw eye to eye, but only with our noses an inch apart, and it's true. But I have a great respect for him. When I was a child, he was the work superintendent in our school district. Whenever there was a flood or a fire, I would ride on the front seat. He would probably be embarrassed, if he were here, to have me say that I was standing on the front seat half the time. He would tell me that these schools belong to everyone: "It's important that I be here on Sunday morning, because this is what elevates our children. We should all care about these schools, whether we have children in them or not, as the foundation of a free and democratic society."

He told me that those schools belonged to everyone. My father was conservative. He had to deal with tight budgets as well. In fact, right beside our school board office, there's a school playing field that I'm proud of, because there's a plaque there. It's called Routley Field after my father. My father didn't have the funding to install a field in a new junior secondary there, so he went to the community and organized the funding. He went to employees and asked for service outside of working hours. He went to the community and the employees and extended a hand of trust and respect, asked for their participation and got it.

The field was built. That seems like a small thing, but I see that repeated everywhere in our communities. I see it repeated by nurses. I see it repeated by teachers. I see it repeated by small business people who go the extra mile for community, but they do so because they trust each other. They trust that their interest is community first.

But now we see that we can't trust the B.C. Liberal government with public education. We can't trust the B.C. Liberal government to negotiate fairly with its teachers. British Columbians are waiting patiently. This

is not a widget business. Public education is not a business. Public education is a public service.

How can we make this Orwellian leap that fewer students and more funding should equal fewer services? Even if I had math 12 — which, I'm sorry, I don't….

Perhaps the B.C. Liberal government will even be able at some time to deliver a full program to small communities like mine. Perhaps those few students in grade 12 who want to undertake physics will have a chance to get that program in our small communities. Perhaps then the member opposite can have his cynical comment answered positively from this side of the House.

We have seen the results of what happens when people dig in their heels. Nobody likes this. Nobody wants this to continue. My wife, as a teacher, is terrified about what might happen in the next few days. She's desperate not to have to leave the classroom, but what she is more desperate to see and what she is more committed to is a continuing and improving system of public education in British Columbia. That is the only thing that she and other professionals like her are willing to stand up for to the extent that they would take the vote they took last night.

How can we look our teachers in the eye in the future after this and previous steps by this government? How can we look them in the eye and say: "Go that extra mile"? How could my dad go to them today and ask for that extra service outside of hours? We know that what drives people to be teachers is dedication and calling.

My entire family are teachers. My wife and I have been a couple since 1980. Her father was a high school history teacher. I remember driving up to their house to pick up my wife — my girlfriend at the time — and every time, there would be my father-in-law in the kitchen window working, and this would be six o'clock, seven o'clock in the evening. We would go out, we would have dinner, we would have fun and we would come back at 11 o'clock or later, and in that window still would be my father-in-law.

This was not the enthusiasm and eagerness of a teacher freshly from university and new to the ranks. This was a teacher two or three years from retirement. Dedication. My wife and others like her — ten years as a TOC without continuing employment; ten years without the benefits, dental or health; ten years waiting for full employment. Why? Because she couldn't do anything else? No. She's a very talented woman, but she's very dedicated to her profession. That's why she stayed.

Why did she have to endure that? Because of continued underfunding of education and an unwillingness by government to negotiate fairly. I am a school trustee, and at the September 21 school board meeting, I made a motion which was carried. It was a motion to write a letter. The letter is addressed to the province of British Columbia and was sent via facsimile on September 22, and I'd like to read that letter. It is to Premier Gordon Campbell. It reads, "Dear Hon. Gordon Campbell…."

With that, I will leave the government to digest the opinion of a board that has not been dissenting.

J. Kwan: I'm very pleased this morning to introduce a very special guest to the House. She is Daphne Whale, who is a teacher at the Grandview Elementary School in my riding. It is an inner-city school, a school with complex challenges but also lots of inspiration as well. Time and again the teachers, educators, parents and community have shown their dedication to Grandview School, and we have seen the progress in the outcomes of the students from that school. So I would ask the House to please make welcome Ms. Daphne and all the educators who are visiting us today.

R. Austin: I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill 12. I have only been at work in this House for a few weeks, but already I'm beginning to understand why so many British Columbians are put off, if not outright disgusted, in the way that we practice certain aspects of our politics. I have sat here and listened to a throne

speech, only a few weeks ago, that stressed a series of laudable goals which this government aspires to. One of those, of course, was to: "Make B.C. the best-educated, most literate jurisdiction on the continent."

On the one hand, this government touts the goal of having the best-educated and most literate society, and then we have the reality of an almost 25-percent cut in teacher-librarians, cuts to teaching assistants who helped those kids who most need one-on-one help, and in my case, the imposition of a four-day school week in school district 82. This is not unlike the Bush administration down south improving environmental protection in the States with his Clear Skies Act while cutting all pretence of environmental protection. It's not unlike the same administration improving the lives of their most vulnerable children with an act entitled No Child Left Behind while child poverty goes through the roof as the gap between those who are privileged and those born into poverty actually widens.

Earlier yesterday my colleague from Vancouver-Kingsway referred to the Liberal government approach as Kafkaesque. When you talk about improving education while tearing it down and then hoping that people will not see what is happening, I have to agree, it does appear Kafkaesque. It is built on the premise that if you are going to fool the public, make sure you do it in such a big way that they may actually not believe it's happening. I ask you to look at the record of the last four years and analyze whether the policies of this government have taken us towards this goal of creating the most literate society, or whether we have, in fact, gone backwards.

I have spent a great deal of time in the classrooms in the last few years as I paid for my university schooling by working as a teacher's aide in school district 82 for approximately two and a half years. I did not have a full-time position but was one of those people who waited by the phone each and every morning, just like many TOCs and other CUPE substitutes, waiting to find out where I was going that day.

For me, this was an enriching experience because I got to spend time in every school in Terrace and got to experience firsthand what it is that teachers do on a daily basis. I should mention here…. I think it's a very important thing, because most of us who are just parents don't really know what goes on in a classroom on a daily basis. We spend many years either dropping our kids off at school or sending them on the bus, and we have some notion of what happens there, but until you actually spend some time in a classroom, it's not easy as parents to recognize what actually takes place each and every day.

I didn't just go to school for an hour to read a book with some cute kids so that I could get a photo op in the local paper. I worked in the trenches with a large number of teachers each and every day. I am sad to say "trenches" is the operative word here. I would like to read a few comments from some of the teachers in school district 82, just to give an idea as to what their learning conditions are like.

This is from a teacher who has been working in intermediate level for 16 to 20 years:

Here's another teacher at the primary level with 16 to 20 years of working in the trenches:

That takes me to my next point. Living in a rural riding far north in British Columbia, we do not want to get into a situation which we have currently with the medical profession. It is hard to attract professional people to come and live and work in remote parts of British Columbia. If we continue with these policies that the government has been doing for the last four years, we are going to undermine the profession to an extent that young people will not want to enter into the profession. In a few years' time it will be as hard to find teachers in northern and other rural ridings as it is to find nurses, X-ray technicians and the like.

I'm not suggesting from these comments that teachers hate their jobs. On the contrary, I believe that teaching is something that one can only do if one has a passion for the task. It is extremely difficult to spend an entire day, day after day, where one has the duty and obligation to accomplish the important task of guiding our future generations towards being all that they can be so that our society can grow, prosper and be the place that we all want it to be and to live in.

I have witnessed in the past five years some wonderful things. I saw many teachers who, through their dedication and love for what they do, work as hard as possible to change children's lives, one child at a time. Most of the teachers I worked with spent countless hours working to ensure that when they came to school each day, they had a plan — not just a plan to get up and speak for half an hour, as I am doing today, but a plan that enabled them to get up and speak or work for

six to seven hours to instil a love of learning with the children set before them.

I watch teachers in primary schools who treat those little kids like they were their very own. I saw teachers who attempted to make connections with kids who, frankly, only a mother could love. Some kids come to school having things going on in their lives that makes some of their behaviours very extreme. Teachers often have to put up with behaviours that most parents would not tolerate. Yet, they have to cope with this and create a learning environment.

I saw teachers who, once the school day was over, immediately went off to change into other clothing so that they could begin their coaching activities. Others would leave the classroom and start running a club, like a take-care-of-homework club. They do this because they believe in assisting kids. They believe in creating a more enriched life for those who they're responsible for.

They do this because they understand that, while they're on salaries which are based on an hourly wage, theirs is not a job which is finished when the clock runs out. They are not factory workers. They are trying to reach a long-term goal — a process that takes many, many years — which is to facilitate the most productive citizens that will be valuable to all of us in our society. Only people with a passion for the task at hand could possibly want to enter the teaching profession.

How do we repay this dedication that teachers show each and every day? Instead of building on the learning conditions that teachers had worked over 20 years for, this government decided to break contracts and strip many working conditions, which had been put there not to benefit the teachers but to benefit our children.

When teachers want fewer kids in the class, is this because they are lazy or want to have an easier work life? I think not. One only has to spend a short time in a classroom to understand the dynamics of a learning environment and all the variables that are part of an everyday classroom.

I remember three years ago starting out as an SSA in a grade four class at a school in Terrace that spanned grades four to seven. What that means, of course, is that the children who were arriving at this school year had just gone through the adjustment of leaving their primary school and were now at their elementary school.

The teacher I'm speaking of had a class from a neighbourhood that has been suffering economically for a number of years. Many of the kids that attended this class were not fortunate enough to have the kinds of supports from home that are an important part of achieving student success. There were over ten identified children in the classroom. At least three kids had behaviours that meant they were in no way ready to learn, as they had trouble with self-control and an attention span that could have been measured in moments rather than in minutes. There was a child who suffered from autism but did not have a full-time aide, as the hours had been cut due to the shortage of our school district to apportion all the hours the child qualified for to that particular child.

I should explain myself there. In school district 82 a child may be identified and require a full-time aide for four hours or three hours. Sometimes these hours, these resources, have to be juggled within each school and taken to other children in order to try and get some service to as many people as possible. That's the state that we have arrived in. So even though there may be dollars attached to a particular identifiable problem, those dollars are not able to go to that child because of the overriding need and other children who have not been taken care of.

In short, the classroom on the first day of class in this particular school reminded me of a bazaar in the city of Cairo. It was sheer bedlam — a cacophony of noise — and a number of children who were feeding off all the bedlam that was around them. That was day one, and I can tell you that as I watched that teacher go about the monumental task of bringing order out of chaos and getting the kids to the point where teaching and, more importantly, learning could take place, I was in awe of her ability. Within a number of weeks, she had these kids almost behaving like humans. As a result, the year became a productive one for those kids.

These conditions are not exceptional in school district 82, and I suspect they are not very different from anywhere else in the province. We have created a learning atmosphere that is not conducive to learning because we have put too many kids into each class. We made a decision a number of years ago to integrate people with disabilities into our mainstream classrooms. This was done because we wanted to value all people. Creating an inclusive society is to the betterment of those who were once partitioned off from the mainstream, as well as being better for those who are not challenged, because kids get to learn from an early age that human beings come in different sizes, different ethnic groups — and yes, some have challenges to overcome that the majority of people never even have to contemplate.

But that decision means that the supports that used to be going elsewhere to segregate those students, often in institutions, had to be transferred to the school system. If a child needed multiple supports when they lived elsewhere, then those supports should also now be in the classroom. I do not believe that the school system has been given the kind of resources to adequately support many children with disabilities, and this limits their potential growth, as well as takes time away from other children.

Teachers behave very much like parents do. If they have a child with serious needs, then their attention is drawn to them, as it should be. But we have an expectation as parents that all our kids in the classroom will get personalized attention from the teacher. This is a

constant struggle that teachers have: the ability to address the needs of the majority while looking after the needs of the minority, whether they have language differences, learning difficulties or other challenges that separate them from those kids who are ready to move on with the next piece of material.

As parents in the home it is easier for us. If we have a child with special needs, we overcome the internal conflict by rationalizing it within the relatively small confines of our family unit, or we get support from family and friends. But how does a teacher overcome this conflict in a classroom? All of us are taxpayers, and we all want the best for our child and demand that the teacher pay attention to our individual children.

I'd like to talk for a moment now about the challenge of maintaining a public school system. What do all of us in this chamber, in this province, want from our public school system? Indeed, do we even want to have a public school system? Is it better than a private school system? I believe very strongly, as I believe all of my colleagues on this side of the House do, that a public school system is the only way we can generate enough effective resources so that every child in British Columbia has a chance to accomplish whatever it is they want to accomplish.

Last evening I was at a function for the bankers association. Two of these bankers came up and thanked me very much for the corporate tax cut that was announced last week. I did have to point out to them that actually I shouldn't be thanked and that I didn't approve of it. It did bring home the whole notion of the choices we make in our society.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that as I stand here representing the people of Skeena, I can say unequivocally that a corporate tax cut is not in the interests of any of the people of Skeena. They would far rather have those resources put into their school system so they do not have their children on a four-day school week. I can assure you of that.

I've heard mention here that some people are thinking that maybe the agenda of this government is really to move away from a public school system towards a private school system. I don't think we need to come into any conspiracy theories here. This is, after all, Canada, not the United States. But we cannot overlook the policy ramifications of constantly underfunding public schools. If you underfund public schools, that leads to dissatisfaction. Once that dissatisfaction reaches a certain level within society, all people will start to look after their own self-interests rather than looking after the interests of their fellow community members.

It's a natural thing for all of us to want the best for our children. In that sense, we are, all of us, a little selfish. Parents will sacrifice anything in order to make sure that their children have the best possible start in life. If we want to have an example of that, look at the number of parents these days, parents of my age, who are going to work every day to support their children to attend post-secondary education. There are many, many parents I know who spend thousands of dollars every year in order for their children to come out with a degree or a diploma and not be thousands of dollars in debt.

I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that it won't be too long, if there is enough dissatisfaction with the public school system at K-to-12, before enough parents will decide that the only solution to their problem is to take money out of their pockets and send their kids into the private system.

What does that lead to? It leads very much to a form of privatization, although it's a form of privatization by stealth. It's a reality. It's an understanding that if you can't actually say you want to have a private school system — because it's politically not possible and you know that your polls have told you this is not a way to go — you constantly underfund the public school system until enough people get dissatisfied.

Those dollars are taken out of the public school system as each child leaves — it's very much a reality in school district 82. With a four-day school week, many parents have chosen to send their children to private schools, not because they believe they're better, but simply because they would rather have their children going to school five days a week than four days a week. That in itself has sucked tens of thousands of dollars out of the public school system, thus creating even more challenges for us in school district 82.

Let me point out that this has happened in other places in the world. At one time the United Kingdom had what was recognized around the world as the best public school system, bar none. At one time they had reached the glorious goal number one, and they were recognized as having the best public school system. But nowadays that's not the case. People in Britain strive harder and will make any kind of sacrifice to send their children to private school for the very reason that I have just laid out. I do not want to see that happen in British Columbia.

I'd also like to speak for a few minutes specifically about literacy, because literacy seems to be one of the main agendas of this government. I applaud them for that. It's a huge issue. I think I'm right in saying that approximately 30 percent of British Columbians are functionally illiterate. In spite of all the money that we spend on our education system, we still have that problem to overcome.

In my riding in northern British Columbia, we have serious problems with literacy. We have many families who don't possess a book in their home. We have many families whose own experience of education was a horrendous one. I have a large first nations population in the riding. Many of those people attended residential schools and are still recovering from that experience. Grandparents came out of residential schools basically emotionally broken and unable to do the basic elements of child-rearing.

Many of their children now have children in our public school system. And while we all tout the value of education, and while most people in British Columbia — especially everybody in this House — under-

stand the value of education and how it can help people be all that they want to be, there are others, and we have to recognize them, who because of their experiences within the education system think of it as a prison camp, a torture camp. It's hard for them to engender the kinds of values within their own children that are important for children to get — those primeval messages from a very early age — so that when they go to school, they understand: "This is a fun place to be. This is a great place to be. This is where I can learn all the things that I want to learn so that I can accomplish whatever goals it is that I want in my life."

When we cut libraries in schools in a district such as mine, when we cut teacher-librarians by 25 percent, when we cut the B.C. book purchasing program — there was only a quarter of a million dollars — this has an incredible impact on a riding such as mine. It also, I'm sure members on the other side of the House would have to acknowledge, is not a rational way to be dealing with issues of literacy. It is, once again, an example of saying one thing while doing completely another.

If you spend a couple of million dollars giving everybody a book in British Columbia or a few hundred thousand dollars giving every child a book in British Columbia, it may seem as though one is doing a very generous thing. But think how those resources, that one-off program, could be spent if it were spent within the school system, where they could buy tens of hundreds of books and have them available for all of the children to have access to. Is that not a better use of valuable resources at a time when governments all over British Columbia and Canada are saying they are stressed out and can't find revenue?

I'm wondering whether the cuts to libraries in schools, the cuts to teacher-librarians in schools, is just another way to acknowledge that maybe children should have access to books only in their community library, which again I have a serious problem with because many children and many families don't go to the community library. Many families don't live within walking distance of a library or don't have a car. The only opportunity they get in their lives to actually go and have access to a book is, in fact, when they are in school. That's where they get introduced to books. That's where they get introduced to the notion of being able to go and find a book and how to find a book.

I would like to read out a little quote here from a gentleman who talks specifically about the state of our libraries: "The state of our school libraries is like a plant that has not been watered. It doesn't show the effects at first, and then it dies. Many school libraries are currently at the yellow- or wilted-leaf stage." That's from Dr. David Suzuki. It's very important, as we move forward and try to improve our literacy rates, that we understand what Dr. Suzuki is talking about here and recognize that if we don't put these kinds of resources and dollars into school libraries, into librarian-teachers, then we can never, ever achieve our goals that we want of raising the literacy level of the children and adults of this province.

I'd like to quote a few more teachers from my school district. Here's one who's been in the school system for almost 30 years. "Our ability to provide assistance for students struggling within the system is, for all intents and purposes, non-existent. We are hamstrung by adjudication processes, designation processes, collection of accountability data and a host of other bureaucratic and nonsensical activities. We should be providing service on a needs basis rather than on a designation model."

In the last few years while working in the school system, I have noticed that while resources are scarce and the classroom sizes have increased, the teachers are now having to do more and more administrative tasks. I understand that we have to have data — right? If we want to know whether our school system is actually making good use of the dollars, we have to have some raw data to figure out…. Are students actually learning? Are they passing exams? I understand that.

When you reach a point where the data takes over, then all that happens is that teachers become encouraged to teach so that their students will pass a specific exam so that it'll look good on their data sheet and they'll be regarded as being an excellent teacher. Teaching is much more than just passing an exam. Teaching is much more than filling out forms. Surely in this time, in this day and age, we need to understand that teachers need to spend the majority of their time actually teaching our children and less time filling in forms.

I would like to end by saying that I don't think the general public is fooled by this debate that's going on here. I think there is huge support for the position of teachers, not because anyone cares about their working conditions but mostly because the parents understand that the learning conditions in the classroom are affecting their children. I hope that in this day and in the coming days we do not end up going into a strike, and I hope that this government, which has not actually jumped off the precipice yet, will have the courage to actually meet directly with the teachers' leadership and bring back some form of true collective bargaining into the process.

D. Thorne: I can hardly call what I'm doing here today a pleasure, Madam Speaker, but thank you for recognizing me to speak.

This whole situation with the teachers and the bill is very discouraging to most of the people in British Columbia. I speak today as a representative of Coquitlam school district, school district 43, which is the third-largest school district in British Columbia, and we have a lot of teachers and a lot of children, as that implies.

I have heard from many of those teachers and from many of the parents. I have not heard from any of the students, however, during this week, but I'm sure that when I go home tomorrow, I will be talking to some of

the students as well. People are most alarmed about the confrontational aspects of this bill and what it's doing to education in British Columbia. It's unfortunate that this Campbell government seems to always choose confrontation as its first option.

This government has consistently viewed education as a political game instead of viewing teachers and parents and students as equal partners in education. I, myself, am the product of a private school education. I grew up in Newfoundland at a time when there were only private schools. There was no public education system at all. In fact, there has been a public education system in Newfoundland only in the last few years.

It was a very difficult change for people to accept. People didn't understand what would happen to the system if they became a public school system, which they are now. The changes are quite miraculous, not only for the students but for the teachers and for the general population of the island.

In my time — which is going back a long, long way — in the private school system in Newfoundland, I had many friends who had very large families. We were an Irish community in Newfoundland. People had quite a number of…. My friends' families had over 12 children, and in those days, every one of those children had to pay school fees in order to go to school. It was very, very difficult for some of those families — friends of mine, even — who could not afford to send their children to school. Or they would go half the year, each child, because they couldn't afford the full school fees.

It was a horrible situation. I have a fear in the pit of my stomach that if we keep going down this road in British Columbia and keep treating teachers and students the way we have been in the last few years, we're going to end up going down that private school road. As a product of that, I warn you that this is a road we do not want to go down. We have to maintain our public school system, and we have to maintain it in a worthy way.

It isn't enough to have a system and call it, oh yes, we have this, and we have that. If it isn't a good, working, reliable system, then we don't have anything in this province. These children are our future. As much of a cliché as that is, I have to say it.

I'd like to move on and just talk about some of the cuts in general and underfunding of public education over the past few years. I will refer specifically to my school district, district 43, but these cuts have been shared across the province.

In Coquitlam special education teachers have been cut by 9.5 percent. In Coquitlam ESL teachers have been cut by 14.5 percent. Now, bear in mind that this is the third-largest school district in British Columbia. It is a growing district, but it's not growing in terms of the size. We have always been the third-largest school district in British Columbia. In Coquitlam teacher-librarians have been cut by a shocking 18 percent. In Coquitlam support staff have been cut by 7 percent. In the face of these drastic cuts, school enrolment has only declined by 3.3 percent. This is a shocking, shocking low figure when you consider the cuts on the other side of the fence.

The cuts in Coquitlam are not due, obviously, to declining enrolment. In fact, in a study we did in 1998 in school district 43, there were approximately 100 more students than there are now enrolled, yet there were 42 more teachers employed. Now, anyone with any…. I'm sure a grade two student would be able to look at those figures — 100 more students but 42 more teachers. It just does not compute. A grade two student would be able to tell that. What are we to think as adults with reasonably good educations when we look at those figures?

Across the province we've had 113 schools closed, and 14,000 students have been displaced by the closure of their own neighbourhood schools. In Coquitlam 300 students have been displaced by the closure of four elementary neighbourhood schools, including Burquitlam Elementary, Montgomery and Cedarbrook. Kindergarten class-size limits have increased to 22 from 20. Grades one-to-three class-size limits have increased from 22 to 24. There are no class-size limits for grades four to 12. The district class-size average — that would be district 43 — must be 30, meaning that many individual classes are over 30. In school district 43, for example, more than 113 secondary school classrooms are well over the previous limits of 32. There are no limits, shockingly, on the number of special needs students integrated into individual classrooms.

Chronic underfunding of public education has become the norm. We accept it. Nobody notices it anymore. It is shocking that we don't notice it. In fact, it is almost as shocking that we don't notice the chronic underfunding as chronic underfunding. The government has downloaded so many costs onto the local school boards. Some examples are pension payment increases, MSP premium increases, B.C. Hydro rate increases, salary and wage increases and generally accepted accounting principles — the GAAP, which is costing a lot more money. The results of this downloading have meant even more deep cuts to educational services to add on top of all of the cuts in the classroom I have just talked about.

In '01-02 the real per-pupil funding was $6,770. By '04-05 the real per-pupil amount had dropped to $6,540. How can we look at these figures and not recognize chronic underfunding that's continuing and increasing year after year after year? It is shocking. The rest of Canada must be looking at British Columbia with dismay and thinking: what are they doing out there? They have a province that is running ads like crazy all over North America about what a wonderful province it is, how great the economy is, how wonderful things are — move to British Columbia, the best place in the world — and our education system, our children, is going down, down, down. I hear from

members on the other side of the House — everyone in British Columbia hears — that it's going up, up, up. Well, the rest of Canada must be as confused as I and my colleagues when I look at these figures. I can't figure out how we cannot recognize that we have this chronic underfunding.

Across British Columbia school boards have registered a collective funding shortfall of $210 million in '02-03 and $90 million in '03-04. How can we do this to our school boards, our elected representatives from the communities? They go into these positions. They think they're going in there to do good in their community, to do good for the students, to try and come up with some new ideas to work miracles, to do their job with this lack of funding, and this is what they come up with: $210 million and $90 million, two years in a row, in funding shortfalls. These people are in an impossible situation.

We have an election coming up in a month. Why would anybody in any of the communities across British Columbia run for school board trustee? My goodness. What a job. It would be like taking a job in a store at the mall when you don't have anything to sell. You don't get a good profit, because there's nothing left in the store to sell. That must be the job of a school trustee these days. I can't see it any other way.

I myself, as a city councillor, must have had some sense of this ten years ago, because I was originally asked to run for school board. I remember saying then: "Why would I do that?" Let me tell you, Madam Speaker, the situation ten years ago was much better than it is now, and it will be interesting to see how many good people run for school board with this horrible job that they have to do with no money. They have no money. There are the figures: $210 million short in '02-03 and $90 million shortfall in '03-04.

Coquitlam, my district, faced an original funding shortfall of $5 million in '02-03 and $900,000 in '03-04. Because they made so many cuts in Coquitlam, they were able to get the funding shortfall down to just under a million dollars. The students suffered for every one of those cuts. I personally know a lot of the school trustees in Coquitlam, having worked with them on city council, and let me tell you that they have suffered in some ways just as much as the students. It's been dismaying and pretty much disgusting.

I would just like to talk a little bit about bargaining rights in British Columbia and how we got to the point where we are today. In the beginning there were few rights and many responsibilities. In 1872 the Public School Act of British Columbia organized teachers into teacher institutes dominated by government officials. In a far-flung province of Canada, which was what B.C. was at that time, collective rights were not recognized. While labour organizations were present in mining towns, unions were seen as a conspiracy against trade.

B.C. teachers had common-law contracts. They worked under what we would see as intolerable conditions, and they came and they went at the behest of local school authorities. What separates us from our predecessors is the evolution of democracy and the collective efforts of those teachers who organized themselves into the B.C. Teachers Federation to achieve full collective bargaining rights.

Full collective bargaining rights for teachers were ultimately achieved in 1987 — teacher bargaining legislation. During the negotiations that followed, teachers negotiated a full set of terms, including class size, duty-free lunch, fair personnel practice, professional development rights and a healthy salary increase. In the many negotiations that followed, hundreds of negotiations were concluded without reference to strikes or lockouts, to their credit. Where necessary, teachers did undertake job action in the face of the school boards, which were acting unfairly in the negotiating process.

Our history presents a clear vision on the importance of collective bargaining rights. I say that this clear vision, this lesson in the importance of collective bargaining rights, is one that we dismiss, that we ignore at our peril. In the broad context, collective bargaining rights cannot be seen as separate from other democratic and human rights of any civil society. Rights and laws equalize the playing field between those who have wealth and power and those who don't. Collective rights equalize the workplace power imbalance between those who own and control the system and those who provide their services — be they professional, such as teachers, or unskilled.

The last thing education needs right now is a change in the bargaining system that makes it totally unworkable. There has not been a single teacher-initiated strike in this province since 1993. Prior to the introduction of provincial bargaining in the first four and a half years of teachers' collective bargaining, a B.C. student lost less than 8/10 of a day of classes per year. That's an amazingly low number.

These are the facts. That's less than the time lost to sniffles, to snowfalls and to family vacations. There has been no measurable long-term negative effect on students' progress because of any teacher strike in British Columbia. I say again that these facts I have just read into the Hansard….We ignore these at our peril. This is something that we, as a province and as a House, have the obligation to pay attention to.

Now, I'm going to move from those facts into some anecdotal letters that I have received from teachers who either live or work in school district 43 in Coquitlam. These letters are very interesting. I have more letters, but I have chosen the ones that are all a bit different.

Thanks for listening. I'm not going to read any more of that one. It goes on and on. Anyway, this gentleman who wrote this letter is telling me here in the last line that he is not a teacher but that these are his feelings about the current situation.

The next letter is from a kindergarten and learning assistance teacher in Coquitlam:

This is quite a statement: "I find myself increasingly less able to do the kind of job necessary to make young people learn."

The rest is talking about how great I am, so I won't read that. It's really hard for me not to read all the nice stuff in these letters about me.

This one has been sent to all of the four MLAs of school district 43. That's…. Well, we all know who they are. I can't say their names, anyway.

He goes on about Eric's experiences in the classroom and in the school and concludes that the contract language regarding these special needs students and support staff in the schools for these students need to be back, included in the contract.

The next letter is also written to all four of us, so I'm assuming that all four — two people on both sides of the House — have these letters.

Then this teacher goes on and talks about how he loves teaching, etc., but that he is feeling very demoralized. He recognizes that the present system is dysfunctional, is very concerned about how it will be amended and is very concerned that young teachers who have never worked under a contract will be inclined to, perhaps, leave the system because it is becoming so politi-

I have one here from a teacher wishing me happy World Teachers Day and wondering what the Liberal government of B.C. is planning with Bill 12 and how they can do this to teachers. He says:

This is one from a man who teaches in Coquitlam but lives in a Vancouver riding. I'm sorry; he doesn't say the riding. He says the MLA's name, so I can't say it.

This constituent is asking us to use all of our knowledge of education, our knowledge of the needs of children and the basic rights of all working people to fight this Bill 12.

I also have about four sheets of comments we have pulled from letters from teachers in my riding, which I could start reading. I'm just not sure if I have enough time. I could go through….

D. Thorne: I have some more time? Okay. I'm just going to read through and pick the ones first with the most teaching experience.

This is a very frightening thought — that our schools are now going into more rote teaching and rote practices. They don't have the resources or the time to do innovation. How are these students going to be able to cope with a world that is changing by the moment in technology?

J. Brar: I rise to oppose Bill 12. I am opposing this bill — I truly believe I am not standing here because I am part of the opposition — because I truly believe that the motivation behind this bill is not finding a solution to this very important issue impacting parents, students and teachers. I oppose it because the real motivation behind Bill 12 is playing politics — playing politics with the students and their parents to win back the trust this government has lost because of rejections during the last four years.

Let me begin with a very personal story. You know, members on this side have been trying to make the point very clear by telling various kinds of stories — grade one, grade three, grade four. I never went to school in this country, but I have a story about education which is my very personal story.

My father was a member of the village council for many years — maybe 20 years. What happened is that many people from the village used to come to him asking for his advice and support on many complex issues, including issues which were related to court proceedings. My father told me the people would come to him, he would listen to them and go with them to the court, find an appropriate lawyer for them, explain the situation to the lawyer. From that point, the lawyer

would start working on the case, and finally, when the case went to trial, he told me, he would stand in that court, and the judge and the lawyers from both parties would discuss the case in English.

My father never went to school at all. He knew nothing about English because he never went to school. He said to me: "Each time I was standing in that court, I experienced that if somebody wanted to connect with the global community, that person should have the knowledge of the language the judge and the lawyers are speaking." He mentioned that each time he experienced that, he realized the value of education.

That's why, my father told me, he was able to understand the power of education to build a family and to build a nation. That's why, my father said to me, he realized it's very important to respect and appreciate the work our teachers are doing for us and for the nation. He was able to understand that, but unfortunately, this government couldn't understand until today that it is very important for us to respect and appreciate the work that teachers are doing for us. Frankly, I'm very surprised at that response.

This bill is about our teachers and about the education system and about looking after the students. Let me tell you — probably everybody knows about that — that the teachers who teach our children shape the future of our children. They shape the future of this nation. They teach them the importance of differences of opinion. They teach them the power of negotiations and the beauty of dialogue. They teach them the value of fairness. That's all they teach to the children to make them better citizens of this country, to provide us better leadership in the future.

What this government is telling them is that we have a different definition of negotiations than you, as well as of collective bargaining. The definition is that you can't talk about the class size. The definition is that you can't talk about the class composition. The definition is that you can't talk about the working conditions in schools and the classroom and can't talk about the wage increase. But you can talk about everything else. What else is there to negotiate? There is nothing at the table to negotiate.

Now we have the Minister of Labour standing in this House a few days ago saying: "We realize this system is broken." The system of collective bargaining is not working. The logic is it's broken because both parties met 35 times, and they could not agree on even one item. That was the rationale and the logic behind the conclusion that the system of bargaining is broken.

Let me tell you another story to make my point clear — whether it's the system that's broken or that we have a broken approach to deal with the very pressing, important issues for the parents and the students of this province. This is the story of a young philosopher — of course, reading a lot of books — who somehow thought: "I probably have lots and lots of knowledge." He was talking to a friend. He said: "I have read so many books, but the problem I have is that I cannot have a meaningful discussion with anyone. There's no one who has an equal kind of knowledge. I can't have a meaningful discussion or debate."

That friend told him: "On the other side of the mountains, in fact, there's one person. He's a master. He's a guru. He's a teacher. He is very knowledgable. If you want to have a meaningful dialogue, maybe you should go and talk to him." He said okay. The next morning he started walking toward the mountains to reach the master's house. In the afternoon he was there, and he knocked on the door of the guru.

The guru opened the door, and he saw a young man standing in front of him. The young philosopher asked him: "Can you tell me what you mean by life? What is life? What is after life? What is nature? What is this universe?" And he started asking, "What is God?" — all those metaphysical, big, philosophical questions to the master.

He said: "Son, come in. We will talk about those things. Let's sit and talk." He said: "No, no. Maybe you didn't understand my question. I'm asking you: what is life? What is behind, after life? What is God? What is nature? What is this universe?" He said: "Son, I understand your questions. Come in, and we'll talk about it." But the young philosopher repeated the questions again. Then the guru said: "Son, please come in, and I will make a cup of tea for you. Maybe all the answers for all the questions you are asking will come out of a cup of tea." The young philosopher was a bit confused. "I'm asking very big, metaphysical, philosophical questions, and he is telling me that the answers will come out of a cup of tea. Maybe I wasted my time. So let's go in, have a cup of tea and come back, and then go back."

He goes in. The guru makes a cup of tea. He brings the cup of tea and keeps the plate and the cup in front of the young philosopher, and he starts pouring tea into the cup. He kept pouring the tea. The cup was full, and he continued pouring the tea into the cup. The young philosopher said: "Stop." The master said: "Why?" He said: "The cup is full." The master said: "Okay, that means you at least understand that if the cup is full, you can't put more tea into it." He said: "Yeah, that's simple." He said: "That way, your mind is full at this point in time. You are not here to have a meaningful dialogue with me. You're not here to have a meaningful discussion with me. You need to go back, create some space in your mind and come back if you want to have a meaningful dialogue."

That is the problem I see here with the government. Whether that young philosopher went back to him 35 times or 55 times, the answer from the master would have been the same. And that is the problem we have with this negotiation system, with this collective bargaining system, with the minister talking about it not working. It's not working because we have a broken approach to it, because this government developed the negotiation system in a way that it shouldn't function. That was the intent behind it.

Let me try another story, and I can probably make that very clear to the members on the other side. This is the story of a king of a big state. He developed a big

goal, and the goal was to make his state the most literate state on the earth. He asked his advisers: "I need somebody who can provide us the advice to develop the public policy. Find somebody who can guide us in that direction."

So the advisers went out and started looking for a person, but they reached the same master I was talking about a few minutes ago. They brought that master into the palace. The king was sitting on a nice throne like you, Mr. Speaker, and they brought the master in front of him. One of the advisers asked him a question: "Can you tell us how we can make our state the most literate state? Can you advise us on that?"

The king interrupts in the meantime, and he says no. "Let me make it very clear to him. Yes, we need your advice on that, but you cannot talk about the class size. You cannot talk about the class composition. You cannot talk about the working conditions, and you cannot talk about the wage increase. But tell us how we can make it the most literate state on the earth."

The master was confused. In those days you couldn't say no to the king. The king also said to him: "I want your answer to these questions. Tell me: how can we show that we value the work of teachers towards building our nation? Also, tell me: how can we show we respect the commitment and dedication of our teachers towards our children? Tell me: how can we show we appreciate the work of the teachers in the classroom?" He said: "But don't talk about class size, don't talk about working conditions, don't talk about the composition, and don't talk about the wage."

The master thought about it for a few seconds and said to the king: "Your Honour, His Majesty, if you want my frank advice on this one, you have to either change your goal, or you have to change your position on the four conditions you put on me. Otherwise, there's no way you can achieve the goals you have set up for yourself." That was the message the guru gave to the king.

My point with all these stories is very simple. It is not the bargaining system that is broken; it is the approach, the attitude towards this very important issue for our children and parents, that is broken. That's the problem in this House. That's the problem of the approach this government has.

As I said at the beginning, I have some important reasons to oppose this bill, and I would like to list a few of those here as well. The first one that I heard from the other side — hear almost every day — is that the government is all about making choices, that the budget is all about setting priorities. But let me say this: the priorities of this government are wrong, one-sided.

When the government took over in 2001, they gave the biggest tax cut to the corporations in the history of this province: $2 billion. And $1 billion out of that was given only to the corporations, fewer than 5 percent of the people in this province, and $1 billion went to the 95 percent, the average hard-working families. That's what this government did. Then in this budget the government came back again and gave another significant tax cut to corporations.

But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker: this government talked about how the system of negotiations is broken, but there was no system at all when they decided to give another tax break to corporations. There was no system, no negotiation — but tax cuts were given to those people because they are friends of the government.

I oppose this bill because this bill is against the fundamental values of this country, which are respecting, valuing and appreciating the work of teachers. I also oppose this Bill 12 because I don't see any rational, logical, fundamental, valid reasons for the government…. If you are doing something right, you don't need to go out and spend taxpayers' money putting ads in every paper of the province to convince the people of the province you are doing something right.

That's what this government is doing. It's spending taxpayers' money on ads convincing people that this bill is very important for the future of our kids. Why do you need to spend money if you are doing something good for the people of the province? The people of the province understand what is good and what is bad. They understand what is right, what is wrong. This government doesn't need to spend millions of taxpayer dollars to convince them that this bill is right, because this bill is not right.

Another one the government is not willing to talk about is class size and the composition of the class. I mentioned the story of a king. That is the story of this government. I have tons of letters from the teachers in Surrey. The class size in this country has gone up to 33 students. Frankly speaking, I've gone to school in India. I've gone to university in India. I've gone to university in Canada. I have never seen the class size of 32 students. I have seen more people in cinema halls, in theatres, but that's a different story. That's a totally different story because in class there is interaction between students and the teacher.

I also oppose this bill because the motivation, as I said earlier, behind this bill is conflicts rather than solutions. This government is telling us after five years of being in power that this system is not working. I don't know how many other things are not working and they don't know yet. Five years. You came back to us and said: "This system is not working." In that way, I think probably you need 50 years to understand what's going on in this province, but the people of the province won't give that to this government.

The other reason — I know; I'm watching the time as well — that the government gives to us is that the enrolment is going down. But the enrolment in Surrey is actually going up. Even then, there were cuts to programs for ESL, special needs and librarians.

The other thing I want to say is that I am opposing this bill because I have heard the parents of Surrey, and they expect the government to work with teachers and not against them to improve education for their children.

The last reason is because this is a desperate political effort to win back the trust of people. This government closed 113 schools in the province, which is one school after every 13 days, but this government opened more liquor stores in the province. This government cut 2,500 teaching positions. On the other side, they doubled the number of slot machines for gambling. These are the priorities of this government.

I would like to conclude by saying that the way this government is developing the shape of education…. What's going to happen? The children of average families who have the potential to become doctors will become carpenters, and the children of rich families who have the potential to become carpenters will become doctors. That's the direction this government is taking. I would like to conclude by make the comment that it is not the system that is broken; it is the broken approach of this government.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
COMMUNITY SERVICES AND
MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
SENIORS' AND WOMEN'S ISSUES

Hon. I. Chong: I would like to begin with some opening comments as well as introducing some staff who are with me today, so that members opposite can familiarize themselves with the staff who are here. If they need to speak to them or contact them from time to time, they will have a face and a name.

To my immediate right I have Sheila Wynn, my deputy minister; to my left is Dale Wall, who is the assistant deputy minister for local government. I also have with me Barbara Walman, assistant deputy minister for women's, seniors' and community services, and Shauna Brouwer, the assistant deputy minister for management services. They're here today. This is by no means the entire complement of the staff. Because of the nature of the portfolio, we have other staff who will be coming in as we go through the ministry estimates throughout the day.

Again, I would like to take this opportunity to offer some opening comments before we begin the debates this morning. I will keep them relatively brief so that we have as much time as possible to engage in the questions that I'm sure are to be posed today.

I am very excited and pleased to be able to present the estimates for 2005-2006 for the Ministry of Community Services. As well, I am extremely proud to be part of a ministry that has so much involvement with our communities and that it is so well engaged with our local governments, an area that I originally hailed from when I first entered public life.

When we talk about reinventing government, we're really saying that we want government to be more efficient, we want government to be more relevant, and we want government to be more accessible and to better serve the people. At the end of the day, there is only one taxpayer. If we can make this as seamless as possible, if we can move from one level of government to another, that is what the taxpayers actually see is of benefit to them.

I'm very grateful to all those who have been involved in this ministry, those who have contributed to this ministry and to ensuring that this evolution does in fact take place, that this seamless nature of how citizens are served does occur.

In particular, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge all the superb work of the very dedicated staff in the ministry and to thank them for their support and for their input as I have assumed this area of responsibility since June of this year.

It is a very exciting ministry. At the very core of our new approach to governance is the concept of partnerships, something I had the opportunity to speak about many times last week at the Union of B.C. Municipalities 100th anniversary. It is about partnerships not only with local government but also with other ministries, stakeholders, external agencies and, no doubt, our local governments, our British Columbia communities, our regional districts and, of course, the overarching association itself, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. It also means ensuring that we engage and have a good dialogue and working relationship with the federal government.

By building on these cooperative and proactive relationships, it allows us to lever resources to maximize services. At the end of the day, I think all of us

who come to this House are looking to maximize those services to ensure that our citizens are as well served as can be. Perhaps more importantly, building constructive relationships gives our partners a real say in how services should be defined and delivered.

We firmly believe that people in communities have the best grasp of local needs. I say this not only as a statement from the ministry but certainly from personal experience. I know that other members opposite, who have also had the privilege of serving at a local level, know how local needs are best met when local decisions are able to have input.

We also believe that the most effective programs and services are those that are tailored to fit and suit individual situations. By saying that, hon. Chair, it is simply this: we know that the province is diverse. We know that the province has special regions, and how citizens are there for specific reasons — whether it's the climate and the viewscapes, whether it is just to be in a more rural or remote setting or to live in an urban area. Because of that, we know that our citizens have individual and more unique needs in some parts of the province than others, so one size certainly does not fit all. The Premier has said it often: it is important that we allow for flexibility and that we allow for options. When that happens, it means we are meeting the needs of our citizens. It may not always be the right solution, and it may not always be the best solution, but to be flexible is what is really critical.

That is part of the reason why we have moved away from a prescriptive, top-down approach to service delivery to one of shared expertise with an appreciation for local autonomy. It is by working with our partners that we are able to create an environment where rural communities in the north have the same opportunities to flourish as their urban counterparts here in the south. Working with my colleagues, we are ensuring that women from all backgrounds also have the opportunity to reach their greatest potential. Working with our partners, we are putting in the required supports so that B.C. seniors can live the healthy, active lives they so richly deserve.

The collaborative approach that we have taken with our many stakeholders — agencies, community and government partners — has moved our ministry from one of mere approval to that of a facilitator and problem-solver. The programs and policies outlined will help the Ministry of Community Services support this government's five great goals for the golden decade ahead.

If my colleagues across the way have certain ideas of interest that they would like to offer or areas that we should pursue together cooperatively, I do look forward to hearing from them. I also want to take this opportunity to state my support for the current spirit of cooperation that we in the Legislature have embarked on. It is a constructive new standard of disclosure, and I think it will bode well for all the citizens of British Columbia. It is a pleasure to be working in such an environment of cooperation, and I look forward to seeing it continue, particularly during these estimates. I will be happy to hear from members opposite.

N. Macdonald: Hon. Chair, it's a pleasure for me, as well, to come here. You had mentioned that we would have a debate, but I don't see it as a debate at all. What I have come here to do is really to ask questions that…. Unlike very often in a debate where you know the answers, I'm here to learn from you and from the staff that you've brought with you.

First, I want to thank you for the kind words and also for how generous you've been in giving time for your staff. I've had a few opportunities to phone and ask questions, and I just wanted to let you know that your staff have been wonderful. I know you know that, but I just wanted you to know I appreciate that too.

You can be sure that this will be a very congenial and friendly thing because, honestly, what I want to do is bring questions that were given to me and then my own questions. I'm sure I will ask for your patience. I'm sure you will give it to me as I really try to fully understand a ministry that is, while one of the smaller ones, still much larger than any organization I've had the opportunity to run.

My background, too, is in local government. In the past when I've told people that I've been a mayor, they've been very impressed with that title, not realizing that…. While I thought it was important to my community of 3,500, very often people would react like I was the mayor of London or something. It was very different. I had a staff of maybe 20 or 25 people — very, very small. Nevertheless, it's an important job, and like yours, it's a job that prepares you for doing this — not completely, but certainly it's helpful. It's a job that widens your perspective.

I came from a background in education. I can honestly tell you that once I got onto council and then later as mayor, my perspectives changed. I understood things that I didn't even realize I hadn't understood before. The immediacy of somebody running a business, the complexities of running the community, being accountable for everything you say — all of these are important lessons for what we're doing here.

The questions. Like I say, what I'm going to do is basically follow through the service plan that was given to me and then just try to understand exactly how the decisions are made and how what is talked about is going to be achieved by the ministry.

The first question comes with the ministry itself. It was formed on June 16, 2005. This is one that comes from people who are from my own community, and it's just around reorganization in government. I'm sure there was a strong rationale for creating this ministry. So the question is: what is the reason? Why did you form this ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: I want to thank the member for his very gracious opening remarks and for acknowledging the dedication and the very good work of the ministry staff. He's learned in a very short time, as I have, of the

incredible amount of work they do and the dedication and commitment they have towards their positions. Having just been at the long-service awards dinners this past week and seeing staff receive recognition for 25 years of being in the public service really does add to the testament of the fact that there is that dedication. Again, I am joined by so many wonderful staff, and I appreciate the member acknowledging that.

Certainly, I'm interested in engaging in a forthright and constructive dialogue. He will know that as well, if he peruses the debates of the past years. Not all of us, but I know that for myself in particular, I always try to come to these debates to offer constructive thoughts and ask questions that I thought were constructive. I always found them much more useful in that manner. At the end of the day, the members themselves will learn that much more about themselves, about the government and about the citizens that we all are attempting to serve. Again, I appreciate very much the member's comments.

His opening question about the restructuring of government. I guess the simplest way is to say it like this. From time to time governments need to have a look to see how well they're doing and what their focus is. When we first formed government in 2001, we attempted to structure government that would meet the needs of what we believed was a changing world we were in — a more global economy, one that was more competitive — and to place within certain ministries those areas or programs or services that would complement each other, if you will.

This recent election in 2005 saw this government return for a second term, for a second mandate, and allowed us to once again have a look at where we had come from. In our first term we made some incredible changes. Members may agree or disagree, but I do believe very firmly that those changes were done to ensure that, as I say, we met the needs of citizens.

We now have a ministry that is more focused on a primary area of responsibility, I think. That is local governments. It's not a new ministry in the sense that it's just been formulated. Municipal Affairs was a prior name that was given to it. It's been around for years, because local governments need to have a voice at the government table.

To keep the name Municipal Affairs, I guess — and that's the question we're asking — really goes to how the world around us is changing. Not every community is deemed what they would want to refer to as a municipality. On Vancouver Island, the area association that represents all the municipalities here used to be called the AVIM, the Association of Vancouver Island Municipalities. The municipal leaders and community leaders felt that it didn't reflect what represented the Island, so we became the AVICC, the Association of Vancouver Island and Coastal Communities, because we're all surrounded on the Island by the coast in one nature or another.

When the name change became Community Services, again, it was to embrace that these are community local governments. That's really what has happened. The restructuring that may have occurred in terms of certain services and programs was done to better align the delivery of services. As was done in the past in the '90s, as was done to some extent even in our first term, some services and programs were such that many ministries had a hand at it. While we do want to work cross-governmentally, cross-ministerially, if the responsibilities can be housed in one ministry where there is one person or a group of people in that ministry focusing on them, that would better serve the citizens. It would better allow for that program or that service to have benchmarks and measure performance by that.

I hope that does provide some information to the member just to understand why a restructure takes place and sometimes why some don't take place.

N. Macdonald: Then the question I have is around the process for deciding what should be within a particular ministry and what shouldn't. Some people have asked why housing isn't in with this. I'm not saying that would be the appropriate thing. The question is more around what the process would be. Is it made at a bureaucratic level? Is it made at a political level? How do you sit down and decide the most appropriate setup? Maybe that's the next question. What's the process for deciding?

Hon. I. Chong: I suppose the easiest answer is that all of the above would perhaps be the way to describe how changes take place. Certainly, members have input, especially members who have returned from an election and who saw how services were delivered in the past and how they might be improved on. Certainly, the Premier and cabinet also can have input as to how they think things should change. At the end of the day, though, ultimately we certainly want to have one person who has an overarching look at that — or one department. I think it would be fair to say that the Premier and his office should have that sort of overarching look at making programs fit in the ministry in the best way but, of course, with input from members and those who would like to.

As well, throughout the time you are in government or in opposition, you will hear from the public who make offers and suggestions. You will meet with stakeholders and groups who come to you and say: "You know, this didn't work well."

I'll give one example. In the '90s the issue of responsibility for child care was put out in seven or eight different ministries. This was in the '90s. It got to the point where people, stakeholders, wouldn't know where to go to access services, and that didn't help best deliver the program to those who most needed it. In our first term we brought much of that together into fewer ministries. But ultimately you want to bring everything into one.

When we take a look at an area such as the member mentions, about housing…. Again, housing was over

three or four, maybe even five, different ministries where responsibility rests with so many ministers. When it is moved around in that way, sometimes it's only pieces that get looked at. When you have one minister responsible for not only the strategy, for not only the programs but also for the legislation, it certainly makes it that much easier. It allows you to focus on an area that is of importance, which does provide for better targets and performance measures. Essentially, that would be how it would be.

If the member were to take a look back in the '90s and even in the '80s, you will see where oftentimes things just kept moving around. You'll have even seen in the '90s, I recall, where there were shuffles made. I was in opposition watching the shuffle, wondering why certain things didn't stay with the ministry but moved with the minister. Did that make sense? Not often. Then we were all busy scrambling to find out how…. We were then the critics for two or three different ministries, because certain things changed with the minister.

Again, it's not a process that ever ends at one point. I think it's fair to say that we would always seek input from people to see…. Well, it might be better if we could have a particular ministry look after a particular program or service in that way.

Again, if the member has ideas or thoughts, I certainly welcome him to offer those and take those under consideration.

N. Macdonald: With the questions, I just want to assure you that I have no agenda or no opinion on where housing should go or anything like that. I just want to sincerely understand. Like you, through the '90s often, and more recently very often, what I see and what members of the public see are changes. Then they ask: "Well, what's the rationale? What's the thinking that goes behind this?"

Just maybe more specifically, with this particular change, who actually sat down? Maybe walk me through the process in quite a bit of detail. You've come back after the election. There are existing cabinet people that get together. Is that what happens? Is a group set up within government that gets together, or is it within the Premier's office? What is the process? I guess it would change every time. But in this case, how did it work? Were you part of it? Then maybe take us step by step. Are there political considerations that are then put to staff who make recommendations? How exactly does it work?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I think the best way to describe it to the member is that it's important that politicians, those elected to serve, are always open to ideas and to hear what can be done better. I can say that I certainly had some thoughts or ideas, and I offered them to my colleagues, to caucus — that's why you have caucus meetings — and to the Premier. As well, I'm sure there are deputy ministers' committees that sit, get together and also discuss how they think it would better serve the citizens if particular programs and services were either combined or moved to a different area of responsibility.

But to suggest that there is a formal process that I am directly involved with…. I would have to say that would be something that would rest, I guess, with the Premier's office and staff, because they're the ones most capable of receiving input from as many stakeholders as possible and to hear that and take that into consideration.

I would hope that the member wouldn't suggest that we continue to always have certain structures, to beget the same from one term to another or even within a term. Sometimes it is necessary to restructure, because you can do things better. You find out through a term, sometimes, that you can do things better. You find out from people how to offer and deliver services and programs better.

There are a variety of stakeholders, task forces and councils out there in the public who often provide input. Even the select standing committees that go around the province bring in thoughts or ideas or input. All that is taken into consideration. At the end of the day, someone does have to make a decision. Of course, that decision I wouldn't say rests solely…. Primarily, I would say, the Premier is able to do that. Again, it wouldn't have been without, I imagine — quite a bit of input from people. People in this province are always willing to offer up ideas. Then it allows us to ensure that we move ahead.

You know, if we find within the term that we need to make some changes, that could easily happen as well. If you stay with the status quo, it means the world is moving ahead, and you're still running behind and catching up.

N. Macdonald: Just to understand it, is it sort of a subjective decision, or do you measure how effective an organization's structure is? I just want to get an idea. I know that over the years that I've paid attention, there has been lots of change. It happens all the time. People always ask why.

My question to you is…. I know it's sort of ad hoc. You're saying "each time." How do you judge whether one process is working or not? Is that an objective measurement? Do you go through some objective process? Or is it simply a subjective judgment that "this isn't really fitting"?

Hon. I. Chong: Again I would say to the member that receiving input, receiving stakeholder information…. All that is relevant. All that has a role to play in terms of determining how ministries should be structured. At the same time, in our first term in government we set out to also offer to the public a mandate of how we wanted to achieve a number of goals. We set out with three-year service plans, three-year financial budgets and estimates, because we wanted to lay out to people what we believed they wanted to see as well.

The member, I'm sure, has worked or volunteered in organizations, as I have in the past. Reorganizations

happen often when there's a board and a board chair. They take a look at governance. They take a look at: are they achieving what they were originally established to achieve?

When it comes to government, if you are working in one-year service plans, it does provide a bit of limitation. When we were elected in 2001 we said we would go out three years and then every year add another, drop another. We would refine those as well — the other two that were remaining — because things do change. Circumstances change.

In this term, when we were re-elected in 2005, again we laid out our service plans. It was pretty clear in our February throne speech that we had five main objectives that we wanted for the decade ahead, the five goals that I know the member has heard and is aware of. Also, we did campaign on that. These have all been, as well, incorporated into a number of our ministries to see how every ministry right across government is able to contribute to that.

The service plans, I think, lay out why a ministry is structured in that way — so that they can achieve certain goals, achieve certain objectives. Then they can be measured by that. I hope that helps the member.

N. Macdonald: In the process, as the Premier's office sat and decided on how they were going to restructure government, which groups were met with? You had talked about meeting with groups that would be involved and had interaction with the ministries. Which sort of groups did you meet with? Are you aware of what sort of meetings took place? Which of these groups came forward and suggested that these changes be made?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated, it's that stakeholders, over time, provide information. People from select standing committees provide information as they have gone around.

I was trying to explain to the member earlier, and I'm sorry if I didn't make myself more clear. It's not that people come in and suddenly sit down and say: "This is how it's got to be." It's an evolution over time. It is about hearing what people have to offer. It is about, even, hearing comments that are made during legislative debates in the chamber.

It's about listening to the public, to the concerns that they have, if they suggest that a particular service or program could be better delivered if it were in one particular ministry or left with one particular minister. It also means, as I say, the groups and stakeholders out there who make contact, individual MLAs that may come out to public forums that are offered up, that may serve on particular task forces which are designed to do a certain thing and who then come up with recommendations, which then allows government to take a look at it….

It is not at a particular focal point in one time that you could say: "Well, this happened on this day, and this is how it was decided." It is an evolution over time, and all British Columbians have an opportunity to offer information whenever they want to. When I say the Premier's office, I say so in that everything can come to his attention. He is aware of those things, and at the end of the day the decision that is made is to ensure that we can best deliver government's goals and objectives and that the citizens feel they can also be engaged and can measure how well government is doing.

So again, I hope that helps the members. If you've been involved in any kind of an organization, you know it is very difficult. You don't suddenly come together. You don't necessarily have a workshop and say: "Is this is how it should be?" With government there are things that happen weekly, monthly, yearly that you want to take into consideration as the world around you changes.

N. Macdonald: Just with my education background, very often we were asked to put things in objective terms, and very often we feel that, really, it's subjective.

You've talked about measuring. You've talked about having responses from the public. Could you just give me some examples? Did people actually come and say that the structure wasn't working? Did the UBCM approach you and say that you needed a different structure?

The most obvious one, the one people ask the most, is around housing, like: "Why isn't housing with this?" Just as an understanding, what exactly is the structure? How exactly do you work it through? Is it just a subjective thing that you sit and decide? You've talked about measuring, but what exactly are the measurements?

Hon. I. Chong: Certainly, the member is familiar with UBCM and all the area associations that exist around the province. We have had a very good working relationship with them. They offer ideas and input. When I was appointed in June…. I was able to attend one of the first executive meetings in July, and I hope that I will meet regularly with them to hear what they have to say as well.

Certainly, the input that they offer or provide most likely would have had an impact on some of the decisions that were made. I don't know how because, as the member knows, I wasn't the Minister of Municipal Affairs or local government or Community Services at the time. There could well have been a discussion that took place that suggested this would better serve the citizens.

What I do know is that it is important that once you have reorganized or restructured, you lay out that plan for all to see. You show that to the public. That's why the importance of the three-year service plan goals and targets that are set so that once established, people can follow…. Then they can also offer input as to whether they feel this is working the best that it can or suggest other things they would like to see incorporated.

I know that the member mentioned housing, and what I can only say there is that I know from experi-

ence that…. Again, I wasn't the Minister Responsible for Housing in our first term, but even while I was in opposition, and then as a private member in government, I had seen that there were many parts of housing that were put in various ministries that did not allow for focus, that did not allow for a real housing plan to come forward. It's very important that people can know, especially our local governments, that when they want to deal with that, they have one agency, one person, one ministry that has the expertise of staff to be able to help them go through sometimes a maze of information.

I'm pleased to continue to try and answer the member's question, but if he's looking for some quick process, unfortunately, government doesn't work that way. You engage in dialogue; you receive input. All that's taken into consideration. It's not just about coming together and saying: "Well, this is how it's going to be done." We do want to engage the public. We do consult and find out and receive information and feedback.

N. Macdonald: I'm sorry about taking so much time, but I really do want to understand exactly how it works, in detail. How do you measure whether something is successful? You had a particular structure. Just the background of it…. People will ask. It's not just this government; it's just government in general. They cannot keep track of how the ministries switch around. I'm sure it's not just something that you do lightly. Even though it's ad hoc, surely, there must be more to it than that. There must be a thought process that you go through. Surely, there would be a structure to how you sit and decide and how you measure whether the setup that you had before is working. It would have to be more than just simply at the whim or the last person talking.

So did the UBCM lobby to make a change? Is that what happened? Did any organization speak to you? Did any individuals? Do you have records of people making presentations to government asking you to restructure in that way?

Hon. I. Chong: I would like just for a moment to correct the member. When I say that this is an evolution where people are permitted to provide information and engage in dialogue and consultation, that's not to suggest that it would be on an ad hoc basis. What it does mean, though, is engaging the public and welcoming their information and input. I gave a number of examples — whether it's on a number of task forces or councils that are set up, whether it's even at select standing committees where people make presentations — where it's possible to hear from people.

At the end of the day a decision can be made to move a program into an area where we can put more attention, put more focus — realign it with other services and programs that complement it, because it does make sense. People do bring that up from time to time.

In terms of whether people were lobbying, well, people lobby all the time. The member will find out over the next four years how many times people will lobby. Your job as an MLA is certainly to bring that information to the table, whether in your caucus room or not. When you allow for that dialogue to take place in your caucus room, it certainly allows for an opportunity to hear the advantages and disadvantages of making change. But specifically, if the member is looking for a listing of groups, I would say anybody and everybody in British Columbia can at some point access their MLA and provide input.

For UBCM, there is a standing relationship, I would say, with the ministry in that the offer is there to have a minister attend an executive meeting from time to time, when the executive has issues where they would like more information provided from the ministry. That happens, I believe, from time to time. I know it happened once, certainly, after I was appointed to this position. As well as other area associations….

As I say, I don't have a list. When you're always open to hearing what people have to say, you don't constantly keep a list. Everybody who comes forward and speaks to you offers up information.

Again, I hope that is clear enough for the member. If he wants more understanding of how structural changes are made, perhaps even if he were to ask his own colleagues who themselves went through three or four changes when they were in government, will understand why sometimes change is made…. I know that the member's House Leader will also understand why changes were made at a time. It's to meet the needs of the changing environment, of the changing economy, of the changing needs of the people.

N. Macdonald: I guess partially where the question comes from is that very often we talk about objective goals and measurements done in sort of a method that would be more familiar to business than perhaps government has had in the past. I was just wondering if there was a process like that where it was set, where there were measurements that were something other than subjective. Like I say, very often the question is: why isn't housing with this ministry? How much does it cost to switch from…? When you realign government, how much would creating a new ministry cost? What are the costs involved with that?

Hon. I. Chong: In terms of the question the member asks…. I want to just make sure I have this correct. I'm not sure if he's wanting to know specifically a dollar amount. I don't have the specific dollar amount, but what I can say is this. When areas of responsibility move to another ministry, oftentimes the move is relatively easy in that the staff who are delivering that program or that particular service delivery area can move very easily into another ministry. Sometimes it's just a simple transfer.

What we were able to do in our first term, as well, was…. Maybe the member wasn't aware. When we looked at government, we looked at a number of things, and one of them was shared services. The goals of shared services were to reduce duplication and reduce administrative regulation in terms of providing the program or service better. So what has occurred in some areas where there has been realignment is that we have been able to take advantage of that kind of a process that took place in our previous term — the shared services.

We, in fact, in this ministry have many of our corporate services shared with another ministry, so it's not setting up a whole new ministry with a whole new structure. We look for those savings wherever possible, because at the end of the day we are trying to accommodate the delivery of the service program itself.

The member also spoke about goals and objectives. I would refer the member back to the fact that the service plans are there and that targets and goals are there. Even though those are set at the beginning of a three-year cycle and then updated for the next two subsequent years, you will notice with the evolution of the years that it…. You may realize that the targets can be more quickly met, more efficiently met or even improved upon that much more if in fact they might be better aligned with another ministry.

At least having targets, goals and objectives allows that thought process to take place. It allows for input. It allows people to say: "I know these are your targets. I know these are your goals and objectives. But if you thought about doing this and having this particular structure, you might be able to get there faster. You may be able to do more." But you do have to have a starting point, and you do have to be able to measure that. Certainly, that is a very strong objective of this government.

N. Macdonald: It sounds like the idea of sharing resources seems very reasonable, but there must still be a cost. Perhaps it's not a main one, but people must have moved around, and I guess you've changed the letterhead. People very often ask. Sometimes these are irritating things, but with each change there must be some costs. So do you have a figure for that?

What are the costs involved for the creation of this new ministry? It sounds like you have a pretty good idea of the scope. But if you could just give a figure to that….

Hon. I. Chong: With every election there are going to be costs, simply for the fact that we've got new members who are elected and retiring members as well. While there are some costs associated with small moves — new letterhead, new office space and things like that — I can say that our government has kept that to a minimum in that we've merged a number of ministry areas and areas of responsibility so that we are able to have certain programs and certain ministries where they can achieve certain goals and objectives as outlined in their service plans. The minor costs associated with printing new letterhead or business cards are all well within the budgets of normal printing, I would say. I can tell you that I'm still using business cards from my second re-elected term. I've just blacked things out.

I think it's important to just note that when there are some changes that are made, it is to ensure that we do so within our ministry budgets, that we find savings and find more savings, if possible. There were some areas of responsibilities that left this particular ministry. I should say that this is not a new ministry. This is a ministry that, in fact, has been in place since 2001, and for the sake of a name from the '90s, it still exists very much with staff; otherwise, we wouldn't have 25-year long-service employees.

Certain areas which were in this ministry, as I say, where there was some responsibility for…. By moving them out to another ministry, that program and the dollars associated would go with it. The staff persons would go with it. So it is a fairly — relatively, I guess — smooth transition that occurs and therefore allows us to take a look at what we can truly focus on and ensure that we meet the objectives of our service plans.

N. Macdonald: How will you measure whether this structure is the structure that works? Do you have some business plan that will measure that? I know that you have the goals that we're going to be talking about, but how do you decide whether this is a structure that works or not?

Hon. I. Chong: With respect to the member, I think the citizens of British Columbia are more concerned about the program, about the service, than they are necessarily about the structure. I certainly understand what the member is saying. Some people wonder why things do change. But the measurement of particular goals and objectives and the delivery of services and programs are what the citizens want to measure this government by in terms of whether we can achieve the targets or not versus the structure.

I do understand, and I do want to say that I'm certain he is hearing from people who are wondering about structure. But at the end of the day what's really important are the services and programs. If it allows for better delivery and programs, you will know that's what's happened.

I recall that when I was in opposition I saw child care spread out over seven different ministries. Was that the right structure? How did we measure that? We weren't really able to do that other than the fact that we knew, and we heard from constituents, that it was very, very confusing. "Perhaps try a different way." Then a decision can be made that maybe we'll try putting it in a particular ministry or not.

Same with housing — three or four different ministries looking after it. People could say: "We don't think that's working." They're not measuring the structure. They just know the program itself is not working. Can you make changes to allow that program to work bet-

ter? If it means restructuring it — fine. If it means keeping it where it was, that might have been an objective as well, or it might have been a conclusion that was reached.

I'm very satisfied seeing a number of changes that have been made that have aligned things much more closely to areas of responsibility. I think that will allow for certain focus and for certain targets, objectives and goals to be met.

N. Macdonald: With programs then…. When I was a mayor, and as a councillor, I worked with the Municipal Act, and since then, you've brought in the Community Charter. There are elements to the Community Charter that, I believe, the UBCM as well as this ministry feel would be superior.

Could you start to take me through some of the things that make the Community Charter a more effective way to run local government — maybe just two or three main points? I see you've got a list of five or six main points, and that would be great. What are the things that you think really, really work with the Community Charter, please?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not sure whether the member was on council at the time when the Community Charter came into being. I know he'd been on council. I see the member nodding. Thank you for making that clear.

Perhaps I'll just do a very quick synopsis of what occurred. We were very clear prior to forming government that we believed that local governments wanted more autonomy and wanted to have a charter that would allow them to be more enabling, I guess, for their local communities. The Community Charter was an idea that was talked about. People have heard about it for a number of years. We know Vancouver has its own charter, and it's worked well for them. Again, I go back to how the one-size solution does not fit all, so a community charter was to provide for more flexibility by enabling local governments to do more.

When we were elected in 2001, we brought in a Community Charter Council made up of representatives of the UBCM members — past executive members as well as current members. Some had been long-serving in the municipalities. Some had been in municipalities for 20, 30 years and had seen the evolution of how local governments started as well. It was that process that allowed for dialogue and a lot of debate, I might add. The business community was invited; other stakeholders were invited to share. As a result, at the end of the day — I believe it was after two long years of consultation and work — the Community Charter came into being.

It is still relatively new in the sense that local governments, I think, are still in awe, in some cases, of what they're able to do. When you have an act that is old and hasn't been changed for some time, you get comfortable with it, and you want to keep going back to it. I am hearing from municipalities and communities that it's relatively new. They are looking through it to make sure that they are able to use all the tools that are there within the Community Charter to allow them to move forward.

As I say, the Community Charter was brought in to work in partnership with local governments to provide them with more autonomy, to allow them to make more decisions at the local level. Moving some areas from provincial control to local control, I think, makes a lot of sense. I believe municipalities were asking for that. I certainly recall that was happening at the time I was in local government.

It also allows us to move from a focus on local government regulation to a broader focus on community development. Again, there are parts of the Community Charter that people are still going through to see how that works. With the former Municipal Act it was a narrower, more bilateral focus. With the Community Charter we've moved into a broader focus in that sense, with more multiple participants.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, as well, it moves the ministry and, I guess, the Municipal Act from using tools in the Municipal Act from an approver status more to that of a problem-solver. Again, this is what we heard from local governments and what they wanted to see. This is why they were engaged in that two-year process of dialogue, why they were very much a part of how that Community Charter should develop. I think a lot of people thought it should have happened in a very short time period, but we were very clear that we wanted to hear from as many communities and local governments as possible. It did take two years. I think at the end of the day we have a piece of legislation that has been well embraced by local governments.

That's not to say that from time to time there shouldn't be amendments or changes to that, as well, if they're brought to us. As the member would know, the Municipal Act that was in place when we were both in local government was something we saw, and from time to time it had changes that were made to it. UBCM often offers up suggestions or area associations as well. That is, I guess, the foundation of how the charter came into being and where it is today.

N. Macdonald: So it was in the works. It had been presented by the Liberal Party. That's where I saw it in '99. I know that from there it changed quite a bit. What are some of the things you're hearing that do not work with the charter?

Hon. I. Chong: The good news is that we haven't heard that there are problems with the Community Charter in any sort of major way. I didn't hear a single person at the UBCM, when I had my over 50-some-odd meetings with local governments, that the Community Charter was at all an issue with them.

We do see that the implementation of the charter has gone very smoothly. Our staff continues to work with local governments to help them understand the provisions, if they have a question. Sometimes that's

really what it is more than anything. A call comes in with a question: "Well, how does this work?" A councillor may call up or an administrator may phone and say: "I'm reading this section; does it really mean this?" They might want to take it back to their council and have a resolution passed to allow them to proceed on.

But all in all, I have to say that the Community Charter was a very successful piece of legislation. As I mentioned at UBCM last week, I think it was one of the most notable achievements that we were able to put forth — with input, of course, from local government.

N. Macdonald: Just to help me understand: what are the significant changes in taxation, then? What sort of abilities do local governments, those affected by the Community Charter…? What are they able to do that they weren't able to do? Please feel free to take your time explaining in depth. I actually am not asking something here that I know about. I really do want to know. What are the advantages, if I had been used to working with the Municipal Act, that I would now see in terms of raising money for the community?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm sorry. I just wanted to ensure that I have the information for the member.

The Community Charter is a fairly large piece of legislation, of course, having taken over from the Municipal Act. I wanted to provide perhaps a couple of examples that might be helpful, but if the member would like more information, I would be happy to see if staff would like to arrange a briefing with it so that he can go through some things he might want to pursue.

Even today we are still offering training programs from time to time to help build information expertise with local governments, if they request that. We certainly want to make sure that everybody understands how they can use it. Oftentimes, though, I do want to say, I know that even in local governments, councillors and mayors rarely understood it as it was in the Municipal Act. We referred them to our administrators. They're the ones that used to take a look at it, and they're the ones who are perhaps most able to say how the Community Charter is working for their particular local government.

What I am familiar with, because I heard this during the discussion when the Community Charter was being developed, is the need to broaden permissive tax exemption authority. That actually has occurred to local governments. Where local governments were looking to attract, I guess, particular developments or particular projects into their community for economic development purposes, particularly, they would always have to come to the province and ask for permission to do certain things.

Now, by broadening that permissive tax authority, they can take advantage of things. I know that here in Victoria, there are opportunities to allow for a heritage building to be revitalized and to broaden the tax exemption authority for that to allow them to negotiate to have that particular project take place.

We were also able to, as I say, really reduce the number of provincial approval processes that took place. I believe there were well over a hundred at one time under the Municipal Act. Again, that required municipalities, local governments, to come to the province and ask for things to be done. Some of them that could be dealt with were, I would say, relatively quick. We reduced that down to about eight or nine for the broad authorities.

There are certain things that will still come to the provincial government, because it's in the interests of both local government and provincial government to have knowledge of them, but for things that were on a more routine basis — which, because of the way the Municipal Act was structured, required municipalities to be much more engaged with staff than they needed to be — we were able to broaden it and therefore allow local governments to get on with the business of the day they had for their local communities.

I also want to be clear here, though, that the Community Charter, while it did broaden the permissive tax exemption authority, did not suggest it should provide a new base for taxing. I want to make that clear, because I think people sometimes confuse the two. Rather, we continue to work with local governments to find ways for what we can do in terms of assisting them in terms of revenue-sharing.

As the member knows, the return of 100 percent of the traffic-fine revenues was one way of putting those resources back to local governments and allowing local governments to decide on how they can deliver a service at the local level that makes sense to them.

N. Macdonald: I appreciate the offer to meet with staff and go through the Community Charter. We did have that opportunity to talk, and I can tell you that one hour at a time is probably a digestible amount of information. I appreciate that, and I will take up your offer of staff time to go through it in more detail.

In essence, then, there really aren't a lot more tools to get more money. That's not really what is going on, but you're saying that there's greater flexibility — not to put words in your mouth, just to understand it. I can see if you nod yes or no, if I have got it right — that there is greater flexibility and less time taken with going through an approval process.

The first one you had mentioned is the permissive tax provisions. Could you give other examples of that? Do I understand it properly in saying that it would allow a council, then, to not put property tax on a particular business in order to attract them? For a period of time they wouldn't pay property tax? Do I understand that properly? Is that how it works?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, absolutely. If he wants to break up his time in hour intervals and he wants to meet with staff, maybe the entire four years, by the end of it he will have gone through every section of the Commu-

As I was indicating, the Community Charter did certainly broaden the ability and was less restrictive than the Municipal Act. I don't want to minimize the importance of that, because local governments did want to have more flexibility, and that's what the Community Charter allowed for. Again, I do want to state that the purpose of that charter was to be broad, and the input we received from so many people has allowed that to occur.

When the member speaks about the permissive tax exemption authority, it's not that properties necessarily would be completely exempted. It would be that the municipalities or local governments would have an opportunity to find ways of offering reductions, perhaps, in a particular project.

There would be some checks and balances in place to ensure…. Because if they started picking winners and losers, you know what we would see around the province. That wasn't the purpose. But it was, in some areas, to allow that municipalities could have some flexibility if they felt that they wanted to move their town into a different kind of economic development stream — as I guess it's best to describe it.

Really, it's giving local government more flexibility in that, but again, it was not designed to raise taxes. The Community Charter was not designed to raise taxes. It also allowed us — when I say us, the province, and in cooperation sometimes with the federal government — to sign some memorandums of understanding, some agreements that we can do with local governments to ensure that if they have a particular area of interest in terms of economic development, we are able to sign some memorandums of understanding.

These will provide the checks and balances so that people don't go off and decide they've got complete carte blanche on doing anything that's to the detriment of the entire province. There is certainly an understanding of what needs to take place, but essentially, that's what it does allow for.

As I say, the example I gave is one I was familiar with. I know that it was negotiated to allow the revitalization of a particular part of our downtown here in Victoria. It allowed for a revitalization of some heritage buildings that otherwise could have been destroyed, and the city needed it to do that.

Sometimes it's also allowing for financing arrangements to be made. I believe the previous Municipal Act restricted how long a term you can have in terms of offering some support to a more extended term.

Every case will be different, and when people are looking at the Community Charter and wanting to use a section, if there is any confusion, they should certainly call our office and speak to staff and find out how it works for them.

N. Macdonald: Were there provisions to do this within the old Municipal Act, or is this something completely new to the Community Charter?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated to the member, there were some provisions in the Municipal Act that allowed for these opportunities, but the Community Charter broadened that and allowed for more flexibility. I guess we'll stick to the one topic. In the case of taxation, the Municipal Act — and I know he knows this as I do, because we've seen this come through our councils, I'm sure — allowed for some exemptions for non-profit organizations, but they were quite narrow. We've broadened that to allow and made it clearer as to…. You know, the existing non-profits aren't only the churches, for example. There are other non-profit organizations providing a variety of services, so municipalities and local governments needed to be clearer on that. Certainly, the charter provided that clarity as well as showing, perhaps, how that can be done.

There were very few provisions, as an example, for local governments and businesses to engage in that kind of a dialogue. The Community Charter allowed for that. Again, there are certainly checks and balances in place for that. I gave the one example of the revitalization of a heritage building. It could also be a business that not only wants to bring in a project but also wants to redevelop a ground-fill site. There may be substantial costs associated with it. Therefore, allowing local government to do some trade-offs and not stick to the exact letter of the Municipal Act where they had to impose all these costs which would, in essence, turn that project away….

That's what the Community Charter was able to do: provide permissive tax exemption authority to look at what is best for the community, to allow for growth and revitalization — not handing over a completely clean slate and saying, "No taxes," but doing some trade-offs and things like that. Redevelopment of a ground-fill site is a good example. Perhaps another deserted industrial site exists which people want to start seeing grow and develop, with housing and things around it. These are all opportunities that the Community Charter will allow local governments to do.

The mere fact that we were able to engage in that as the Community Charter was being developed really sparked a lot of interest. I think that's how the dialogue went and how, ultimately, the legislation was able to be brought forward and supported.

N. Macdonald: With the Municipal Act it was primarily churches, I think, and I'm sure your staff can…. Now other non-profit groups can be allowed. Could you give me examples? I hope I haven't paraphrased improperly; that's what I thought I heard you say. Maybe more examples there, and then I'll just ask some more questions about how exactly it works with businesses.

Hon. I. Chong: We just wanted to make sure we got the right section so that eventually when the member goes through hour by hour, section by section, he'll be familiar with it.

It is actually in section 224(2), paragraph (a), clause (i): "That the Community Charter does provide the permissive tax exemptions for land or improvements that are owned or held by a charitable, philanthropic or other not-for-profit corporation." And it goes on.

Because it is permissive, local councils will make the decisions on which not-for-profits or which philanthropic corporations they may wish to provide that for. In the past, I believe, it was restricted to just charitable, which in most cases are church groups and things like that.

With the philanthropic or other not-for-profits, it broadened that and certainly accommodated what some local councils wanted to do, as opposed to coming to governments each and every time and making a case for why they wanted to have that particular philanthropic organization or not-for-profit in their community taking up a particular space.

That is the section, and if the member wishes to read further on it, then he's certainly going to find it interesting reading.

N. Macdonald: Not sure if it would be that interesting. But over the next four years I hope to have not an intimate knowledge but certainly a full knowledge of how it works.

What are some examples of what communities are using that for? Who have they extended the…? Do you have examples of that? Is it going to legions? There must have been some thought around who the groups were that were asking and that were not looked after with the Municipal Act. Who are you seeing asking for this sort of provision? Are you getting any feedback on that? What was the reason it was put in there? You must have had some feedback on groups that were not having their needs met with the Municipal Act.

Hon. I. Chong: I regret I don't have a list for the member. With the 180-plus municipalities and local governments that exist, every one of them has their own unique situations as to who comes forward and applies to that particular local government, that council, and what they want.

What we have heard back from local councils is that it has allowed them to address the issue and deal with it. It was put in the Community Charter as a result of, as I say, the consultation from the Community Charter Council, who they heard from. Local representatives, I'm sure, would have said: "If you were to put this in, it would just allow them to deal with it, as opposed to coming to the provincial government asking for authority on a case-by-case basis."

But as the member knows, usually it's by every October — I think October 31. If you are on the local council and you're going to provide an exemption, you have to do it by October 31, in time for it to go to the Assessment Authority so that it is not on their tax rolls for the following year.

It would be up to each organization — whether a not-for-profit, a philanthropic corporation or another charitable organization — when looking to locate in a particular community, to come forward and make their case, and that local council will have to make the decision. It's not automatic, as we all know, but it certainly is, as I say, permissive and thereby allows that decision to be made at the local government level.

N. Macdonald: In terms of businesses and the ability to offer tax breaks, how does that work? Is there a process where, if the council decides that it wants to forgo taxes to a particular business for a period of time…? I understand the thinking behind it is that it would be strategic, trying to bring in certain types of businesses. But what is the process? Do they then have to come in any way to the ministry? You talked about checks and balances, and I'm sure they're there. Could you explain what the checks and balances are?

As well, you have one experience. Do you have any other experiences? How often has this been…? Maybe I'll do one question at a time. Would that be easier? I'll do the first question, then. What are the checks and balances?

Hon. I. Chong: What ordinarily happens is that official community plans, as I know the member is aware, are drawn up. Official community plans have within them development permit areas, and what would have to occur in order to allow the businesses to seek out whether this tax exemption ability would work is to have that identified within the OCP.

I'll just clarify again, because I know the member was momentarily distracted. The official community plans, which are drawn up for local governments — and I know the member is familiar with that — have development permit areas that would have to have identified within that area as to whether a business could locate to and then look and seek to have a tax exemption. With development permit areas, as the member knows, public hearings are scheduled whenever there are developments or projects such as that, so that the community does have input. I don't want to leave it as if the community doesn't have input.

Another mechanism is that local governments have a five-year financial plan. Within that five-year financial plan, they have to state or make provision for the fact that they want to have an exemption availability for new development. So again, they would identify that there. They would also state that the exemption would be for five years with one option to renew for another five years.

Perhaps it's best to offer this to the member. I'm informed there is a four-page document — so not a whole big booklet — that is currently on our website, which businesses or local governments can access. It describes more fully how this works. If the member wants to check that site, it'll have more information. Or if he would like, we can download it and send it to his office. That might make it easier for him. I know he has a busy schedule, as well, so if that is helpful, we can provide that to the member.

Have you had any feedback? Like I say, you have the one example here from Victoria. Do you have any rural examples of communities using this? I guess what I'm thinking is that the only way you can do it is if within the official community plan you have it that you're going to set up a certain area so that you are going to have things to attract business.

Were there any concerns expressed around…? Without appurtenance now, one community might try to draw an industry from another community. Have you had anything around that at all? Like I say, I don't have examples of that. I just wonder if that's a concern that was expressed by any rural communities.

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member looking for some concrete examples. I'm afraid I'm not able to offer up any, because we haven't heard from any community that there were any sort of specific competitions, as he expresses that, that have occurred.

The objective of this was to ensure that municipalities had an opportunity to plan, to think out what they wanted to do. That's why…. OCPs are not done every year unless they're done…. Not in the area I come from, anyway. I know some of them are ten and 12 years old. It does require a bit of thought when a local council puts together their OCPs for their different areas: seeing how the growth has taken place, transportation and accessibility, whether they want that area to be developed, and then putting in a development permit area and designating that as being eligible for that. When that occurs, then adjacent municipalities would be made aware that this is what they're intending to do.

If a municipality or local government decided not to go that route, again, they have the opportunity to state that certain areas would be looked upon and they would have to so state in their financial plan.

I think there's an opportunity for adjacent communities to talk to each other, to coordinate a region — that they would like to see how development occurs so they're not all competing for the same purse. I don't think any of us wants to see that. At the same time, we want each community to grow, to thrive, to take advantage of all the opportunities that are out there for them.

We're not trying to be proscriptive here. We provide the opportunity through the Community Charter for local governments to enable them to move in this direction, if that's what they want to do. But at the end of the day, if they choose that this is not necessary, then again, they don't need to use it. I don't have any specific examples in the rural areas, as none have come to our attention at this time.

N. Macdonald: Do you see the potential for difficulty, though, where you may have one community that wants to attract a business and therefore will set up a particular taxing scheme, and then it becomes very difficult for other communities? I'm thinking here mainly of rural areas. What you would know is that in certain rural communities sometimes one industry pays a very high proportion of the taxes. With the multiplier, they pay a fair amount of taxation. Do you not see the possibility of one community trying to poach from another community? It would be over a long term, but without appurtenance, is it not possible that you would get that, as they competed and as they did that?

I guess maybe this isn't the right place to ask, but do you have a mechanism for measuring or getting feedback? Or have you heard at all that that might be a concern?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the fact that the member is raising this in an effort to ensure that the rural communities' concerns are heard. Perhaps I can provide some assurance of what took place in terms of the Community Charter.

When the Community Charter was being developed — when the consultation was taking place — certainly there were some communities who raised that exact issue. They said: "We may be having some competitions; this may be occurring." Of course, it's always easy to say it may, but two years later we have not actually seen that take place. That's certainly been the case.

But because the concern was raised two years earlier — because that was part of the discussion when the charter was developed — the council took into consideration those concerns. They did develop that mechanism in place of the ones I've just shared with the member, of the official community plan, of the development permit area, that has to identify that. That also said it had to be new development. The exemption provided for five years, with only one option for a five-year renewal, so that one area couldn't, in perpetuity, hang on to one particular project or business.

It's also fair to state that local governments which are adjacent to each other, and I can certainly speak from an urban perspective here in Victoria, with 13 different municipalities competing for businesses all the time…. Even without this provision there would have been and there still is competition for businesses. Simply because of the nature of the council, those that process their licences faster or their development permits faster sometimes get businesses there. Those that have growth opportunities and the residents come out and say, "We want this approved," therefore it's not going into this locality and it's going into another…. I mean, those will always occur.

But what we tried to do in the Community Charter, based on the concern that the member has raised, is to then put in those kinds of checks and balances — with the five-year and with one option of renewing for another five years — and have it linked to the OCP and the development permit area. So that is in there.

We haven't heard of any situation that's causing a problem. If the member is aware of any, I certainly would like to hear of it so we could go out and have a

look at it, because at the end of the day we do believe that the Community Charter is about empowering local governments and providing opportunities. We would want to see that. If there are issues, problems or concerns, it is most important to hear about that, to see if changes or amendments or things of that nature need to be made.

N. Macdonald: The concern is hypothetical. As you look at it, you wonder if that is going to come up. As you see corporate tax rates, there's always a competition, because you can attract the business away. It would be a concern if communities were competing.

The next question, then, is on the reduction in approval. Could you just explain what sort of approvals are no longer needed and give us feedback on that?

Hon. I. Chong: With a number of processes that were eliminated, you would think it would be easy to find some that you want to just highlight right away. We were just trying to determine which ones we should perhaps bring to the attention of the member. There are a number of them, and I wouldn't want to go through the entire list, because you'd have to compare what was in place with what is currently there. It would take a bit of time to put all that together, so perhaps it would be best to just give two very quick examples of how this assisted local governments.

Municipal streets, in some way, shape or form, all belong to the provincial government. There used to be a process where, in order for that road to then transfer to local government — just to be dedicated back to local government — there would have to be an approval done, the minister would have to sign off, and it would take a while. That is one of the processes that was eliminated so that ease of transfer of a road back to a local government can occur. I shouldn't say "back to." It allows the road to be dedicated to a local government. That can occur.

We also streamlined a number of processes in terms of borrowing. As the member is aware, the MFA — the Municipal Finance Authority — is there for local governments to access, to use to borrow. There used to be four or five different steps in order for that to take place, where it would come to the minister and the minister's office, and we'd have to sign off on a number of these steps. Again, that took a while. We were able to streamline that, so we're down to about two processes that actually take place.

These are just two examples. There are several others, I guess. If you're working on it on a day-to-day basis as a local government, the administrator would know just exactly how beneficial some of these removals are. They don't have to interact with the province. They can just go ahead and complete a few forms and then have it move along that much quicker and, again, make it easier for local governments to make changes to their plans for their municipalities.

With all of these — for instance, with the roads and things like that — it would be something where we're talking about the community wanting to take the control of the road. It's not something that the province would decide. We're always talking about things that communities can do.

Maybe the next question would be around…. You had said that the Community Charter wasn't necessarily intended to allow communities to raise more money. Had there been any discussion around that? I remember, at different times, with Bill 55, back in '96-97, around railroads…. You know, very often taxation of hydro and things like that come up. Was there any discussion with the Community Charter as to changing the ability to tax or to set grants in lieu, with inflation automatically taken into effect? If you could just answer in general terms on those things, I would appreciate it.

Hon. I. Chong: Just to conclude on the previous question, again regarding the streamlining and approval processes. Many things were, at a time, provided for through the Municipal Act, but it was just that in order to do them, you had to go through a convoluted, rather long process. The Community Charter purpose was to look at elimination of some regulatory burdens that were there to allow for things that were routinely happening — but just allow it to happen a little bit quicker as well.

The area of taxation — the member raises this. He probably will recall that during the time the charter discussion was taking place, people were talking about taxing, about new ways of taxation, but at the end of the day local governments, particularly mayors, I think, came to the conclusion that this was not going to work. That's why they agreed that the charter was not meant to or designed to provide an opportunity for more taxes. I think everyone agreed that that would create a more inequitable balance around the province than what was intended.

Instead, we gave opportunities to look at broadening fees. Every area will be different. Some places just don't have an opportunity to do that. Others do; and if that's what they want to do, they can.

As I say, almost all those who were consulted…. You know, the discussion always starts off, "Well, maybe we should do this," but by the time everyone rations out what they're hearing from their community, the decision is: no, no new taxes. We agreed to that. Instead, we wanted to look at other ways of partnering.

That's one of the reasons why we said we would return traffic-fine revenues. Another reason why…. We said: "Let's work together with the UBCM and go to the federal government and get the new deal for cities." Those were opportunities to find ways of helping our communities with additional resources so that they can do more for their local government.

I hope that answers the question of the member. It's been a pleasant morning thus far, and I hope we will

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

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