Hansard -- Monday, October 17, 2005 p.m. -- Vol. 2, No. 6 (HTML)

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

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY


CONTENTS

	Routine Proceedings
		Page


Introductions by Members		763

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		763
	Civil Forfeiture Act (Bill 13)
	Hon. J. Les

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		764
	International Labour Organization ruling on labour rights in B.C.
	C. Puchmayr
	Trade issues for B.C. agriculture
	V. Roddick
	Child poverty
	R. Chouhan
	Blood donation
	S. Hawkins
	Earthquake in South Asia
	J. Brar
	Small business in B.C.
	J. Yap

Oral Questions		766
	Government role in teachers labour dispute
	C. James
	Hon. G. Campbell
	J. Horgan
	Hon. M. de Jong
	L. Krog
	B. Ralston
	Hon. S. Bond
	J. Kwan
	M. Karagianis

Standing Order 35		770
	M. Farnworth
	Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents		771
	WorkSafe B.C., annual report, 2004

Committee of the Whole House		771
	Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 2)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	C. Puchmayr

Report and Third Reading of Bills		784
	Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 2)

Committee of the Whole House		785
	Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 3)
	J. Kwan
	Hon. C. Taylor
	M. Karagianis

Report and Third Reading of Bills		789
	Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 3)

Committee of the Whole House		789
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9)
	D. Chudnovsky
	Hon. K. Falcon
	D. Jarvis

Standing Order 35 (Speaker's Ruling)		791

Committee of the Whole House		792
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9) (continued)
	D. Jarvis
	Hon. K. Falcon
	V. Roddick
	H. Bloy
	L. Mayencourt

Report and Third Reading of Bills		797
	Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 9)

Second Reading of Bills		797
	Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 6)
	Hon. C. Hansen
	M. Farnworth
	D. MacKay
	B. Simpson
	B. Lekstrom
	C. Wyse
	J. Rustad
	Hon. C. Hansen

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		809
	Estimates: Ministry of Community Services and Minister Responsible for Seniors' and Women's Issues (continued)
	Hon. I. Chong
	N. Macdonald
	B. Ralston
	B. Simpson
	C. Wyse
	M. Farnworth
	S. Fraser

J. Horgan: In the precincts today we have many, many, many visitors, but I'd like to name just a few of them. From the Alberta Teachers Association, Frank Busker; the Saskatchewan Teachers Federation, Heather Vermicher; the Manitoba Teachers Society, Brian Ardern.

From the Association of Francophone Educators in Ontario, Paul Taillefer; the Elementary Teachers Federation of Ontario, Emily Noble; the Ontario English Catholic Teachers Association, James Ryan.

From the New Brunswick Teachers Association, Indu Varma; the Nova Scotia Teachers Union, Mary-Lou Donnelly; the Prince Edward Island Teachers Federation, Seana Evans-Renaud.

From the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers Association, Kevin Foley. From the Northwest Territories Teachers Association, Amanda Mallon; the Nunavut Teachers Federation, Jimmy Jacquard; and the Yukon Teachers Federation, Sandra Henderson. I would like all of those in the House to make them welcome.

D. Hayer: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my daughter, Sonia Hayer. She is visiting here. She's the one who donated bone marrow for my son when he had leukemia. Would the House please make her very welcome.

K. Conroy: I have two groups I'd like to introduce today. The first group are teachers from my area: Brian Rigby from Twin Rivers Elementary in Castlegar; Fred Dattolo from J. Lloyd Crowe Secondary in Trail; Andy Davidoff from Trail middle school in Trail; Bob Rosicki from J. Lloyd Crowe Secondary in Trail; and Bill Gorkoff, Castlegar president of the Kootenay-Columbia Teachers Union. Would you please join me in making them welcome.

I have another small group I'd like to introduce. Casey Haines is originally from Castlegar and is a student at Camosun. She's here visiting today. My son, Ben Conroy, is here. He's a student from Calgary, and he's here visiting today. Would everyone please join me in welcoming them to the House.

Hon. G. Abbott: I would like to acknowledge today the Canadian Blood Services, a not-for-profit charitable organization whose sole mission is to manage the blood and blood-product supply for Canadians.

Today in the reception hall of the Legislature, as you know, Mr. Speaker, government has partnered with Canadian Blood Services and is holding a blood donor clinic to launch B.C.'s second annual Blood Donor Week. I was delighted to see members on both sides of the House giving today in the rotunda.

I encourage every eligible blood donor in B.C. to call Canadian Blood Services and find a nearby clinic where they can give blood. The easy number is 1-888-2-donate. Even though they're in the reception hall, would the House please join me in making them welcome and thanking them for the wonderful work they do on behalf of British Columbians.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased to welcome a good community activist and friend of mine who is here visiting from the lower mainland — Pumi Carr and her daughter. They're here today with tens of thousands of other people to express their views in regard to the position of the government on teachers. I hope that we make her welcome.

D. Thorne: I would like the House to welcome today two of my constituents, Brenda Flynn and Eunice Parker. I just wanted to say that Eunice Parker was a city of Coquitlam councillor for almost 20 years, so many of you may be very familiar with Eunice. I would like you to make them both welcome.

D. Routley: In the precinct today I would like the members to help me welcome my wife Christine, a teacher from Cowichan-Ladysmith, and my daughter Madeline.

Hon. K. Falcon: Today in the precinct we are joined by several members of the Surrey Memorial Hospital Foundation. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming Krista Thompson, Genesa Wheaton and the new honorary chair of the hospital foundation, Herb Dhaliwal, who we all know, of course, as the retired Member of Parliament for the riding of Vancouver South–Burnaby. Would the House please join me in making them all welcome.

C. Trevena: I would like the House to welcome my husband Mike McIvor, who is visiting today. He's in the gallery. I hope the House will make him welcome.

S. Fraser: There are two friends of mine from Qualicum Beach in the precinct. Would you please help me welcome Judy Harty and Carol Bunch.

Hon. J. Les presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Civil Forfeiture Act.

Hon. J. Les: I am pleased today to introduce the Civil Forfeiture Act. This legislation is being introduced to address serious issues in British Columbia. For some people, illegal activity is a business where profits are made at the expense of individual victims,

These people undertake thefts and fraud, exploit vulnerable individuals and supply the drugs that ruin so many lives — and all for their own gain. Society as a whole and the province shoulder the cost of drug addiction and rehabilitation. Public safety is also at risk. The number of meth labs and grow ops is increasing at an alarming rate. These operations cause fires and often harbour toxic substances, putting our homes, our neighbourhoods, our communities and our law enforcement officers at risk.

With this legislation we will attempt to take the profit motive out of this illegal activity. Other jurisdictions around the world are already using civil forfeiture. Many of these jurisdictions share historic ties with us in terms of the evolution of law and protection of rights of citizens, including the United Kingdom, Ireland and Australia. British Columbia will be the fifth province in Canada to pass civil forfeiture legislation.

This past spring my predecessor introduced the Civil Forfeiture Act to obtain input from interested parties in British Columbia. Over the summer we engaged in consultations with organizations that expressed an interest in this bill. Changes have been made as a result, and I will outline those in some detail at the next reading of this bill.

Our civil forfeiture process will be balanced, fair and efficient in recovering the proceeds of illegal activity, and in preventing and deterring unlawful activity and crime. All proceeds from and instruments used in unlawful activities will be subject to forfeiture by a civil court order. This process is not part of the criminal justice process. The civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities, will be applied. The interests of secured creditors and uninvolved persons will be protected. In appropriate circumstances, the court may provide some relief from forfeiture.

Moneys recovered will be paid into a special account, from which payment may be made to eligible victims to prevent and deter unlawful activity and crime, and to recover the costs related to the administration of this act. I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 13, Civil Forfeiture Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

C. Puchmayr: In 1972, Canada and its provinces ratified convention 87 of the United Nations International Labour Organization, entitled freedom of association and protection of the right to organize. This document grants workers the right to associate and organize without interference by any public authority.

This government's actions towards working people were recently brought to the attention of the ILO tribunal that handles complaints and contraventions. British Columbia workers claim that their rights under convention 87 had been violated by Bills 18, 27 and 28, introduced and passed by this government, and the tribunal agreed with them.

Let me quote the decisions of the tribunal. On Bill 18, Skills Development and Labour Statutes Amendment Act, 2001: "The committee concludes the provisions of Bill 18, which make education an essential service, are in violation of freedom of association principles and should be repealed."

On Bill 27, the Education Services Collective Agreement Act: "The committee firmly requests the government to avoid in future having recourse to such legislation settlement."

On Bill 28, the Public Education Flexibility and Choice Act: "Such a unilateral action by the authorities cannot but introduce uncertainty in labour relations, which in long term can only be prejudicial."

These are strong words from an international body. As signatory to the convention, the government must listen to and respect the tribunal. In the coming months the province will enter into negotiations with a number of public sector workers. I strongly urge this government, in moving forward, to respect this agreement to which it is a signatory, and to honour the spirit of this convention and the recommendations of its tribunal.

V. Roddick: Monday, September 12, 2005, was an extremely important day for our province. The Canadian International Trade Tribunal released its decision on the anti-dumping order on our most valuable local potato industry, upholding the order that was initially made in June of 1984.

This order represents one of the longest running anti-dumping orders for any industry in Canada. To give you a graphic example of how instantaneously the farming industry can be affected by these tariffs, or the lack of them, there used to be 500 to 600 acres of beautiful, delicious onions grown in the B.C. lower mainland. The anti-dumping order was lifted in 1996. Within one growing season, our safe, viable, locally grown onion market virtually disappeared.

We should all be thinking about our food sources. If you destroy a city, it can be rebuilt. Destroy our farms, and grass will grow in the streets of every city in the nation. That is why our government is working on an overall agricultural plan for the entire province.

Instead of using farming as the butt of jokes or very amusing comments — as Vaughn Palmer did recently, referring to the electrifying content of question period — it's time that each and every one of us recognizes the

importance of nutritious, safe food locally grown by our own talented, dedicated farmers.

This is agriculture week. Please, everyone, make a determined effort to buy B.C. now and forever. You cannot plan, you cannot build and you cannot prosper if you cannot eat.

R. Chouhan: Hon. Speaker, today is the United Nations International Day for the Eradication of Poverty. As part of the Make Poverty History campaign, I would like to take a moment to discuss the serious issue of child poverty.

One in five children in British Columbia is living in poverty. To put that in perspective, that's 167,000 children — almost three times the population of my riding of Burnaby-Edmonds. Instead of leading the country, British Columbia's child poverty rate is the third-highest in Canada and significantly higher than the national average. More than 15 years ago the House of Commons unanimously resolved to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.

It is now 2005, and the issue is far from resolved. The issues surrounding child poverty are complex. I am concerned that this government's policies in the area of affordable housing, health care, education and income assistance are taking us in the wrong direction. This government's most recent budget provides little support for thousands of British Columbians, many of them children, without stable housing. Nor does it address the people in our province who rely on food banks, 42 percent of whom are children. When we scale back hot lunch programs in schools or when we forgo improvements to our affordable housing programs in British Columbia, we miss an opportunity to diminish child poverty.

There is hope on the horizon. Jack Layton and the federal NDP have negotiated a housing allocation through the federal government that will help British Columbians. Over $200 million in housing will come to B.C. in the next few years. This is a positive first step, but we need to do better. It's my hope that the B.C. Liberal government will work with a variety of groups — aboriginal people, women, immigrants, minorities and youth.

S. Hawkins: Mr. Speaker, would you give one hour of your day every 56 days if you knew it could save a life? Today we kicked off our second annual B.C. Blood Donor Week. As the Minister of Health mentioned, we are running a blood donor clinic right here at the Legislature. I am appealing to all our MLAs, to our staff, to our government employees: please roll up your sleeves and give the gift of life that only you can give.

The importance of being a blood donor really hit home for me this last year, because without that precious donated blood that sustained me through my leukemia battle, I wouldn't be standing here with you today.

As a cancer nurse I hung a lot of blood on my patients, and I used to be a blood donor too, but I never imagined that one day it would be me that needed blood to save my life. Believe me, I was lying in a hospital bed day after day, wondering if there would really be enough blood for me when I needed it, because we do end up using massive amounts of blood.

Last September I attended a blood donor awareness day in Vancouver, where the Premier took the lead in appealing for more blood donors. At that time, not knowing if I would fully recover, I said I wanted to live. I wanted to get back to the work I love. I wanted to get home to Saskatchewan to see my nieces and nephews and all my family for Christmas. I was able to do all of that because people like you cared. You became blood donors. You became the everyday heroes who donate blood to save lives like mine.

It really is wonderful to see the excellent working relationship that we do have here in B.C. with our ministry and Canadian Blood Services, and I think the blood donor clinic today is a very good example of that. We are the only province in Canada, as I mentioned, that has a blood donor week, so today I am asking everyone to please talk to your friends, your neighbours and your colleagues about becoming regular blood donors.

J. Brar: I rise to honour the memory of those that lost their lives in the earthquake that rocked parts of Pakistan, India and Afghanistan and to recognize the efforts of those that took it upon themselves to rise to the occasion and organize relief efforts. The earthquake struck at a time when the horrible images of Hurricane Katrina and the Asian tsunami were still fresh in our minds. It is estimated that between 54,000 to 60,000 people died in Pakistan alone. Near the Pakistan-India border, over 2.5 million people became homeless in their own country.

In British Columbia a thousand people with their roots in India and Pakistan are mourning the loss of their families, relatives and friends. The pain and grief that I have come across is indescribable. My heart goes out to all those families that were affected. In my community of Surrey, people have once again shown the remarkable spirit of generosity. Two radio stations, Radio India and Shere Punjab Radio, ran a radiothon for days, raising $1.5 million to aid the victims of the tragedy. I truly appreciate and applaud their efforts.

The federal government stepped up to the plate and committed $20 million towards relief efforts as well. I am pleased to acknowledge British Columbia's pledge of $500,000. I would further like to encourage the Premier, the ministers and every member of this House to do everything in their power and within their means to send help to our sisters and brothers in need, so we can deserve to say that British Columbia truly cares.

J. Yap: I rise today to honour British Columbia's small businesses — this being, as we know, Small Business Week. Small businesses in our province contribute tremendously to our economy, and this week we're celebrating those successes with the 26th anniversary of the first Small Business Week. One of the five great goals that our government has laid out is to create more jobs per capita here in British Columbia than anywhere else in Canada. We're well on our way to achieving this, as small business employment grew by 35,000 jobs just last year.

Small businesses are most commonly defined as businesses with fewer than 50 employees and businesses operated by a person who is self-employed. They're the engine behind our thriving economy, employing nearly one million people and accounting for approximately 98 percent of businesses in B.C. Of that, 36 percent are owned by women — the highest rate of business ownership by women in Canada.

B.C.'s small businesses lead all other provinces when it comes to gross domestic product. In 2003 almost 30 percent of B.C.'s GDP was attributed to small businesses. They also accounted for about one-third of exports in our province — nearly $10 billion worth of merchandise. Approximately 75 percent of small businesses in B.C. operate in the service sector, but high technology, information and cultural services have also experienced growth lately.

Government has worked to reduce income taxes, streamline regulations and cut red tape for small businesses. We've reduced regulatory burdens by over 40 percent, and now other provinces are following in our footsteps. For example, after researching the regulatory reduction projects in other jurisdictions, the province of Newfoundland and Labrador have announced that they have chosen B.C.'s model to emulate.

We've got the entrepreneurial spirit here in British Columbia, and I say thank you to all small businesses in our great province.

C. James: Just this morning the Premier admitted that the lines of communication are open between his government and the labour movement. In the same breath, we heard the Premier say that his government will not talk to teachers.

So my question to the Premier is a very simple one. Are the lines of communication open to settle this dispute, or are they not open to settle this dispute?

Hon. G. Campbell: I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity to look at the comments that I made. The first and primary comment is this. The rule of law is the foundation of any civil society. This of all places is a place for lawmakers. This is a place where the lawmakers should stand up and say to people who are breaking the law that that is not something we can condone.

What we have said as a government is that we will continue to keep lines of communication open with the B.C. Federation of Labour, but it is critical to note this. The way forward is for the B.C. Teachers Federation to stop breaking the law and to stop holding the courts in contempt. It is to actually have teachers back in the classroom where we can work together to solve the challenges which they have identified around class size and around class composition at the learning round tables, where all the partners in education can work to provide the best possible public education system to our students in British Columbia.

C. James: I'd like to remind that side of the House that in fact, we wouldn't be in this situation if the government had taken a different approach during this dispute. Nevertheless, we are here.

I'd like to remind the Premier and his government that only a year and a half ago in a similar dispute with the Hospital Employees Union, the Premier spoke with that union through the B.C. Federation of Labour to avoid a crisis.

So my question is simple, again. You acted then. Why won't you act now to find a settlement to ensure that 600,000 students can get back to school?

Hon. G. Campbell: I think it is important to note that a law has been passed. There is a legally binding contract in place.

The government has maintained communication with the B.C. Federation of Labour, and so the Leader of the Opposition understands this: this is exactly the process that we followed during the HEU dispute. We dealt with the B.C. Federation of Labour. I at no time spoke to a representative of the HEU while they were illegally striking.

Our position is no different than the NDP's position was when they were in government. As former Premier Dan Miller pointed out, there is an order from the labour board; there is an order from the courts. We fully expect responsible trade unions to comply with the law of this province. There is nothing we are saying that is new.

In a civil society, if we do not live according to the law, we cannot maintain our democratic institutions. The rule of law is supreme. Of all places in the province, certainly we should understand that here in the Legislature, where laws are made.

C. James: Sadly, we continue to hear from the government that they aren't showing leadership, that

they're taking a hands-off approach. We heard that last week from the Labour Minister. We hear it again from the Premier — that he's not interested in sitting down. We haven't seen any leadership from this government during this dispute.

We see this government playing politics with our kids, so I again ask the Premier: will he show some leadership, open up the lines of communication and personally commit to sit down with teachers to get our children back to school?

Hon. G. Campbell: The government has been very clear with the BCTF, with classroom teachers across the province. First and foremost, the rule of law must be supreme. We can't have one group choosing the laws they're going to obey because they like them and the laws they're not going to obey because they don't like them.

I would encourage the Leader of the Opposition to join with us and encourage the BCTF to have their teachers go back to the classrooms, provide our kids with the education they want, then sit with the government at the learning round table and talk about class composition with trustees, parents and vice-principals, because we all want to deal with that; sit with the government at the learning round table, talk about class sizes and tell us how they believe we could improve the School Act, because we all want to do that; and join with Vince Reddy as he looks at a new bargaining structure, so that when this particular contract is completed at the end of nine months we have a new bargaining relationship that allows us to negotiate a contract, which we have not been able to do with teachers in British Columbia for over ten years.

This is important to all of us. I would encourage the opposition to say to their friends in the BCTF: "Obey the law. Go back to the classroom, and we will work with the government to make sure we have the best education possible for our children in British Columbia."

J. Horgan: I listened carefully to the Premier's remarks with respect to picking laws that one cares to support and laws that one does not, and I'm reminded of the Premier's comments today at his press conference where he said: "As legislators, we have a responsibility to stand up for the courts."

So that I can educate my children at home about just where the line is drawn here, could the Premier explain to me why in 2004 his government overturned a Supreme Court decision? How is that standing up for the courts?

Hon. M. de Jong: This is rather extraordinary. It does not surprise me that we are having this discussion during question period. It does surprise me that the first words out of the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition weren't, "And we recommend that our friends in the BCTF follow the law" — that the first words out of her mouth weren't that following the law is not negotiable in British Columbia.

It's a remarkable discussion that's taking place, because it gives us a clear sense of what society would be like under the NDP where, apparently, it depends on who your friends are politically as to which laws take precedence — that the sovereign jurisdiction of this body is surrendered if you just have the right connections politically.

That is not the society that I want to live in. This government, this Labour Minister and this Premier will defend the right of law today, tomorrow and well into the future.

J. Horgan: Although I'm comforted by the enthusiasm of the Minister of Labour, it doesn't help me explain to my children how it is that if a government disagrees with a law, it has every right and authority to change that law. But if individuals in society have concern, that's a different matter.

I'd like to again put my question to the Premier. Today the Premier said: "You don't get to say you disagree with the courts. Sorry." Again, in 2004 this government had a ruling from the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It disagreed with that ruling, and it changed the law. My question is: what laws does the Premier live by, and what laws should the people of British Columbia live by?

Hon. M. de Jong: I'm hoping that it's because this member and this opposition are merely trying to play political games that they make these ill-thought-out statements and not because they have genuinely thought about what they're saying. There is a contempt order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia telling an important segment of our society, represented by professionals that people generally respect and want to respect, that they are obliged to do something.

They don't like it. We understand they don't like it. We didn't like having to introduce legislation in response to a failed bargaining structure, but that legislation came to this chamber. It enjoyed a week of debate in the parliamentary democracy that we have in this province, and then it went to the court to be enforced.

Now this member and this opposition, by choosing deliberately to ignore that fact, join people who are thumbing their nose at the very institutions that make up the rule of law in our society. One day when all the politics are over, I hope this member has an opportunity to reflect on just how irresponsible his position is.

L. Krog: The Premier is correct. The rule of law and respect for the courts is the basis of civil society, but as delighted as I am to receive a lecture on the law from the Minister of Labour, that doesn't really explain the discrepancy between this government's rhetoric here in this House today and this government's record.

Perhaps the Attorney General would fare a little better. He brings to this House a unique perspective as

a former Supreme Court judge and as the minister responsible for the justice system. My question to him is: can he outline how overturning a B.C. Supreme Court ruling in 2004 showed respect for the courts?

Hon. M. de Jong: As astounding as the question was from the critic, coming from a learned member of the bar it's even more astounding. He surely is able to detach himself from the politics involved here to examine what is at stake in terms of society where we have a duly enacted statute of this chamber that, by the way, no one challenged the constitutionality of.

No one suggested in this chamber that this body didn't have the authority to enact that law. They made it clear what their views were about its advisability. It goes to the courts, and no one challenges the constitutionality in the courts. So we have a group that are ignoring this chamber, ignoring the courts and, as we've learned a few days ago, Mr. Speaker, apparently ignoring their own legal counsel. Now, you tell me: how can government surrender the jurisdiction that we have in this chamber to a group that says it is above the law? We can't, and we won't.

L. Krog: Perhaps I can provide a short history lesson to the government benches, to the Attorney General and the Minister of Labour in particular. In 2004 Mr. Justice Shawof the B.C. Supreme Court ruled that the government's move to strip class size and class composition clauses from collective agreements was "fundamentally flawed." Yet this government brought in a piece of legislation, Bill 19. It threw that decision out, and it protected this government from similar court rulings in the future.

Again, to the Attorney General: if the government is demanding teachers to respect rulings in 2005, why did this government refuse to respect court rulings in 2004?

Hon. M. de Jong: Let me return the favour as it relates to the history lesson. It was only a few months ago that I believe every single member in this chamber took an oath. That oath said: "I do solemnly affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law."

Now, the members can decide whether or not standing by and encouraging action that is contrary to those laws fulfills their duty, according to the oath they took. That is something they will have to decide. But I dare say that the picture of a society that this member and his colleagues paint is one that I fear greatly.

We either have the rule of law or we don't. You don't get to pick and choose. The things that Madam Justice Brown said are there for all of us to see. I heard the opposition leader say to the government: "Well, you created the mess." It reminds me of the teenager that comes home and says to his parent: "I wouldn't have broken the curfew if you hadn't had one."

We have laws, and we have courts that enforce those laws. I know it's uncomfortable for the members opposite to have to show the leadership to say to their friends in the BCTF: "We don't support you. You're breaking the law. Go back to work."

B. Ralston: As we've heard, the government made the decision to strip class size and class composition from the bargaining table and overruled Mr. Justice Shaw of the B.C. Supreme Court in the matter. However, the government did nothing to fill the void. Class sizes beyond grade three have continued to go up, and special needs ratios have been getting worse.

The government now wants to take credit for a so-called learning round table that has no binding powers. To the Minister of Education: why did the government wait until the system was in crisis instead of taking action a year and a half ago when it first overruled the courts?

Hon. S. Bond: This government believes that class size is so important that we refuse to let it be left at a bargaining table where it could be used as a chip in terms of those discussions. We said we're going to put it in legislation, and in fact we're actually anxious to have the discussion about class size. More importantly, we're anxious to have a discussion about the composition of those classes. In fact, today we've said there's a date: October 24. There's only one thing standing between us and that discussion, and that is an end to illegal activity in the province.

B. Ralston: Let's just go back a little ways in history and look at what actually happened here. When the government first decided it wanted to move class size and class composition requirements, Eric Rice was appointed by the government as the arbitrator to make it happen. Mr. Rice is now a B.C. Supreme Court judge. In his report to government, he said: "…the provisions for special needs students, for example, it seemed to me were in some ways worth preserving." He also went on to say: "It seemed to me that the parties should cooperate and reconstruct parts of the agreement." That was several years ago.

To the minister again: why did the government refuse to work with teachers, follow the advice of this respected arbitrator appointed by the government and sit down and reconstruct those worthy provisions? Why did the government wait until this province was in this kind of crisis?

Hon. S. Bond: In fact, it was surprising to me, as well, that there have been opportunities for numerous years to have discussions about class size, including the education advisory committee. When I went back and reviewed all of the agendas — not just for months

but for numerous years, in fact — the B.C. Teachers Federation not once placed the issue of class size in a venue where we could have a meaningful discussion about class size in this province. Not once was it placed on that agenda.

We believe that if there are classes that are too large in this province, we need to have a look at that. We know that classrooms are complex places. We want to have that discussion with teachers. You know, just on the weekend a teacher stopped me on the street and said: "Would you visit my classroom? Would you talk to me about the complexity?" I said: "Absolutely. We're waiting to do that. You must, though, go back to your classrooms."

In fact, it's time that the Leader of the Opposition stood up with us and stood behind the rule of law in this province.

Hon. S. Bond: As a person who has been involved in the public education system, she owes that to this system.

J. Kwan: Let us be clear. It is this government who took away class size and class composition from discussion with the teachers. It has been a year and a half since that has happened, and this government has done nothing to engage with the teachers in those discussions.

You know, the Minister of Labour's predecessor Graham Bruce said in this House that overruling the court's decision with Bill 19 would bring "closure and finality to this so the parties can get on to negotiate a new contract." We now know that he was wrong. There has been no closure because this government has refused to work with teachers.

To the new Minister of Labour: why did his government refuse to renegotiate or reconstruct the class composition and special needs provisions in 2004?

Hon. S. Bond: We have made it clear that we want to have a discussion — not just about class size. In fact, for the first time in the province of British Columbia — the first time — the members opposite had a chance, many of them, to actually look at this issue a number of times for a number of years. We're actually going to ask across the province of British Columbia, class by class by class, for information that would have us understand exactly what's happening with class size in British Columbia. We're going to have a dialogue. We're going to sit down and have that discussion. But you know, we actually believe that parents and trustees and others need to be involved in that discussion.

I was shocked the other day…. I would love the Education critic to stand up and look parents in the eye and tell them this, as he expressed on the Rafe Mair show: "What's quite perplexing is that the Education Minister, in a press release just last week, said she thought everybody should come and talk about class sizes — parent advisory committees and your grandparents and everybody else — and that, in my estimation, borders on the absurd."

Shame, Mr. Speaker. Actually, parents should have a role. So should trustees, and we're going to ensure that.

J. Kwan: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what is perplexing. This government says one law for all, but when they don't like the law, what they do when they find themselves in contravention of the law is that they just go and change the law. When they say that they want to meet with the teachers…. The Premier made that commitment during the election, and then after the election he decides that he's not going to meet with the teachers. The government says they want to sit down and talk with the teachers. Then, instead of sitting down and offering to the teachers right now to sit down and talk with them, the government is saying: "We don't want to talk to you."

I'll tell you this, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to go back to another quote from April 2004. It's from my colleague Joy MacPhail, the former member for Vancouver-Hastings. She said: "I predict that Bill 19 has actually made the next round of bargaining more complex and has frustrated that round." She was absolutely right, and that was a year and a half ago.

My question is to the Premier. Why did he choose to ignore those warnings and let this crisis happen, when the warning was actually brought to his attention over a year and a half ago?

Hon. S. Bond: Mr. Speaker, as we've said over and over and over again, we look forward to discussion. But in fact — to the member opposite — there is one thing standing in our way, and I urge you and the Leader of the Opposition to actually stand up, take your responsibilities as a lawmaker in this province seriously and call for the teachers to go back to work, so that we can get our students back in classrooms and dialogue can take place.

Mr. Speaker, let's look at the record of a previous Premier of the NDP government, what was said in the Vancouver Sun on May 14, 1997. How times have changed. "Illegal work stoppages won't be tolerated by the government, and appropriate action will be taken." It's time to see that now.

M. Karagianis: Mr. Speaker, the media has already described the learning round table as a hollow political

gesture. I think that's fairly obvious by the fact that it was not even proposed until job action had taken place. In fact, if it was a solution that would have worked, it should have been proposed prior to the announcement of Bill 12.

I would ask the Minister of Education why in fact this round table was not proposed earlier in this process.

Hon. S. Bond: As has been pointed out before, there have been numerous venues to have this discussion. The BCTF had simply not ever once placed this issue on a standing body — in fact, brought in legislation.

We believe that the round table is an opportunity for us to bring parties together to talk about what happens in classrooms every single day in this province. We want to get down to work. We intend for it to be permanent, to be significant and to make changes. We need to have that discussion. We are ready to have that dialogue. We are excited about having it. We want to have it. We simply have to have the members of the opposition stand up, take their responsibilities seriously, and call for the BCTF to ask their members to go back to work and end illegal activity in this province.

M. Karagianis: Well, it would seem that we're about 18 months too late with this round table. In fact, it seems to me that this is a political knee-jerk reaction. That's not what is needed in this situation. In fact, what is needed is commitment and leadership.

The government has had numerous opportunities to bring forward this concept of a round table and to put it into action. They could have done it when they changed the School Act in 2002. They could have done it when they stripped the College of Teachers in 2003. They could have done it when they overruled the B.C. Supreme Court decision in 2004. But in fact they did not do that. The government waited until the province was in crisis.

Again to the minister: if the learning round table is her answer to solving the crisis, why was it not brought forward four years ago or 18 months ago or prior to this crisis right now?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, we are coming to the end of the question period. I think it's important that the record show that through the course of the 30 minutes of discussion and debate that's taken place, not one single member of the opposition who has participated has contributed something that I would have thought to be automatic.

I get the politics. I get the politics, but I would have thought that one member of the opposition and, most importantly, the Leader of the Opposition would have said: "We begin and end with people following the law."

Hon. M. de Jong: By their silence on that fundamental question, they not only bring this House into disrepute, but they bring our institutions of justice into disrepute. God forbid they should ever find themselves on this side of the House wanting to build that kind of society that really would take us on the road to anarchy. We stand for the rule of law, and we stand for the students who deserve to be in their classrooms — and should be, if people would start respecting the law.

M. Farnworth: Mr. Speaker, as per my notice to you earlier, I rise under Standing Order 35. I move that the House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — the dispute between the government and the teachers, which each day means greater hardship on British Columbia students, parents and teachers — and that we encourage the government to engage in meaningful negotiations with the teachers to immediately end this dispute.

I make this motion because the events of today and the events of the last week clearly constitute an emergency, and it's something this House needs to address at the earliest opportunity. That's why we believe this motion needs to be debated this afternoon at the earliest possible convenience, and we urge you to make a speedy resolution to ruling on it.

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, it's a remarkable motion, coming as it does on the heels of the week-long, in fact, extended debate that took place last week. I could make prolonged submissions around the rules — the fact that Standing Order 35(10)(c) offers assistance to the Chair with respect to matters that have already been considered at length.

I could talk about the definitions that this chamber and your predecessors, Mr. Speaker, have offered to this chamber around the question of urgency of debate versus urgency of topic. But really the essence of why I'm going to suggest this debate need not occur and should not occur is because the courts are in the position they're in because we have a body with tacit approval from the opposition, ignoring the will of this chamber.

It is astounding that someone would come to the House, at a time when contempt orders have been issued by the Supreme Court of British Columbia telling the people involved to obey the law, and that we would be asked to embark upon a debate. Never mind that I am troubled by the prospect that this chamber would be engaged in that kind of discussion at a time when these matters are very much before the court. If the last reports I have heard — admittedly via the media — are correct, the matter is before the court as we speak. In those circumstances, I would suggest that it

M. Farnworth: Hon. Speaker, I will ask you in your decision to review two particularly relevant decisions by previous Speakers: in April 1992 regarding the Asian gypsy moth spraying; and again in March 1995 regarding a budget leak, where the emergency motion was moved by the opposition and again accepted.

This is a matter of public importance. The public say they want a resolution to this now — not a week from now, not two weeks from now. For the last 30 minutes we've been listening to the government ask us for leadership on this question. I can well understand why, because they have failed to provide that leadership.

Therefore, hon. Speaker, it is a matter of urgent public policy that needs to be dealt with. I ask you to review those two rulings and come back at your earliest possible convenience.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, members. I will review the submissions from both sides and come back later today with my ruling.

Hon. M. de Jong: Tabling a report: WorkSafe B.C. annual report for 2004, which includes the '05-07 service plan for WorkSafe B.C.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this House, I call committee debate on Bill 2. For the information of members, in the other chamber, Committee A, continued estimates debate on the Ministry of Community Services.

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

J. Kwan: I thought that the minister might actually make some statements and introduce her staff, but she'll probably do that after I ask my first question.

Let me just recap a little bit here. Sections 1 and 2 of Bill 2 amend the Income Tax Act to lower the general corporate tax rate from 13.5 percent to 12 percent. This measure, of course, takes effect July 1, 2005. It is estimated to cost the provincial treasury $71 million in 2005-2006 and $143 million per year thereafter.

The public and the business lobby groups have never asked for this tax. What they did ask for, though, was greater investment in the areas of health, education and other social programs. It was never an issue during the Select Standing Committee on Finance and Government Services for the 2004-2005 budget year. It was not raised by the public during the campaign. It certainly was not raised by the Liberal Party during the campaign.

I would like to just canvass, I guess, this first question. Could the minister explain to this House how she determined that British Columbians believed that a corporate tax cut was a greater priority than other social spending areas?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is a very important part of our mandate, we believe, to ensure that we keep the taxes of British Columbia competitive. That means both business taxes and personal income taxes. You have seen a strong trend right from the very first day of this government towards reducing those taxes. The corporate tax, which is referred to in this particular bill, started out at 16.5 percent and was reduced to 13.5 percent. In the September update we've now reduced it to 12 percent, recognizing that we have competition from not only Canada but elsewhere, because this is a global economy.

For us to ensure that our businesses stay here, that they grow here — and, hopefully, we can encourage businesses from elsewhere in Canada to come and locate in British Columbia, so that we can create those jobs that are the basis of our economy — we believe that this is an important initiative. I would also say that it won't be the last initiative in terms of competitive tax rates.

J. Kwan: The issue, of course, is about priorities. As the minister stated during second reading debate and during the budget debate, the issue is what British Columbians have been saying around what their priorities are. Nowhere out there amongst the business community…. They, I would imagine, would be the first advocates to come forward to say they needed a corporate tax cut from this minibudget, yet they didn't.

What they did say, though, was that they expected to see a greater investment in the areas of health care, education and some of the other social spending areas. But instead of seeing that, the government chose to invest the biggest dollar figure that's new money in this minibudget…. Thereby Bill 2, in sections 1 and 2 of this act, gives a corporate tax cut to corporations.

Who did the minister consult with that came up with this priority for the government?

Hon. C. Taylor: I think it is an important point that I should make right here in terms of the Minister of Finance and how I approach this. This is to build a budget that is balanced, and so that means that tax, spending and also debt are major considerations. You have identified the spending area as being an impor-

tant one. We recognize that it is. In fact, in this budget update, over the three-year plan, there's $1.5 billion of new spending going into health care. There's over $500 million new spending going towards children's services. There's $150 million towards education, plus many more initiatives that are important.

I would say to you that we did not neglect the social side in order to do an initiative that we felt encouraged job growth within our province.

In terms of consultation, I'm sure the opposition will remember that in the budget consultation process last year, there were three major points the community made to us. The first was, indeed, health and education, so we did honour that. The second was debt reduction, which we did do by dedicating the surplus of $1.3 billion towards the debt reduction. The third point was to reduce taxes.

So it has been in the public domain. It has been the grounds on which this government has managed to turn this economy around, and it will continue to be a priority on this side of the House.

J. Kwan: Yes, I did go back to review the Finance Committee document. In fact, I used that as the basis of my second reading debate, because I trust that in this House, many — especially from the government side — will say they don't want just to take my word for it but rather someone else's words.

So I went and did that work and brought it into this House in terms of the issues that were raised. I recall one area, for example, that the business community, amongst others, had called for, and that was greater investment in the area of apprenticeship. In fact, since the minibudget has been introduced, the business community has continued to call for that. They were actually surprised that there was no greater investment in the area of apprenticeship support.

The minister said there were significant dollars put into the areas of health care and education, but let me just be clear that those dollars were brought in by the former minister. Yes, the minister will say it was all rolled in, was part of the minibudget and so on, but what was new in the minibudget that this minister brought in…. The single largest expenditure actually comes from the corporate tax cut. That was the new thing that was not introduced at any point in time, certainly not in the February budget. That's the point I wanted to raise.

The minister says she actually consulted the Finance Committee's work to come up with this corporate tax cut. I dare say, and I stand to be corrected, that in the document itself, I don't recall anybody asking for a corporate tax cut to the tune of over $140 million a year. I do not recall that at all. So was there any other consultation process that the government and the minister embarked on with respect to this corporate tax cut?

Hon. C. Taylor: This gives me the opportunity to talk personally, since you're asking it personally to me. In 1999, when we all realized what bad shape the economy of British Columbia was in at that time, the business community, in fact, set up a task force that travelled around the province, and I dare say I've spent more time travelling around the province and listening to the opinions of community leaders, business leaders and union leaders than many others in this House.

Our task was a simple one: how do we turn the economy around? The economy was in terrible shape. We were losing businesses. We were losing head offices. We were losing jobs. People were leaving our province, and that was our only mandate. Since I was co-chair, it was possible for me to set the tone of the debate, and what I did at every meeting was to start off by saying: "We're not going to blame anyone. We're not going to point fingers. All we care about is how to turn the economy of British Columbia around."

We did open town hall meetings where anyone could come. Anyone could speak. Many presented written documents to us, and at the end of that time, we wrote a report, which is on the record. You can check it.

There were a number of initiatives that were mentioned. The three that we felt were not controversial…. Therefore, whether it was an NDP government or a B.C. Liberal government, they could be adopted, because that's what we had heard from the people of British Columbia. The three things were, first, to reduce taxes. You cannot have a punitive taxation regime in this province and expect that jobs and people won't leave. We had punitive taxation. We had in this province the highest marginal tax rate. We had a corporate tax rate of 16.5 percent, and as a result, we were losing the jobs that are critical to our economy.

The second thing they said was regulation. You can't have regulations that are conflicting, competing, overlapping and so extreme that small businesses can't really cope with them. Big businesses with regulations can always hire somebody to look after it, but if you have an excessive regulatory regime, small businesses will go elsewhere where they are welcome and where they feel it's easier to do business in a proper way. The third thing was confrontation. They really wanted to have people stop pointing at each other and blaming each other for all the problems.

I took that report and presented it to the Premier at the time, Ujjal Dosanjh. I also presented it to the Leader of the Opposition at that time and just gave…. Those were the three points that were important and crucial to turn this economy around.

My innate sense of how important it is to have a competitive tax regime came from countless hours of listening to the people of British Columbia saying that was the only way we could turn the economy around and keep businesses and jobs here.

J. Kwan: The minister just replied to my question by basically advising this House that the data she used was six years old, that she gathered this information back in 1999. There have been two elections held since. In the last round of elections, nowhere during the cam-

paign did anyone say that corporate tax cuts would be their number one priority after that for the minibudget that would be introduced — nowhere. This government didn't campaign on it. The Premier didn't campaign on it.

Now, I have to say that's reminiscent of 2001, because the government then, when they were electioneering, didn't mention budget cuts, spending cuts, to the degree that the government embarked on in the last four and a half years. In fact, there was only one candidate who came forward and said that as a result of the big tax giveaway, there would be budget shortfalls. As a result of that, the member did not get elected.

That was Daniel Lee, who ran for Vancouver-Hastings. The seat was won by my former colleague, Joy MacPhail, for Vancouver-Hastings. Of course, during that campaign, he got yanked off the podium, right off the top, as soon as he started to signal that if the government was to give away the big tax cuts, there would be spending cuts in all sorts of areas.

That was 2001. Let's not revisit too much history, because that's water under the bridge, as they say. It's now 2005, and in this last round of elections, nobody mentioned it. But that's where the minister is saying she got her information from, not from current information, not from the most recent Finance Committee work — that is, the work that was done prior to the minibudget.

So there you have it. For the 2001 election, the government didn't tell British Columbians what they were up to and how they planned to deal with budgetary priorities. The public were told there would be no cuts to programs, and communities all across British Columbia bled significantly as a result of those cuts.

Some members of the community and some communities continue to suffer as a result of those decisions. In 2001 — that was then. In 2005 the government said that after the election, they were going to bring forward a more moderate approach — a non-confrontational approach, as the minister herself just mentioned.

I could hardly believe my ears. Look at our situation now with the teachers. Is that a non-confrontational approach to addressing the issue of education? I dare say not, and I don't have to visit all of the happenings around the education situation. People know what they are. The government changes the law when they feel like it. They can pick and choose which law they like.

The Chair: Member, please keep your comments relevant to the bill and the section before us.

J. Kwan: Sorry, I was only responding to the minister around the issue of confrontation and the approach of government that she heard in her consultation pro-cess. I'm only highlighting the discrepancies between what the minister has said and the reality, and just sort of doing a bit of a reality check here on that front. Let me just say this: the government has been confrontational in its approach.

Getting back to the issue around the tax, the business community most recently, just prior to the introduction of the minibudget, were on record saying that they are not asking for a corporate tax cut. Since the minibudget, the business community were on record saying that they hadn't expected this corporate tax cut from the government. In fact, they said that they were surprised by it.

What I did hear and continue to hear from the business community was that they had hoped for and asked for greater investments in the area of apprenticeship, for example. In fact, they raised the issue that if we want to ensure that B.C.'s economy continues to grow, we need to make sure that the skills shortage is addressed, that the trades are maintained, that people are trained up for the retiring people and to fill the skills-shortage demand.

I looked at this minibudget to see whether or not that priority is being addressed and elevated to the degree it should be, and the answer is no. Instead, the government chose, in this minibudget, the single largest line-item that is new since the February budget: the corporate tax cut.

We know that the minister consulted, albeit back in 1999, two elections ago. Did the minister consult with anyone more recently — after the election, for example — before she introduced the minibudget in September and heard from members of the public that asked specifically for corporate tax cut?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's interesting that the focus seems to be so anti-business, as if there isn't an awareness that when you encourage businesses to locate in British Columbia, that means jobs. Since December 2001, some 238,000 new jobs have come back because the economy of British Columbia has turned around.

I know you don't want to think about it, but in fact, this budget is the February budget and the September update budget. The bones were from the February 15 budget. When we revisited some of the numbers and saw some improvement in commodities, we realized we could make some additional things.

Hon. Chair, you mustn't say that the corporate tax break was the biggest part of this budget, because when you look at the taxes overall, there were three major initiatives. Perhaps the most important one was the B.C. tax reduction. In that one, we reduced taxes for the bottom two income tax brackets in this province, to the point that we now have the lowest provincial income taxes for those two categories of any province in Canada. From my point of view, I would say that's a major, important tax initiative.

We also have done an incentive — and we will talk about this, of course — to try to keep our biotech companies and our life science patents here. The corporate tax rate being reduced is also another part of that initiative, but that's the taxation side, and the spending side

has been just as important as we've focused our priorities on things like health care, education and children.

If you want to focus just on the September update, even there the spending is greatly larger than the tax measures. The spending is $566 million, and the tax measures, $397 million. What we have tried to do as government, what I am trying to do as Minister of Finance and will try to do again in February, is be evenhanded and be thinking about all sides of how you build a budget — that is, the taxation side is critical, the spending side is critical, and so is debt reduction.

J. Kwan: That's exactly what the government would like and the minister would like: to pit this into an issue of being anti-business. The reality is this: it's about priorities, and the minister herself acknowledged this in her own budget speech. It's about priorities, and it's about what we heard from British Columbians during the election campaign.

The point is that during the entire campaign, not once — not from any candidate and certainly not from the Premier, who led the team and who had said the corporate tax cut would be their number one priority after the election in terms of new items to be introduced in the budget — did they campaign on it, and not once did I hear anybody say that was their number one priority.

The issue here, Madam Chair, is that it's an issue of trust. It's about what you say you will do during the campaign and what you will do afterwards. What I heard British Columbians say was that they wanted to ensure that the communities that have been hurt the most by this government would see some benefits go to them, and that where there are successes in our economy, those successes flow back through to those communities and to members of our community.

The women's centres and the $1.7 million that the government cut off their funding, which funded 47 women's centres across the province — not a cent in this minibudget was targeted toward women's centres. Women's centres, with 47 women's centres across the province, serve over 300,000 British Columbians a year. I'd say that's value for money. We heard that during the campaign. We heard that in the Finance Committee, but did the government put that as a priority of action? The answer is no.

Instead, the government chose to put forward a corporate tax cut that nobody asked for, that the business community didn't ask for. The business community themselves said they were surprised that the government had brought it forward in the September minibudget. That's what I find shocking. It isn't an issue about anti-business, as the minister would like it to be. It isn't that old way of politics, but it is about telling British Columbians what you will do and doing what you told British Columbians you would do. That's the issue here.

Getting back to my question, though, what I heard from the minister is that basically, there were no new consultations done with the government. That's what I heard. Yes, she'd done some work in 1999, but since then, I haven't heard from the minister about who she met with, who asked for the tax cut, or when and how those consultations were conducted.

Was the exact amount of the tax cut, the 1.5 percent for corporate tax cuts, discussed with any stakeholder groups? Had they recommended a specific amount that they wanted the government to come forward with? No, I didn't hear any of those answers, save and except for a bunch of rhetoric.

Let me then ask this, because I expect we're not going to get anywhere except for more rhetoric, so let's move on. What analysis was undertaken to weigh the benefits of a general corporate tax cut versus a tax cut for small businesses?

Hon. C. Taylor: Actually, I'm so pleased you mentioned that, because that also was included in the budget, and I neglected to say it before. For small businesses, we also raised the threshold there so that more companies around British Columbia would be able to access the 4.5-percent small business tax rate. We helped small business as well as low-income British Columbians and as well as larger corporations.

I'm sorry the member opposite wasn't at more of my all-candidates meetings, because I promise you that I did say wherever I spoke — and it's important that you hear this — that a competitive tax regime is essential not only to keep the economy of British Columbia going but to grow it even more.

It has been the mantra and the mandate of the B.C. Liberal government since they came in to turn this economy around, and they have constantly said that a competitive tax regime is essential. If we're talking about what was specifically said in election campaigns, I would just ask the member opposite if the NDP in the '90s went to people and consulted and asked and promised in public that they would bring back the corporate capital tax.

J. Kwan: Let me just say this. The minister says there's a piece within the minibudget that deals with the small business community, and that's technically true, because that was introduced in terms of lowering the threshold with the former minister, the former Minister of Finance, back in the February budget. So it is technically true that it is there, and I won't dispute that point.

But the point is this: it is the new budget that the new Minister of Finance brought in, in September after the election, the first post-election budget that was supposed to be brand-new and shiny. You look to see what is brand new and shiny in that new minibudget introduced in September, and lo and behold, the brand new thing that is bright and shiny, that shines the brightest, happens to be the corporate tax cut. It is the single item that has the largest expenditure attached to it, yet nobody, not one person I heard during the campaign, asked for that.

The minister will cast it in the light of the more general approach of the government that says a tax cut

is always good, that they want to be competitive. Well, let us be very clear. How competitive has this brought us? To exactly the same place where we were, behind Alberta. It didn't advance us in advance of Alberta. Exactly the same place.

But that is not really the issue. The real issue here is, of course…. I go back to what the business community has said about this corporate tax cut, and I heard distinctly before the September minibudget was introduced that the business community wasn't asking for corporate tax cuts. In fact, I had a meeting with the Business Council, and they told me they weren't expecting a tax cut.

They were shocked and surprised. So too are many British Columbians, I might say. The threshold that was raised for the small business community…. Let us be clear. We know that the small business community is the backbone of our economy, yet the threshold that was raised barely covered the new cost of living, or the cost of doing business, if you will.

Instead, the big corporations got the single biggest line item in terms of benefits accrued to them from this minibudget. I ask the minister, and I'll repeat the question again: what analysis was undertaken to weigh the benefits of a general corporate tax cut versus a tax cut for small businesses?

Hon. C. Taylor: It's just important that I keep saying, and I will keep saying it over and over again, that you must have a balanced approach when you're doing a budget. It's not just about spending, even though the opposition might like to think it's just about spending. It's about initiatives that will keep our economy competitive in British Columbia, that will encourage jobs to our province, and it is also about making sure we don't grow the debt in a way that our children can't afford to pay it, because debt is after all just a bill for our kids.

This budget that I presented, which I said is the first of five you'll see during this mandate, can't do everything we want to do all at once. We're going to do it step by step. Our seniors initiative, which is $242 million in this first budget update, was an important start. It is not the whole story, but it was an important start. We, for instance, managed — and we will talk about this later — to increase the SAFER allowance for elderly seniors who are renting. It hadn't been raised since 1990, and every single person here knows what happened to rents in that time.

We also managed to bring back the income supplement, and we had put $150 million of new money into the transition that many older people make — from living independently and being able to completely take care of themselves until they finally reach extended care beds. Besides the new beds, which have been budgeted for, planned for and are being built at this very moment, we did have to look at some of the older beds that had fallen into disrepair under previous governments and had to be upgraded. Equipment had to be purchased, so that $150 million is part of that as well.

J. Kwan: I'm going to try this one last time: what analysis was undertaken to weigh the benefits of a general corporate tax cut versus a tax cut for small businesses?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will say again, and I will keep saying it every time you ask: it is the responsibility of a government, the responsibility of the Minister of Finance to build a budget that is balanced and answers all of the needs we have in a community. A competitive tax regime is an important priority. We ran on it last time, and I want you to know that we will certainly run on it next time.

J. Kwan: I wasn't clear. The minister just said she answered the question. I did not hear an answer, and I don't think I'm losing my mind — at least, not just yet. I asked the minister what analysis was done, and she got up and gave some rhetoric about how wonderful it is that this government is engaged in the practice that they are with corporate tax cuts, but the question was: "What analysis was done?"

Then I asked a question. I asked that several times, and I asked the question: "Was there any analysis done?" The minister actually just didn't respond to that question at all, so that leads me to this conclusion that the government did not do any analysis. They have not done any analysis with respect to the benefits of a general corporate tax cut versus that of a tax cut for small businesses.

I asked the question earlier around what consultation was done, and the minister responded that back in 1999 she'd done some consultation around that. That's the basis in which the corporate tax cut — the biggest line item in this new, shiny minibudget — that is new, which this new Minister of Finance had introduced postelection….

And there you have it, Madam Speaker. That's the approach the government has taken, and the government says: "Trust us." The minister says: "Trust us." The minister then goes on to say: "Oh, but wait. Now I'm going to tell you. I'm going to give you a heads-up. I'll give you a heads-up that there will be further tax cuts coming." And they won't be the last, this biggest giveaway that the government did not campaign on. There will be more coming.

Let me just give this a shot. What else is the minister planning? How much more in the next five budgets she says she's going to introduce? How much more in corporate tax cuts can we anticipate?

Hon. C. Taylor: As someone who has either watched from a distance or been part of previous NDP governments, I would assume, you do know that the Finance Ministry in British Columbia is a very strong ministry. In fact, they are constantly doing analysis. To try and suggest that analysis is not going on all the

time would be extremely incorrect. I am saying publicly every time I am asked this question: "We are looking all the time at all of the taxes that we have in this province. We are looking to see if they are competitive. We are looking to see if they're doing the job they're supposed to be doing."

Right now in the public domain we have at least three different requests for different kinds of tax reduction that, like everything else, we will analyze within the Ministry of Finance. That's an ongoing process. It will continue, and it is an important part of trying to build a budget to know — if we have the funds to do it — where we can possibly make our economy stronger and where we can make ourselves more competitive and keep jobs here instead of driving jobs away.

J. Kwan: If there's analysis done on this specific point around the tax cut, then I ask the minister to table that information in this House. Will she table that information — the analysis that was done and its findings?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm advised that we do not table inside tax analysis in the House. But the point is that the question was asked: is analysis done? Of course it's done within the Ministry of Finance. It's an important issue for us. We are currently looking at the PST and analyzing it as well.

J. Kwan: I was asking for a specific set of analyses done related to this tax cut. The minister said that there are ongoing analyses being done. Well, then, be specific: what specific analysis was done? If the minister refuses to table them in this House, then tell us specifically in this House what analysis was done. And what findings did the government come up with on the issue around corporate tax cuts versus small business tax cuts?

Hon. C. Taylor: Hon. Chair, it would be highly prejudicial to everything we do, in terms of competitiveness policy and analysis, to start revealing everything in the House in terms of the pros and cons of different tax regimes. You will see every time we present a budget exactly what we have decided is possible to do in terms of tax competition, and you will see the next results in February.

J. Kwan: I've got to tell you this, Madam Chair. The minister is refusing to provide information around what work was actually done on a comparison, for example, of what corporate tax cut benefits would be and how that juxtaposes toward a specific tax cut in the small business area.

The minister says, though: "But don't worry. We've done the homework." The minister said, though, during the election campaign that they're going to bring balance to the Legislature, that they're going to listen to your priorities. Yet throughout the entire campaign not one person said, "More tax cuts" — that I heard. Since the election, not one business community spokesperson said that they wanted a tax cut from the government on the corporate tax cut side. In fact, they said they were surprised to get the present from the government in the middle of summer. Normally you get presents, I guess, at Christmastime. They said they were surprised. But the minister says: "Don't worry. Trust us."

The minister says that the government will engage in a consensus-building approach rather than a confrontational approach to governing. So far to date, I dare say, we have seen no such approach, certainly not in the education sector. I would say amongst other sectors as well, but I'll just leave it at that. But the minister says: "Trust us."

Well, you will pardon me if I find no comfort — no comfort whatsoever — in the government's approach to date, because it's been contrary to what they said they'd do. So, no analysis that the minister can table, nobody she can identify that she consulted with post-election, but the minister maintains that this is the best policy. The minister says: "Wait, though. At least we get that on record now, that there will be further tax cuts, corporate tax cuts for the big corporations." That is now on record. It certainly wasn't prior to the election or during the election.

Let me ask the minister this question. The minister often compares B.C. to Alberta. I'd like to know whether or not there have been any specific discussions with B.C. corporations that talk about relocating to Alberta because of our taxation policy and whether or not the minister can recount specifically those discussions for the members of this House.

Hon. C. Taylor: I am going to insist that the member opposite tell the truth. I never said that corporate tax rates would be cut.

J. Kwan: Point of order. The language which the Minister of Finance just used is unparliamentary, and I would ask her to retract that unconditionally.

Hon. C. Taylor: I will insist that the member opposite accurately record what I have said. I did not say that, guaranteed, there will be corporate tax cuts. You can check Hansard for that.

What I did say was that we are constantly looking at our taxation regime. This is not the end of the story in terms of what tax cuts may come in the next five budgets. We are looking at all forms of taxation. We constantly do that. We will continue to do that. I will not say that this is the end of the story and that now

we're fine and all of our rates are competitive. We are not there yet. Whether or not we're able to move will depend on the economy and will depend on our judgment and other priorities.

The second thing is that either the hon. member is misunderstanding my answers or I'm misunderstanding the questions. I never said that there was no analysis. In fact, if you look in the budget, pages 118 right through to 121 will show you various comparisons of our tax regimes, various analyses with other provinces.

What I understood you to be asking, and perhaps I was incorrect, was to see the internal analysis and comment that a finance department does as they work through all of these numbers. In terms of the analysis and where we stand compared to all of the other provinces, it's there, pages 118, 119, 120, 121. In fact, it's a very useful and powerful weapon for those who are looking at where British Columbia stands in Canada.

J. Kwan: That wasn't the question I asked. The answer that the minister is finally forthcoming with is around analysis. The analysis that the minister refers to is a general analysis. I asked a specific question around analysis, with corporate tax cuts versus the small business tax cuts. I'm not asking for comparisons of the provinces in terms of where we stand. So far, in this House, I've heard nothing from the minister that gives me the reassurance that, in fact, analyses have been done on that specific question. Let us be clear about that.

Thank goodness for Hansard, for they do do wonderful work. I just travelled the province to some communities with the Finance Committee, and goodness, the amount of things that they carried with them just so that they could get members' words and the public's words on record is astounding. They work hard. I'm delighted that the former Premier, Dave Barrett, brought about the notion of Hansard so that one could go back and look at the record and see what one said. I very much appreciate Hansard and their work. Make no mistake about that.

I never used the word "guarantee" either. If we're going to pick and choose words, then we'd better know what we're talking about, and we'd better choose those words carefully, because nobody in this House used the word "guarantee."

The minister, once again, though, getting back to the question…. I have to work hard here to stay on track. No answer was given on the question around discussions with B.C. corporations around taxation policies.

I'm going to move on, because I sense that we're on futile ground, that the minister would rather talk rhetoric than answer questions. So I'm going to move on to the next question. How many and what type of corporations are affected by this tax cut?

Hon. C. Taylor: Approximately 20,000 companies will benefit from the change from 13.5 percent down to 12 percent.

Hon. C. Taylor: That would cover every conceivable kind of corporation in every region of the province.

Hon. C. Taylor: To the best of our knowledge, just here with the experts, about half of them would qualify for the small business tax.

J. Kwan: Half of them will qualify for the small business tax. That means the other half would not qualify for the corporate tax cut.

Hon. C. Taylor: That doesn't mean that they are all big corporations. They could be public corporations. There are other definitions and characteristics of the ones that do apply, and I'd be very happy to get the technical description of the different categories for the member if she likes.

J. Kwan: According to the budget update 2005 document…. Let me quote from it. It says: "The general corporate income tax rate applies to investment income; income of public and non-Canadian-controlled private corporations; income of Canadian-controlled private corporations with paid-up capital in excess of $10 million; and active business income of Canadian-controlled private corporations in excess of $400,000."

What I gather from this, then, is that small businesses would not — would not — qualify for this corporate tax break.

Hon. C. Taylor: If small businesses, in fact, have income over the $400,000 rate, then they qualify for the lower 12 percent.

Hon. C. Taylor: We haven't got an exact number, so we will provide you with that information.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate that, because I'd be very interested in knowing the ratio of the small business community that would actually be able to benefit from this corporate tax cut. I suspect that's not a very large portion of those small businesses, but I could be wrong, and I look forward to that information.

The minister earlier said that about 20,000 corporations will benefit from this corporate tax cut. Again on that question, how many corporations are there in Brit-

Hon. C. Taylor: We estimate it would be that 10,000 again, but there are, of course, some corporations that aren't paying tax at all because they're not in a profitable situation currently.

C. Puchmayr: Recent reports show that a raise in fuel in the gasoline prices by one cent a litre will net a profit of over $2 million a day. Would the fuel oil distribution companies also benefit from this additional windfall of the corporate tax cut?

Hon. C. Taylor: We can't say for sure, but we will find that information for you, if you would like, as well.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise…. With the numbers that she provided to this House in terms of the numbers of small businesses across British Columbia — which she'll get back to the House on and provide that information — and with the information she provided about the large corporations that don't fall into the small business category…. I would also be interested in knowing how they're distributed throughout the province. In other words, on a region-by-region basis, how many small businesses are in the heartlands, let's say, and how many are in the lower mainland and so on? So we get a sense of the breakdown of the small business community and the corporations throughout B.C.

Hon. C. Taylor: We'll see if we can do that breakout for you, but of course, when companies register, they tend to use Vancouver as the base. We'll see if we can get a regional breakdown for you.

J. Kwan: I would appreciate if the minister could provide that information to the opposition.

The minister says, though, that smaller operations will grow as a result of this corporate tax cut. I wonder if the minister could provide specific evidence to support this claim.

Hon. C. Taylor: It is our belief — and we have seen the experience from what happened between the '90s and the beginning of the 2000s — that when you, in fact, do reduce taxes and when you can be more competitive, businesses and jobs do come back to the province.

J. Kwan: It's all very well and fine to say one thing is related to another when, of course, the minister has nothing to back that up. What we know is that the circumstances were also different in the 1990s — not to mention global conditions. I'll leave that aside because I don't want to engage in a debate about that. Rather, I'm very interested in knowing what specific evidence the minister has to support this claim which she has made and the government has made on several occasions — that, in fact, smaller operations will grow as a result of this corporate tax cut.

Hon. C. Taylor: We just absolutely believe that it is essential to have a competitive economy and competitive business taxes in order to encourage businesses to locate here and in order for those that are here to expand and to bring new businesses in. We have evidence, in fact, if you look at the corporate income tax that's now on our books — and you would see it in the September update — that the economy has turned around. We are now pulling in more tax from the corporate sector because of that success.

J. Kwan: Let me be very specific. The minister said that smaller operations will grow as a result of this corporate tax cut. What I'm looking for…. Outside of the minister's word that says, "Trust me; it's true," outside of the government's word that says, "Trust me; it's true," I would like to actually see some evidence to back it up. Will the minister provide that information to this House?

Hon. C. Taylor: For anyone who has run a small business, you know that if your taxation is too high, you've got very little money left to reinvest or to hire people, and you will go to regimes, whether it's other provinces or other states, where it is possible to make the same widget, to employ the same people and still have extra money, because the taxation regime is lower, to reinvest in your business or to hire more people.

J. Kwan: That's a general statement that the minister makes; it's not evidence. It's not information that the minister is providing to this House to back up her claim. It's yet another claim that the minister has made.

I'm only asking for information to back up the minister's claim. I don't think it's that difficult a question. After all, this government says time and again that they want to rely on empirical data. I'm only just going down that route to make sure the facts back up what the minister is saying, so I ask, again, for the minister to provide that information to this House.

Hon. C. Taylor: When you lower taxation — particularly for businesses, because you're hoping to encourage the economy — you do not do it so there's one line in the budget next year that says, therefore, that that was the benefit. You do it because it creates a climate wherein businesses want to come to your province, want to grow in this province and, in fact, where we bring businesses from other provinces and other states to locate here. The reason we want those businesses, of course, is because it means jobs for our community, jobs for our people. The success of the lower taxation regime is clear in the fact that we have 238,000 new jobs since December 2001 in this province.

J. Kwan: Well, then let me try this another way. Could the minister please advise this House how many and what type of small operations are relocating to British Columbia as a result of this tax cut? Could the

Hon. C. Taylor: We do know, for instance, not only that 238,000 new jobs have been created, but also that in-migration has grown. The numbers that we're seeing from our independent Economic Forecast Council are large — net in-migration coming into this province, in part because of the now competitive tax regime.

J. Kwan: That wasn't my question. I'm not asking how many people came to British Columbia. I'm asking how many small business operations and what type of operations are relocating to British Columbia as a direct result of this tax cut, as the minister has claimed and this government has claimed that this tax cut will bring new operations into British Columbia.

Hon. C. Taylor: We do not track specific companies, because many of them are registered federally, as I'm sure you know, but we do track business activity. The way you do that is through increase in jobs, increase in economic revenue, increase in corporate taxation that's now coming into the province because more business activity is happening here and because people want to locate here and grow their jobs here.

J. Kwan: On that basis, the claim that the minister makes may have something to do with other factors like the global demand, lower interest rates and so on. I would then assume you would be hard-pressed for the government to make such a broad statement as it has made to date when it has nothing to actually back that up.

The minister says she doesn't know how many and what type of small business operations are relocating to British Columbia. There's no analysis done that she could table in this House around how a corporate tax cut would fare better for the economy versus, perhaps, a tax cut for the small business sector. The consultation work that the minister has done dates back to 1999. That's what we've got so far from the minister. I wonder: does the minister have any information about what regions would stand to benefit in terms of increased small business operations — or operations, for that matter — relocating to British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: Regions throughout B.C. are benefiting from an improved economy — some areas more than others. It's our effort as government to constantly try to improve the environment so that, wherever possible, we increase the job opportunities and business opportunities throughout the province.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please be specific about what regions, what communities, what towns are benefiting, and on the flip side, could the minister please advise which communities are still struggling?

Hon. C. Taylor: Jobs are up in every region of the province, and we will give you our economic analysis if you wish it. We track it regularly.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have any analysis linking this specific tax cut to economic growth, as the minister has suggested?

Hon. C. Taylor: I will keep giving the same answer, which is that you cannot have a punitive taxation regime and expect businesses to stay in this province when it is too easy for businesses to move. We saw it happen in the '90s. We lost head offices in the '90s. We lost jobs in the '90s.

When we improved the competitive taxation regime, it was one of the issues that helped encourage businesses to come back to British Columbia. We see that by the increase in jobs, which is quite extraordinary — 238,000 new jobs since December 2001 in this province. We will continue to analyze our taxation regime, and if it's possible and if it's necessary at some time in the future, there may be changes either to the personal income tax, PST, corporate income tax or small business. Whatever the range of taxation measures is, we will constantly analyze them and constantly be moving towards making this province more competitive on a personal and a business basis.

J. Kwan: The minister keeps on going back to her lines and her message box about competitive taxation regime. Now, I don't want to dispute that, except to say this. Prior to the election campaign the government overspent $7 million of taxpayers' money on an advertising campaign to say how great things are going in British Columbia.

In fact, I believe that at the Liberal convention their slogan was: "B.C. is back." If that is the premise on which one entered into the election and that's the premise on which the government is stating that the economic situation is such that things are just going hunky-dory…. We heard from no one, including the business community, during the election campaign that a corporate tax cut was their number-one priority and that the first order of business in this minibudget must be to give yet another corporate tax break. We didn't hear any of that.

If the premise is that B.C. is back and so on, then I've got to ask the question: why is this the number-one priority in this minibudget with respect to it being the largest line item that is new since the February budget was introduced?

I don't understand. When we heard from British Columbians, overwhelmingly, they said that their priorities centred around social spending — health care, education and so on. Instead of doing that in this new minibudget, with new moneys introduced in this budget, the government chose not to do that, to reflect those priorities.

J. Kwan: Well, let me just try this with the minister this way. How will the effectiveness of this tax policy be measured?

Hon. C. Taylor: The success of a competitive taxation regime is when you have a strong economy so that you have the dollars coming in on the revenue side to pay for your priorities. That means businesses doing well in British Columbia, and it means jobs coming back. That's how we will be measured.

J. Kwan: Does the minister take into account other factors, or is it just the corporate tax cut? If so, what other factors does the minister take into account?

Hon. C. Taylor: I am pleased that in this budget…. In fact, we looked quite broadly at the taxation regime, and one of the most important initiatives was the B.C. tax reduction. In that B.C. tax reduction we have now lowered provincial income tax rates for the low- and modest-income earners. The bottom two tax brackets are now the lowest of anywhere in Canada, which is a significant, important income tax initiative.

The second was that for small businesses we raised the threshold at which they have to start paying the higher tax. Now there are small businesses throughout the province that are able to only pay the 4.5 percent.

As well, with the corporate income tax, which is what this particular bill is about, we have managed to lower that from 13.5 percent to 12 percent. I recognize that Alberta is still lower, but it's essential — even if we can't go head-to-head with Alberta — that we are at least in the same game, that we're competitive, so that businesses can make a very positive choice to locate here and bring jobs to British Columbia.

J. Kwan: Those are the only factors that I heard the minister mention, and it all centres around the government's policies. What the government is saying, then, is that economic growth in British Columbia has got nothing to do with global forces. It's got nothing to do with commodity prices, and it's got everything to do with how great the government's policies are. I asked for other factors that the minister could highlight that might impact economic growth. She didn't name any other factor at all, except for all of the government's policies. Well, let's just wait and see and use those selective measures to see whether or not it adds up.

Let's go and see the economists and what they might say about that. I'm not an economist. I'll admit that right off the top. I'll say I'm not an expert on this, but I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts that there'll be others who say: "Hey, guess what. There are other factors that you've got to take into consideration that impact economic growth or decline, for that matter, in the province."

Let me be very clear that the opposition will not be supporting these sections of the bill, sections 1 and 2, I may add, because those two go hand-in-hand — and it ties into the reduction of the corporate tax cut — not because we don't support the business community. Rather, it is a question around priorities and what we heard during the election campaign. British Columbians sent us a different message and sent the government a different message. They wanted to make sure health care, education, social spending were prioritized by the government.

I know that the minister will say: "Oh, but we have, and look at how wonderful we are, and look at the February budget." "That's my budget too," the minister will say. Technically, it is true, but I'll say this. Since the election, what people looked for were signals from the government that they'd heard the message so they could trust this government to do things differently.

Instead, what British Columbians got was a tax cut nobody asked for. Instead of actually directing dollars into the small business community, more specifically, in terms of tax cuts, the government went elsewhere. Instead of putting moneys in the apprenticeship area, where the business communities say they need that for economic growth to address the skill shortage issue, the government didn't invest in that area where the business community, the students themselves, the families in British Columbia, had hoped the government would.

That's just to name a couple of areas. I won't go into all the other sectors like health care — Surrey Memorial, for example — because we'll save that for estimates debate, but I'll be very clear about this. What we heard in this section-by-section debate was that from the consultation the government and the minister had done dating back to 1999, the government cannot table any analysis with respect to how a corporate income tax cut versus a small business tax cut would benefit and what the difference would be. Even when asking specifically on the breakdown of how many new operations will come to British Columbia as a result of this one factor, the corporate tax cut, the minister couldn't provide that answer.

Hon. C. Taylor: As this particular section winds down, I will just put on the record exactly what my position has been. It's odd that the member opposite is disparaging about the fact that I went around the province and talked to individuals and businesses and community leaders and union leaders to see what their ideas were. I am a very good listener, and I did listen. One shouldn't discount people just because I spoke to them in town halls around the province. It was a very important and intensive consultation period.

To say that nobody in business asked for these tax cuts — if you look at page 37 of last year's budget consultation report, you will find that businesses said: "A clear message from the business community was the need for a more competitive tax regime." We ran on this. We ran on it the first time, and we ran on it the

second time: the power of a strong economy. The reason why we were so insistent that we have a strong economy is so we can spend on our priorities, but we do not believe in taxing-and-spending people to death. We've seen what happens to an economy when you do that.

The final thing is that the analysis, to be on the record again, is on pages 118, 119, 120 and 121 in the September update. You will find an analysis that shows where B.C. stands on various taxes compared to other provinces in the country, and therefore, the very clear reason there is for us to be competitive, because business can move so easily, as we saw in the '90s. In terms of the jobs and companies that this corporate income tax will help, we estimate that it's about 20,000 companies.

J. Kwan: Section 3 refers to a correction to the Income Tax Amendment Act, 2005. I wonder if the minister could just advise this House what that is referring to. It corrects what exactly?

Hon. C. Taylor: It just corrects what was basically a typo initially. Where it says "1 and 2," it should have said "8 and 16."

Hon. C. Taylor: Where it refers to "sections 1 and 2," it should have said "8 and 16." It was a typo.

J. Kwan: Sections 4 to 7 basically deal with the amendment to the International Financial Activity Act. It expands the international financial activity program to include refunds of provincial corporate income taxes paid on income derived from the commercialization of intellectual property in the form of life science related to patents. This measure takes effect on January 1, 2006, and is expected to cost the provincial treasury about $20 million per fiscal year.

I want to be clear that the opposition supports targeted tax cuts that help industries grow to develop new markets and to create new jobs. The stated reason for this tax refund is that research is done in B.C., but once it gets to the commercialization stage, it then moves offshore to take advantage of tax incentives that exist in other jurisdictions. Could the minister please explain again, on this piece of the tax cut, what consultation did the ministry or the minister embark on?

Hon. C. Taylor: The B.C. Innovation Council, I believe in 2003, recommended that this be looked at and done. As well, the International Financial Centre also recommended…. This was before, of course, I was elected, but it's been going on since 2003. The situation is one that we nurture and help and promote and bring in these biotech companies, but when they're working in life science patents, it's a long, long research process. So it sometimes takes ten or 15 years before they finally have a successful patent.

What we are trying to do is be proactive and keep our companies here rather than have them, once they've got something successful, leave B.C. because of the international commercialization of the patents. So this is a proactive measure that we believe will meet those needs, and it is a partial tax refund, not a complete tax refund.

J. Kwan: Could the minister please advise what industries and specific companies will actually potentially benefit from this taxation relief?

Hon. C. Taylor: Because this is new, what we are using is the life sciences patent designation, which is an

international category. So we will have to bring in regulations that very specifically say what will fit under this. What we've got on our website right now is our proposal for the kinds of companies that would be able to access this tax refund. We are consulting with the public and asking for people's opinion about it.

So it's not yet set, but before December 31 we're asking for people to make recommendations or comments on our website as we look for exactly what life sciences categories…. To the best of our knowledge at this point, it's certainly the health ones. But there are patents in agriculture. There are patents in mining that will apply as well. It's a new area for us. That's why we're putting these regulations on the Web first of all, so that everyone can comment on them if they've got suggestions before we actually write them down as regulations.

J. Kwan: I can imagine in the health sector what some of those patents might be. But in the agriculture and the mining sector, perhaps the minister could advise this House: how would they utilize the tax incentive for the industry? Is it for the processing part of the agriculture industry or the mining industry perhaps? I'm not sure, and I'd just like to have that information from the minister.

Hon. C. Taylor: That is exactly what we were struggling with — to make it as broad as possible but do the job that we wanted. For instance, in mining reclamation projects there are some there that would apply — the biological treatment of water, wastewater, sewage and organic chemistry, for sure. In microbiology there's fermentation, enzyme-using processes that synthesize a desired chemical. What we've got — this is on the Web. You can have a look at it, and various companies are now letting us know if they think we've hit it exactly right.

The life sciences patent is an internationally recognized category. That's why we used that one. Because it's dealing with living organisms, that's the one that usually takes so much time before you finally get to the point that it's successful.

J. Kwan: On the question around the $20 million, the government came up with an estimate of $20 million, but yet we don't know what all the categories might be. We therefore, I assume, do not know exactly what the participation rate will be. So how did the government come up with that $20 million?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's exactly correct. Because we're breaking new ground here, we are not sure what the takeup will be. Within the Finance Ministry we have done an assessment of what companies we think probably have patents that would apply. What we are saying is that it's a maximum of $8 million per company and up to a 75-percent tax refund. We're thinking initially $20 million should cover it, but we will be very happy if, in fact, there are more companies that will use this, and we raise that amount. Starting in September, brand-new…. We put in our best estimate of $20 million, but it's quite likely that there will be more companies, and we'll raise that money.

J. Kwan: Does the minister have a list of the companies that she now knows would qualify and would be interested in this tax incentive?

Hon. C. Taylor: No, we don't have a list of companies, because it's in the future. We had to do…. A lot of this is private information — what kinds of patents are in various companies. It was our experts in Finance trying to make an estimation. We will know more clearly once we see what the uptake is in the new year.

J. Kwan: Once the minister has that information, could she provide that information to the opposition? I'd be interested in knowing, as well, what it looks like out there in the business community, what sectors would be interested and how many companies exactly would be interested. If the minister could provide that information to the opposition, I would appreciate that. I see the minister nodding, but I'll just get her to put that on record.

Hon. C. Taylor: As soon as this is, in fact, in process and we have a program out there, the information that we put forward will be available, but I would imagine that we will have to be a little bit careful in terms of confidentiality in terms of the nature of patents. But whatever information is proper to release, privacy aside, we'd be happy to do that. I really would encourage all of the opposition to look at this list that's currently on the Web. If you see something that you think we're missing, bring it forward because there's time before the end of December to firm up that list.

J. Kwan: The minister said the end of December to firm up that list? Once the list is firmed up, I presume the government would move on to put that in regulation, and then those would be the sectors that would qualify for this tax incentive. Am I understanding the process correctly?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is our intention to get these regulations organized by the end of the year. We've said to people who are looking at the website before December 31, because the start date, of course, is January 2006.

J. Kwan: I would presume, though, even after that time line, if there's a sector that's missed for some reason or another, there's nothing that stops the government from actually adding that by regulation at a later time.

Hon. C. Taylor: That's absolutely correct. We can add afterwards, and it also can be retroactive. If the list isn't completely finalized by the first of January because there has been a lot of discussion, we will just

J. Kwan: The biotech sector. Does the minister know where the biotech industry is clustered in British Columbia, in what region?

Hon. C. Taylor: Because it's involving so many industries, including mining and agriculture and others, I would expect it's throughout the province. The biotech companies that you referred to are probably mostly in Vancouver — in the lower mainland is a safer way to say that. I haven't looked up addresses of these corporations, but because we're involving other areas of life science, it should be throughout the province that there are companies that will be able to use this.

J. Kwan: I assume that the ministry will also track that information, once the ministry knows and the program is up and running — where the companies are coming from, who's applying for this tax incentive. I wonder whether or not that information could be provided to the opposition, as well, once the information is available.

Hon. C. Taylor: All of these companies will have to register with the International Financial Centre, so that's where the information will be gathered.

J. Kwan: I take it that the minister will actually get that information. My question is: when the ministry receives the information, can the minister provide that information to the opposition?

Hon. C. Taylor: As I said before, as long as it doesn't violate privacy issues, we will have that information.

J. Kwan: With this change, how will B.C. compare with other jurisdictions in terms of competitiveness?

Hon. C. Taylor: Doing our math here, we believe that it should work out to about 10 percent lower than the United States, and no other province that we know of is doing it. So we think it will be a good incentive.

I spoke to a businessperson from England in the last week, and he was saying that he knows that industry somewhat in England and felt that it might start to draw some business from England here as well. I know we have been hearing stories that the biotech industry is now strong enough in British Columbia that we are able to recruit from the United States, from England, from other areas. So this isn't, you know, the whole answer, but we think it's one of the pieces that make this a good environment for these new companies to locate.

J. Kwan: What jurisdictions are companies licensing their patents in once it gets to the commercialization stage?

It has to be a B.C. company, first of all. The patents can reside in various places internationally, but there will be a list of qualifications in order for a company to register with the International Financial Centre and then to qualify for this.

J. Kwan: Has the ministry done any analysis with respect to how this tax incentive would actually help industry grow and create jobs? Does the minister have anything specific in terms of projections?

Hon. C. Taylor: The idea of this is to be proactive, so we're out there before companies have started to leave. It came from the B.C. Innovation Council in the first place. They felt that a lot of these companies that had been nurtured here were just getting to the point of being successful and were starting to talk about where they would go with their patents — to a taxation regime that worked for them.

In being proactive, we, first of all, aren't sure how many companies will actually be able to use this. We will see that more clearly over the next few months. We've tried to make it as broad as possible to pull in the mining, the agriculture and some other biological patents as well. But if you are asking if I can tell you how many specific jobs as a result, I can't do that.

I can say that we believe this is an incentive package that will encourage our biotech and our innovative companies to stay here once their patents are commercially and internationally viable.

J. Kwan: What would the government use to determine success or failure of this program?

Hon. C. Taylor: I would say to you that it's a success if we get more uptake than we expected.

J. Kwan: It's not necessarily tied to jobs, for example — how many jobs are created in British Columbia, how many new companies. Rather, the $20 million is spent, and then that's deemed to be a success?

Hon. C. Taylor: Our idea of success is if we can keep our companies here that are now becoming internationally successful. That will be part of what we're looking at to see if this program works, to see if the regulations are exactly right.

We have great hopes that it…. We had indications when this was announced publicly that in fact this is a good idea, and I think that you even said yourself that you felt it was a good incentive for these companies.

It's very important to us as we try to diversify the economy. This is one of the sectors we'd really like to grow. We're trying to be proactive here in trying to keep them here, especially once they become successful.

J. Kwan: I would hope that there would also be tracking, if you will, from the government on this program with job growth and also increased corporations

or companies who wanted to participate in this program in terms of their participation in British Columbia.

Aside from the uptake of $20 million, I would hope that there are other measures and, more specifically, job growth in this sector. I assume, though, that the government and the ministry will be looking into that in terms of how many jobs, how many new companies are being brought to British Columbia as a result of this incentive.

Hon. C. Taylor: It's bigger than new jobs. It's keeping the jobs we've got here. We felt, and the Innovation Council certainly told us, that there was a real threat of us losing jobs. That will be one of the measures that we'll be watching.

J. Kwan: I'm wondering whether or not there's been dialogue with, let's say, the Ministry of Health on the issue around patents, especially around life sciences. I'll use one example that I'm aware of, around hereditary colorectal cancer. We know that such a cancer can be detected and that measures to address that could be addressed in a variety of ways — through DNA testing and so on and so forth.

Yet I know that sometime in the last four years there were issues related to treatment and testing with various forms of cancer relative to the pharmaceutical companies. In fact, at one point a court case was threatened with all the provinces in that regard. British Columbia, as far as I am aware, stepped back from the tests for this particular type of cancer because of the legal threat from the pharmaceutical company. As a result, patients were not able to access the testing they wished to have.

To my knowledge, Alberta — and I don't have that file with me, so I'm just going by memory here — is the only province that said: "Hey, if the pharmaceutical companies want to sue us, go ahead. We are going to continue the service which we provide to Albertans." But British Columbia, under the former Minister of Health in the last four years, did not take that position. So I'm interested, and I wonder whether or not there's some linkage with this tax incentive, particularly on the issue around life sciences relative to health policies and direction of government. Is there some linkage? Is there a table to which the government's talking about that, and how do we actually overcome those issues?

Hon. C. Taylor: Certainly the Finance Ministry talked with the Health Ministry in terms of getting the definition right in life sciences, but this particular program is for private companies that are successful now and are internationally selling their patent. In that sense, we're not saying it has to be a patent that fits in with our particular health policy. But if you want to — I'm sure you will — ask the current Health Minister in terms of the issue that you mention. I'm not familiar with that particular one. What we were trying to do is get as broad a definition as we could, so that any living-organism research or biological research that results in an internationally successful patent would come under this particular category.

J. Kwan: My issue is that I wouldn't want to see companies, where they're successful with their patent, then turn around and use it against the government, in which case, in the example that I cited, it ties into the health care arena and, at the end of the day, it's the patients and their families who end up losing out. Therefore, I know it's a broader policy question and may not necessarily fall within this area for the minister, but I think that there are some linkages here to the Ministry of Health because of the significance of it and potential policy ramifications.

I certainly would not want to see companies benefiting from a tax credit which they could then turn around to use against British Columbians in service delivery. That's the point that I wanted to make: to make sure that some steps are taken to address that, and that there's dialogue. There may well be measures that need to be taken into account to address that — legislation that may need to be brought in to prevent those kinds of, in my view, punitive actions against the families and patients of British Columbia, and I dare say across the country as well.

I don't think it bodes well for Canada when that lawsuit was threatened and brought about, and every province stepped back, save and except for Alberta, and Alberta said, "Hey, go ahead and sue us," and that's the direction that they took. But every other province stepped back, and that's just not good for us in the health delivery service, for patients and families who need those services. That's the point I wanted to raise.

When we get to Health estimates debate, I'm sure we'll get a chance to talk more in detail, but I do want to flag it at this time, as policy is being developed, as tax incentive programs are being forwarded — that that's taken into consideration, and that we don't end up inadvertently doing something which I believe none of us want to see happen.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 2, Revenue Statutes Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

J. Kwan: On Bill 3, could the minister please advise what the future priorities are for the advisory policy committee under section 1 in this act?

Hon. C. Taylor: At the moment, because accounting changes are happening so rapidly and GAAP is pretty new to us as a province, we felt it was important to extend their mandate so that they could be watching and working with us and working with the Auditor General and comptroller general to make sure that, as these changes happen, they can give us advice and we can use their great expertise to guide us going forward. We are committed to GAAP, but it certainly is a moving target. There are a lot of changes happening in accounting, and we think that their expertise will be invaluable.

Hon. C. Taylor: We do have it in the book, and we'll find it. Oh, here it is. The current committee members are: John Cowperthwaite, chair; Bob Harvey; Elaine Eccleston; Joe Wurz; Alan Barnard; Bev Briscoe; and Keon Kwan.

Hon. C. Taylor: These individuals were appointed when the advisory committee was first set up.

J. Kwan: This section of the bill just extends their tenure for another three years?

Hon. C. Taylor: Not at this point. They've all indicated a willingness to serve for another three years. They have been working very closely with our people and with the Auditor General. They realize that the job's not quite complete because of the changes that are happening, so they're quite enthusiastic about continuing for another three years.

J. Kwan: Are they expected to dialogue with folks outside of the province in terms of best practices?

Hon. C. Taylor: I'm sorry; I don't have that at hand, but I will get that for you.

J. Kwan: While the minister's at it, I'll be interested in knowing under which department or program the committee gets its funding. I presume it's from the Ministry of Finance.

J. Kwan: Does the comptroller general participate in any way with this committee? If so, how?

Hon. C. Taylor: The Auditor General attends from time to time at the invitation of the committee.

J. Kwan: The staffing that's provided from the comptroller general's office — is that part of the budget? Or is that just sort of in-kind support for the committee? Or do they have assigned staff from the comptroller's office?

Hon. C. Taylor: They have other duties within the comptroller general's department. It is not separated out as a specific cost and full-time to the committee. There's an analyst, for instance, in the comptroller general's department who would give them some analytical advice as well as be working with the comptroller general.

J. Kwan: Does the committee travel to talk to, for example, other public accounts committees across the province in terms of best practices and so on and what's being changed and how that's being compared to British Columbia?

Hon. C. Taylor: They come from around the province, but they don't generally travel around the province. These are all experts in their field. I'd be happy to give you their bios, as well, if you'd like that information too. As far as we know, they don't travel around the province.

J. Kwan: So they seek advice from people who will come to British Columbia, as opposed to them travelling outside of British Columbia to find out what the best practices and so on are around the country.

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, written submissions sometimes come to the committee as well. They are all part of the community that's deciding accounting rules, so

they're the ones who are seeing the new changes as they happen and giving us advice in terms of how British Columbia can be GAAP-compliant.

J. Kwan: I don't have any further questions on section 1 of this bill. On section 2, my colleague the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will have some questions for the minister.

M. Karagianis: I do have some questions here with regard to the amendments to the Shelter Aid for Elderly Renters Act. My first question is: how many seniors will actually qualify under this new, amended act?

Sorry, I should have done this before. I should have introduced the staff that are with me. My apologies. Deputy Minister Tamara Vrooman, who you know, and Lori Wanamaker, who has helped design this particular program, and previously, Paul Flanagan, who was very involved with the life sciences patenting and did a tremendous amount of work this summer on it. My apologies for not having introduced them previously.

M. Karagianis: Of these 19,200 seniors who will qualify, how many of those specifically are caught up under the manufactured homes qualifications?

M. Karagianis: How were these numbers collected, and how were the 2,400 identified out of all of the seniors?

Hon. C. Taylor: We've been using census data to try and do our best estimate, but we recognize it may be larger than that. It could also be smaller, but that's our best estimate, using B.C. Housing and also just regular census data looking at forms of rental.

M. Karagianis: Specific to manufactured homes, we've identified 2,400 seniors that could qualify for some form of assistance under the new, amended SAFER rental subsidy. Now I'd like to ask how the threshold was determined for qualification.

Hon. C. Taylor: We had an independent assessment done, and we looked at average rents around the province to determine the threshold.

M. Karagianis: So if I understand how the SAFER program applies to manufactured homes, because this is a rental subsidy, it applies only to whatever portion of their living accommodation is rented.

M. Karagianis: So in the case of manufactured homes, these 2,400 seniors can apply for rental subsidy only for the pad rental portion of their living costs. Am I correct?

M. Karagianis: My next question is: who was consulted in how this particular program was built for the manufactured homes portion of the amendment?

Hon. C. Taylor: This is an extension of a current program, so a lot of the research and data was there. This question, as I think you probably know, was considered in the '90s. Internally in the government they had looked at this before. It wasn't a brand new idea, but we felt it was an important one to pursue within the Ministry of Housing and, of course, within Finance. Both were consulted.

I have to tell you that I have heard from seniors — and I know other members of the government have heard, as well, from seniors — who complained that the old SAFER program didn't work for them because they were in this rental pad situation. I think there's quite broad support around the province for having extended it, broadened it, in this way.

M. Karagianis: I do understand that this is specific around pad rentals. In determining qualifications, can the minister tell me what the average pad rental is around the province?

M. Karagianis: Do we have any idea what the general range of pad rentals is, urban versus rural or region to region?

M. Karagianis: Under $610 per month? We believe that pad rentals fall somewhere under that?

M. Karagianis: If I'm putting these numbers together correctly then, based on the answers we have so far, we believe that we have 2,400 seniors provincewide who qualify for some form of rent subsidy on their manufactured home pad rentals, and that generally those pad rentals are determined to be under $610 per month. Am I correct in that?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's correct. We assume that most of them would be under that.

M. Karagianis: Of these 2,400 seniors that qualify, do we know what their income levels are?

Hon. C. Taylor: We can give you a chart where we've tried to break out what it would look like, whether you're a single senior, a double senior and other issues. Of course, the qualifications for SAFER remain the same. It's 30 percent of your income spent on rent. So whereas the current income level for a single senior would be $1,733 per month to qualify, the new base is $2,033. In high-rent areas, it would be $2,333 per month to qualify.

M. Karagianis: I'm trying to do the math here. So for the 2,400 seniors that qualify, the estimate from the minister is that they would all be having income levels somewhere around $1,733 a month at this point to qualify?

M. Karagianis: So $2,033? We believe that the 2,400 seniors out there currently that qualify for this rent subsidy have an income of $2,000 a month? Am I clear in what you're saying here?

Hon. C. Taylor: That's the maximum, of course, and that's singles. Some of the 2,400 would be couples as well.

M. Karagianis: In trying to get a bit of a grasp here of these 2,400…. Are these primarily urban seniors, or are we talking seniors living in rural areas as well?

Hon. C. Taylor: There's certainly both, I would expect, but I'm not sure. Would it be more in rural than urban? We can't say. But it's certainly in both because it's manufactured homes, wherever they are around the province.

M. Karagianis: Then may I ask: the number of 2,400 seniors that qualify — is this simply a statistical estimation, or are these actual numbers?

Hon. C. Taylor: It is an estimation, but it's based on the B.C. Housing numbers and other census data that we've been able to collect.

M. Karagianis: I've actually, in my past life, worked a great deal of time with B.C. Housing. So I'm wondering, in fact, what these numbers are based on. B.C. Housing get their numbers from health authorities and things like that, in basing the number of seniors, and the number of qualified seniors is simply a percentage of seniors. I'm wondering if we could nail down exactly where these numbers are coming from.

Hon. C. Taylor: Staff have done a really good job trying to get at this number to the best of their ability, so they've used StatsCan. They've used B.C. statistics; they've used B.C. Housing and B.C. Assessment as well. We also had an independent assessment of what that person felt the numbers would be. But we're starting to get a lot of applications now, so in two months we'll have a much better idea of what the numbers actually are out there.

M. Karagianis: I am actually trying to grapple with how to provide this information to the seniors in my community as well, and these numbers are somewhat confusing. We determined that there are 19,200 seniors that qualify for rent subsidies provincewide. Of those, 2,400 live in manufactured homes and are paying, we think, a pad rental somewhere around $610 per month. Those seniors can earn up to $2,033 and still qualify for rent subsidy. I'd just like clarification if, in fact, that is the information that I am being provided here.

Hon. C. Taylor: That's correct, and then the other number is…. In high-rent areas, there's a bit higher allowance for income, and that's the $2,333 per month. We believe that the average monthly benefit for the individuals we're talking about would be $145 per month.

M. Karagianis: So I may have been completely in error in working with the seniors in my constituency. When I met with retired seniors who have an income that's based on CPP and either GIS or OAS, making an income of $1,200 a month…. Their pad rentals needed to be 30 percent of their income. That's my understanding of the program. In fact, no one qualified for that. Am I correct in how my seniors have interpreted and filled out their forms?

Hon. C. Taylor: Thirty percent of income is what the SAFER program has always been designed for, and so we're continuing to use that. But if you have any constituents who are not sure, of course…. The applications have to come into B.C. Housing, and we can help you either with the applications or….

You've made a good point, and I think it would be a good idea for us to put out a one-page explanatory piece of information that you could hand out as well, in terms of how to apply, who can qualify and the approximate benefit.

M. Karagianis: In fact, I did have a group of seniors meet in my office, and we went through the forms to try and assist seniors in seeing whether or not they qualified. But I see now that the pad rental threshold of $600 is actually exceptionally high for any of the manufactured homes in my constituency and, in fact, for any that I've canvassed in the regional area. It would appear to me that very few seniors actually qualify under this — large income thresholds, expensive pad rentals.

My question, then, to the minister is whether there will be an evaluation of the actual relevance of this program to seniors based on real application success.

Hon. C. Taylor: Perhaps there's one key thing that you have backwards. The $610 is the top, so any rental pads below that will be captured by this. So you don't have to have a $610-per-month rental pad in order to qualify. It's all the people underneath.

The criterion for SAFER has always been that 30 percent of your income gets spent with rent. So what you're obviously trying to do is say to some low-income senior: "If you're spending so much out of your income on rent, this is where we can step in and give you assistance."

M. Karagianis: Actually, I do understand how the rent supp works, particularly because I've been working in that field for the last couple of years. Based on the average income of a senior who is retired, with CPP and GIS or OAS they would be making an income of approximately $1,200 a month. Their pad rental has to exceed 30 percent of that.

In my community it would appear to me that the only ones who actually qualify for this are people who cannot collect CPP or OAS, or who are only living on OAS, where a pad rental of $300 or $400 exceeds their income. I'm not entirely sure I understand the relevance of the numbers I've heard here today.

Hon. C. Taylor: It's taxable income. So 30 percent of your taxable income is the threshold. It clearly doesn't work for all seniors. What we're hoping to do with this, and starting in this way, is to really help those seniors who are most in need. We believe that there are at least 2,400 there. Judging from the response that's coming in already in applications, it's possible that there will be even more that can apply.

M. Karagianis: One of the reasons I'm pursuing this is that I've promised those constituents I have been meeting with that I would pursue this with the minister. So I guess I would ask: how will the success be analyzed? Is it simply going to be on whether or not the applications that come in…? You've got a handful of them out of the 2,400 that work. Or is there going to be an actual statistical analysis of how this program is working or whether or not the thresholds are too high?

Hon. C. Taylor: The success will be if we can help one senior. We believe we can at least help 2,400 seniors, but this is a program that we will evaluate. If we find that the thresholds need changing, we can change them.

The important initiative that this particular part of the bill talks about is broadening it to start to include the rental pads. That's the initiative that this section is all about, and we will always be reviewing it in terms of whether the numbers are right, whether the threshold is right.

M. Karagianis: At this time, have you set aside funding for approximately 2,400 seniors?

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, we've set aside the funding for 19,200 seniors for the whole SAFER program.

M. Karagianis: Can the minister please let me know what the budget is for that SAFER program?

M. Karagianis: I don't have a calculator, so I can't do quick math. Is this basically based on the $145 per senior, or is that only applicable to manufactured homes for seniors?

Hon. C. Taylor: The $145 per month is what we believe will be the average for the program, so that's the number we're using in our budgeting. But as we said to you before, until we actually see how many applications come in, we may have to adjust that.

M. Karagianis: Will this evaluation be done within a certain time frame so that we're able to report back? Seniors who live in manufactured homes in my community are extremely interested in this topic, so I would like to be able to report back to them on its success or otherwise. Is there a set time line for when these applications are in and this funding goes out?

Hon. C. Taylor: Those who already qualify for SAFER and are getting their enhancements are getting their cheques in October. We believe that with the new applications, it will probably take two months to process them all, and then they'll be getting their cheques.

M. Karagianis: Great. Thank you very much. Is it possible for us to obtain that information once it's available? Will the minister let the opposition know about this?

M. Karagianis: One more general question that's not specifically applicable to SAFER, but when I asked the question in the Small Business estimates, I was told to direct the question to the Finance Minister. With regard to taxation on fire insurance, is that in fact your responsibility?

Hon. C. Taylor: This will be an appropriate question when we get to my estimates.

M. Karagianis: So in fact, it doesn't fall anywhere under this bill or the bills that we're debating here.

Hon. C. Taylor: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act (No. 2), 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; S. Hawkins in the chair.

D. Chudnovsky: To the minister and his staff: could we get a sense of what the financial impact…? What are we expecting is going to be collected through this bill?

Hon. K. Falcon: The expectation is about $20 million annually of net revenues.

D. Chudnovsky: In terms of the transportation policy, transportation strategy or the impact on traffic, on congestion and on usage of various roads and highways, what sense does the minister have of the policy impact of this bill?

Hon. K. Falcon: The parking-stall tax is really just one small aspect of a multifaceted approach that the GVTA is taking to fund a rather huge and ambitious ten-year transportation plan, which includes some of the highlights we all know about, like the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver line, the new Fraser River crossing, the expansion of buses — well over a thousand new buses — strategic road infrastructure, etc.

From that point of view, it's really a piece of a puzzle that they're trying to put together to fund the transportation plan. I think, if I understood the underpinning of that question — is this the kind of tax that will change behaviour of the ultimate users of transportation? — that, in frankness, I would have to say no. I think indirect taxes are less effective at doing that than a direct tax paid by the users of a particular form of transportation, which makes them more aware of the fact that it's a cost associated with whatever it is they're doing. That would be my personal opinion on that, if that was where you were going with that question.

D. Chudnovsky: Thanks to the minister for that answer. I look forward to an opportunity to have a longer, more comprehensive discussion with the minister around the very point that he made and a lot that goes with it over the next few days, I understand. I hope we'll be able to canvass that question in much more detail.

If I might get to the question of process and consultation, could the minister outline for us, please, the process of consultation with GVTA that led to the tabling of this bill?

Hon. K. Falcon: There are really two types of public consultation that took place here. The first was the public consultation that took place by the GVTA over this. I appreciate the member raising this, because it's good to get on the record that there were actually several options that the GVTA looked at. One was to essentially triple the sales tax on paid parking from 7 percent to 21 percent. The second option was a substantial increase in property taxes, and the third was the parking-stall tax option.

After undertaking the consultation, the overwhelming feedback that the GVTA, I understand, heard from most of the folks involved in this discussion was that they preferred the parking-stall tax alternative as the preferred choice.

In terms of our own involvement, we became involved because the original GVTA legislation in 1998, though it allowed the GVTA to implement a parking-stall tax, was written in such a way that it didn't effectively allow them the tools or provide them the legislative tools to actually collect the tax. There was a lot of ambiguity and, frankly, drafting challenges with the original legislation. Upon consultation with the GVTA, it very quickly became apparent to us that there would need to be changes made to allow for the appropriate implementation of the parking-stall tax option. That's a part of the consultative process that we had with the GVTA.

I might add that at the same time as we became more involved in making sure that the wording of this act was appropriate, we also became aware of concerns in the community, particularly in the development community, about what impact this may have on them — or their perception of the impact. We certainly made sure that their voices were heard. We listened to their concerns, and we've tried to reflect some of the concerns in the ultimate drafting of the legislation.

D. Chudnovsky: I think I'll finish with this, depending on the answer that we get. I think I hear the minister saying — and I'd be interested to hear his response — that this, in fact, was a process of effective community consultation taken on by GVTA which to the best of our understanding reflects the points of view of people who live in the region. That point of view got brought forward to government, and government then acted. Is that a fair summary of what we've seen?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think that is very accurate. In fact, I would probably be even more candid with the member in stating for the record that I dislike this tax personally. Many members of my caucus dislike this tax.

But I must tell you that I feel a strong moral obligation regardless of my personal feelings on this particular tax, regardless of the many weaknesses I believe that this tax still entails. I still think, given that the GVTA did go through all the processes that were allowed under the original legislation…. They did go through a very extensive public consultative process. They did engage in public opinion polling over this issue. They did, in fact, take a lot of heat at public meetings over the different options that were discussed.

I feel very strongly that in spite of the fact that I happen to intensely dislike any new tax but also don't like this particular tax, I still feel a moral obligation. Because they have fulfilled every requirement that needs to be fulfilled under the original legislation implemented in 1998, we do have an obligation to provide, essentially, just the wording changes that will allow them to actually do what was always intended under the original GVTA legislation.

D. Jarvis: Minister, I feel that I have to get on record on this aspect. It's very difficult for me to comprehend that we are prepared to implement or impose a new tax on it, especially with our ideology, which is a little bit different: that we wanted to come to government to reduce the tax burden.

Now, I appreciate that your intentions are good, and you mentioned that you had a moral feeling towards this bill, but in essence what I think we're doing is bailing out the previous government's failure to put this bill forward in a proper manner when they downloaded it to the GVTA. Now we're faced with the position of having to bail out the previous government from their failure to put in a good bill at that time.

As I said, the ideology of this government is to reduce the tax burden. It's a key point. We need it to revitalize the economy, and yet we are adding on this tax here. As I say, I'm having difficulty, with my riding alone in North Vancouver, that first of all it's a non-competitive tax — especially when TransLink is already funded through the property tax, transit fare tax increases, the regular gas tax. There's a hydro levy as well. There's a problem that I think we have to deal with.

I'm hearing from my chamber of commerce. They're upset. You say there's been a lot of consultation; they say there has not. New car dealers are complaining about it to me in the mail and on the telephone. The North Shore Small Business Association is against this tax because they feel it's punitive for them. The B.C. small business council is up in arms over the situation and are contacting us. They are a very sober voice of business in this province, those groups.

When I mention they're getting taxes from elsewhere, there's something lacking, from what I can see, in here. You're looking after, say, a three-year funding period, but it goes on for ten years down the line, and I don't see anything inside there where you or TransLink are going to be open and transparent on their funding situation. The people in my riding look at it and say: "What are we faced with? Are we going to be hit with more tax at the end of the next three years? Is it going on and on?"

I can remember when this was brought in by the previous government and they downloaded it to the GVTA. I can remember Mr. Puil, who was the chairman at that time, coming around to my riding. I went to every council meeting and everything and spoke against it. He assured us that no tax of this TransLink would ever be put on homeowners or business property owners.

It appears at this time that that's not exactly what is occurring. I would ask the question at this point: how do we know, from what is in this bill as it is at the present time, that this is going to solve TransLink funding?

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm sympathetic to the essence of the points that the member is making. Again, I think that we had a piece of legislation that was passed by a prior government — but nonetheless, a government of the province of British Columbia — that did allow and provide for the ability of the GTVA, upon their own decision-making process, to implement…. Poorly drafted as it frankly was, we nevertheless had a situation where the GTVA did go through a very extensive consultative process.

I might add that when the options were reviewed, there was very strong opposition back in October 2004 to the recommendation they were initially looking at, which was to take the sales tax on the existing paid parking and essentially triple that from 7 to 21 percent. The result of that very strong public backlash was that a diverse group of stakeholders lobbied against that and actually said they preferred the parking-stall tax option.

Granted, it was what would be commonly described as the lesser of two, or perhaps three, evils. But that group of stakeholders that ultimately suggested they would prefer the parking-stall tax over the tax that was originally being looked at by TransLink included, for example, the cities of Vancouver and White Rock. It included the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, the B.C. Automobile Association, the GVRD, and environmental groups — for example, BEST, the Better En-

vironmentally Sound Transportation; and SPEC, the Society Promoting Environmental Conservation.

I don't want for a second, though, to in any way suggest to this House that this is something that has received wide acclaim and that there are folks out there that are particularly thrilled about this — because there aren't.

However, the second point of the member's concern is one of the things we heard when we started engaging in discussions with the chambers of commerce and started listening to the concerns of the real estate industry and development industry. We did put in, as a result of those consultations, two things that I think go a long way towards addressing some of the concerns that have been raised.

The first is a review mechanism. Lay people may refer to it as a sunset clause; we prefer the term review mechanism. The review mechanism states, as we will see as we go through this legislation, that there is a requirement to review this particular tax within ten years. So within a ten-year period we have the ability, indeed the obligation, to review this.

The second thing is a cap on the proposed parking-stall tax — a cap that is actually written in legislation and represents $1.43 per square metre or $45.13 per stall. This will provide some certainty that this isn't an open-ended obligation being provided.

I think that and the third point the member made had to do with whether they're appropriately able to finance their ambitious — granted — ten-year plan given that they are only providing for three years out on the ten-year plan. I think that is something that TransLink will have to wrestle with, and I won't pretend to speak to them nor to their capability or ability to fund that ten-year plan. What I can say is that we recognize that by putting into place the review mechanism and the cap, we are signalling very clearly that this is not an open-ended commitment by the province in terms of their ability to utilize this for providing an unending, open commitment in terms of financial revenues.

Hon. C. Richmond: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

Mr. Speaker: Hon. members, I'm going to read my decision. I've been asked by the official Opposition House Leader to consider an application under Standing Order 35 that the House do now adjourn to discuss a matter of urgent public importance — namely, the teachers strike in the province of British Columbia.

Firstly, I wish to thank the official Opposition House Leader for giving the Chair notice beforehand of his intention to raise this motion. I have listened with great care to the representations made by both House Leaders and must make a determination as to whether or not the motion as presented complies with standing orders of this House and precedents from past years.

Dealing with a Standing Order 35 application on April 19, 1992, I note that the focal point of that application was described as an environmental emergency involving the Asian gypsy moth and a program of aerial spraying of pesticide over specific areas of the province. In that case, the contemplated spraying was due to commence less than a week following the application for an emergency debate. The second case quoted to the Chair was a decision on March 28, 1995, involving a budget leak, and I find the fact pattern of little assistance in the present case before the House today.

What is contemplated throughout the Commonwealth under Standing Order 35 is a sudden emergency arising in domestic or foreign matters which requires immediate debate and no provision is available for debate. As often has been stated, when the House has embarked on a general debate or when estimates are before the House, permission has not been granted to move such a motion.

The Chair must ask whether or not there is another opportunity for debate or the matter has already had substantial debate in the current session. A further question is whether or not the matter is an ongoing issue as opposed to something that has suddenly and unexpectedly arisen in the province.

There is another longstanding rule governing the relationship between parliament and the courts, and that is that the parliament has declined to enter into debate on the matter that is currently being considered by the courts.

The Chair, perhaps, is stating the obvious in acknowledging that the subject matter of this motion is indeed urgent, but the urgency contemplated by Standing Order 35 is urgency for debate. With great respect to the applicant in this matter, the Chair feels that in light of the decided cases and the standing orders of the House, the urgency for debate has not been established. Accordingly, the motion does not succeed.

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in this chamber continued committee debate on Bill 9 and in Committee A, for the

information of members, continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Community Services.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 9; S. Hawkins in the chair.

D. Jarvis: I want to continue on with a couple of questions to the minister with regards to Bill 9.

As I said before, it was a concern about this bill and quite a few aspects of it. Probably one of the major concerns I have, and I think that most people don't realize what's happening…. It's the fact that in my riding of North Vancouver, I have the Lynn Valley Mall, and just past that I have the Parkgate Mall. Halfway between is the Seymour Creek Mall, which is run by the Squamish first nations. So if we're going to put parking taxes on malls…. I look at the situation in my riding, and I have two of my malls, out of the three, that are paying taxes and one that doesn't pay any tax. That will result in quite an inequity, as far as this bill goes.

I look down further and see, for example, Park Royal in West Vancouver with Marine Drive going down the middle. The south side of Park Royal doesn't pay taxes. The north side will have to pay taxes — more inequity. So that's one of the questions I wanted to ask you: is there any way that…? We're going to have to change this, I think. It's an inequity that makes it bad for small businesses. There's a grocery store in the Lynn Valley Mall that's going to pay more taxes than the grocery store down in the Seymour Creek Mall, and that's wrong, I believe.

The other question is: how are we going to measure or implement this tax as far as assessing these parking stalls? The bigger malls — yes, I can see that. You've got so many square feet. The assessor can do it. But how are they going to do it with regards to Lonsdale Avenue, for example?

There's insufficient parking on the street for all the customers, so all their parking is at the rear of their premises. Now, you take the rear of the premises. That's where the owner and any of his staff are going to park their cars. They don't want to put them out on the street because it takes away from their customers, and they need room in there for all their goods that come in by truck. It just doesn't fly into the business. They need room. Here we are. This is a convenience for them — the fact that they can put their cars there and have their goods come in and go out, whatever may be the circumstances. Again, there's another inequity involved there.

I was wondering if the minister can tell me: is there any hope or change with regards to those that are in direct competition to the aboriginal group, because they're going to get a better deal if you have a business down there than you do elsewhere? How are they going to assess this tax on the small lots, other than the large malls that have parking areas for them?

Hon. K. Falcon: I think those are two very good questions. I'll start with the first part of your question first and then deal with the latter part after.

The first part of your question refers to first nation lands, sometimes known as reserve land. The question is: is there an unfairness for those properties that may be located on the reserve lands as opposed to non-reserve land? I know the examples the member has raised are ones that I'm very familiar with, having grown up on the North Shore too. So I am very much aware of what the member speaks about.

First of all, I think it's important to state this. Where first nations have lands with commercial development on them, first nations are themselves independently assessing and taxing the land and improvements on that particular property or respective reserve land. Thus, the parking-stall tax would not form part of that. I guess that the easiest way to explain it is that if they are currently paying municipal property taxes, then they will be paying the parking-stall taxes. If they are lands on which the property tax is currently not being paid, it is very unlikely that they will also be paying the parking-stall tax.

I do think it's important just to elucidate that question, in that it has long been established that on first nation lands they have the ability to raise their own revenues and implement their own taxation levels on their own without municipalities also being able to tax those lands. That will not change. That fundamental principle will not change. Whether over time there is an inherent unfairness that builds up is something that, really, I'm not as knowledgable about, because I'm not totally familiar with what rates are currently being charged by the first nations to the commercial improvements on the lands that you're speaking of.

The second part of the question refers to small businesses along Lonsdale, again, which I'm very, very familiar with. The bottom line is this. If they are parking stalls associated with that small business, whether they are utilized by employees, by owners or by customers makes no difference. They are parking stalls that will be subject to the parking-stall tax. I think that in many of the cases that the member mentions, those parking spaces he talks about are not large in number, in my recollection of Lonsdale Avenue.

I don't want to in any way derogate from the fact that however small that annual cost may still be to that small business, it is indeed an annual cost, and it's an unhelpful annual cost. It just adds to what are often many other charges that small businesses have to deal with every day. That is why, again, I want to emphasize that though we and I have spoken quite candidly

about the fact that this is not a tax that I take any particular enjoyment in having to implement, I do believe that it is an important moral obligation to follow through on the very credible efforts that the GVTA has undergone in terms of going through all of the appropriate consultative requirements they are required to do and to follow the intent, the spirit and the wording of the original 1998 GVTA legislation.

D. Jarvis: You can be guaranteed that for the non-aboriginal businesses that are on aboriginal land and that are having to pay rent, the rents are in balance with the people across the street that are not on aboriginal land, because they want to be competitive. If they're not competitive, they're not going to be competitive. This bill will make them non-competitive the opposite way, without question. I'm having difficulty, as I said earlier before the break, in supporting it.

I want to also ask my last question. The proposal is that they've got to raise an estimated $25 million in taxes, and it's been said that the cost of raising it will be some $6 million. So that leaves them with $19 million, short of what they require. Can you give me any actual figures as to the cost of getting the assessment authority to establish the tax, and where that difference is going to be made up? Could you reiterate, again, if there is a sunset clause in this whole procedure?

Hon. K. Falcon: In terms of the costs that the member is likely referring to, the $5 million or $6 million was the cost of establishing the roll. There was a cost involved in establishing the roll. That will not be the ongoing cost of actually collecting the tax. One thing that is clear in this legislation, though, is that any costs that are incurred, whether it's costs incurred by the province or by municipalities in the collection of this tax, TransLink is obligated to make whole — in other words, to reimburse the cost to the local government or to the province. What is anticipated in this is that even with those costs, TransLink and the GVTA have identified that, on a net basis, they anticipate raising about $20 million even after payment of those costs back to the province or the municipalities.

V. Roddick: There really does appear to be general concern about this bill overall. In Delta South we have no charge for parking anywhere in the center core of the constituency. Our chamber, the Ladner Business Association and the Tsawwassen Business Association all feel that this bill is a direct hit to small local community businesses who have gone out of their way — very often at the insistence of the municipal government — to provide off-street parking for their establishments. The mini-malls in both Ladner and Tsawwassen, which have their own parking lots, will be compelled to add the cost onto the rents, again targeting small business. This seems to go against what we've been trying to promote in this province, which is a good business environment. The business community of Delta South would appreciate the minister's comments on this issue.

Hon. K. Falcon: I think it is very important to state that any time government at whatever level imposes a new cost on small business, I don't think we should delude ourselves and pretend that this is not an additional burden. It clearly is.

I think that the concerns the member has raised are actually concerns that the GVTA heard loud and clear while they were going through the consultative process. When they went through the consultative process back in October of '04, one of the things that they heard when looking at actually getting the revenues from the tripling of the sales tax on paid parking was that there was an inherent unfairness about how that would disproportionately impact largely Vancouver and the downtown core that apply paid parking and , in effect, disproportionately leave off the hook many of the suburbs, including Surrey and Delta, that don't have, in large measure, paid parking on most of their parking areas.

After hearing that feedback, as I say, nobody was jumping for joy at any of the options. There was no doubt that the vast majority of the folks that wanted their voices heard were very clear: they preferred the parking-stall tax, with all its inherent shortcomings, to the other two options being looked at by GVTA, which was the property tax increase and the tripling of the sales tax on paid parking. It was a pretty wide-ranging group, including the Vancouver Board of Trade, the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, the cities of White Rock and Vancouver. I believe Surrey was even in there, too, as I recall, in some of the initial discussions.

Again, to state for the record: this is not a tax that this government introduces with any sense of enthusiasm. I think it is a tax that this government would rather not have to be providing the legislative changes necessary for the GVTA to implement it. I go back to the fundamental issue here, and that is that the GVTA always had this ability. When the previous government introduced legislation in 1998 to implement this tax, they did not have the language clarity in the act to allow them to appropriately collect it. So what we are doing, essentially, is providing the legal clarification in the wording to allow them to actually collect the parking-stall tax.

As I have said many times before, it is not a tax that we introduce with enthusiasm. In fact, it is not a provincial government tax. This is a GVTA tax, a tax that they have been empowered by legislation to implement, and all the province is doing is following through on what, in essence, is a moral commitment to provide the language changes necessary so that they can collect and implement the parking-stall tax.

V. Roddick: I thank the minister for his comments. I don't know that my constituents will go along with it, but nevertheless…. Could the minister please clarify

things like hospital parking and civic parking, which includes streets? It really does appear that we have one level of government taxing other levels of government, and as usual, there's only one taxpayer.

Hon. K. Falcon: The essence of the member's question: is government taxing government? The short answer is no. What is provided for are some very clear exemptions in the legislation — exemptions that exclude federal lands, for example, from taxation.

Exemptions are provided in the GVTA act that exempt, for example, residential or class 1 properties; class 7 properties; managed forest land; class 9 properties, which is farmland, for example, and which would be a big issue in Delta and also in Surrey, Langley, etc.; and any property that is wholly exempt through section 131 of the School Act and other acts it refers to, like the Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter, etc. — so that would exempt hospitals, for example. So in the GVTA act there are exemptions laid out that very clearly set out what applies and what doesn't apply under this parking-stall tax.

My next question is about the possibility of future parking spaces. This is a genuine concern in our area. For instance, if you have a greenspace or a lawn area in the middle of, say, a pub and hotel thing, could some zealot out there say, "Well, this could be used as parking," and tax this as well?

Hon. K. Falcon: The key principle here is whether the parking is available for use — in other words, whether the area is available for use for parking. Really, this comes down to a reasonableness test that will be utilized by the GVTA, who will ultimately make that determination.

It is not unlike the existing rights you have under property tax collection. If somebody wishes to make an argument that there's unreasonableness in terms of what is being utilized or called into question by the GVTA for collection of the parking-stall tax, they have the ability under this act to go through the review and the appeal processes that you also have the right to under property tax collection. That's one part of it.

The other is that there really is a practical element to this. To lead off on the example that the member used, if you have a large parking lot: what is common in parking lots, especially in shopping centres, is often a requirement by the municipalities to have, for example, landscaping provisions, where you will have parking; a landscaped area with trees and grass, etc.; and then more parking. Clearly, those areas that are landscaped and treed are not available for parking.

Were they to try and apply the parking-stall tax on that area, there would be a very easy mechanism for the owner of the lands to come forward to the review or appeal board with that issue. It's got to be land that is available for parking use. Hopefully, that adds some clarity to the member.

My last question is really on behalf of all my constituents. What appears to be on the horizon is pay parking for everyone everywhere in Delta South, despite the fact that we have very little benefit locally from the GVTA or TransLink. What avenue does the average person have in this case to address the definite lack of cluck for their buck, so to speak, locally?

Hon. K. Falcon: Far be it from me to have to defend or justify what it is or it isn't that the GVTA may be undertaking. I will leave that to the GVTA. I can tell you that as a resident of Surrey, the second-largest city in the province, I often look at our transportation system and wonder how it is possible that we could have such an inadequate system in a key part of the lower mainland for so many of the residents.

In fairness to the GVTA, I do think that part of what they're undertaking with the revenues that the parking-stall tax will provide — and also, in large part due to the efforts of the Premier and others to work with the federal government to return some of the federal gas tax revenues — is a major expansion of public transit in terms of well over 1,000 new buses being added to the system within the GVTA — and, of course, strategic investments in infrastructure, whether it's the Golden Ears Bridge or the RAV line or some other road projects that they have in their plans. All of those will, hopefully, make some contribution so that areas like Delta South and South Surrey can feel that they are actually getting some value.

Again, I think that one of the legitimate criticisms of the parking-stall tax is that it is an indirect tax on the public. The public really doesn't see this tax. That's probably why it's a tax that in some ways has more appeal than other taxes that would be very visible. It does impact on the small business community, and I don't think we should try and pretend that it doesn't.

As I say, there is also the flip side of that. The flip side is that the GVTA is planning a major expansion of public transit and of road and bridge infrastructure investment in the lower mainland. I believe that the combination of that will also provide benefits for some of those small businesses that are legitimately concerned about anything that will increase some of their costs.

H. Bloy: I've had a lot of concern from large shopping centres within my area: Coquitlam town centre, Lougheed town centre, Brentwood town centre, Burquitlam Plaza. Their concern is about this group of non-elected officials that is charging a tax. They watch this non-elected group of officials, how they handled the RAV line, and they're terrified of what's going to happen with these additional dollars. On top of that, when they're putting this tax in…. You know, once governments tax, it's hard to get rid of a tax. How will we get rid of that tax? There is a lot of fear out there from the business community that this is an unneces-

sary tax and that it should be more directed. If I could find out how, I can talk to the constituents in my riding.

Hon. K. Falcon: Two things. The first is the question of the unelected nature of the TransLink board. It's certainly something we hear many, many times. As you know, one of the things that I committed government to look at was governance structure in TransLink. That commitment remains. That's something that government will, in due time, be taking a look at.

The second thing really refers to the concerns that many of those same folks addressed to me and to government — those that owned many of these large shopping centres and were concerned with the impact that that would have on many of their tenants. As I say, I don't, nor have I ever tried to, take away from the fact that that will be an impact and that it will be felt by businesses. I think that's realistic.

I also think what we did was listen to those concerns by many of those shopping centre owners that had those concerns. As a result of that, we put into place two provisions that I think go a long way towards meeting that concern. The first is a cap on their ability to tax. There is a hard cap in the legislation that will limit the ability of TransLink and the GVTA to increase that tax to a level that they wish. They won't have that ability.

The second is a review mechanism that states that within ten years, government will have the ability to review this parking-stall tax and determine whether, in fact, the benefits essentially outweigh the costs that are involved and imposed. That's something that government will have the opportunity to review, and that was consistent with what we heard from many of the individuals and groups that the member was good enough to bring to my attention.

L. Mayencourt: I wonder if the minister could tell me: how many parking stalls there are in the GVTA?

Hon. K. Falcon: They're still in the process of gathering all of that information, but what I can give you is sort of an estimate that they've come forward with to this point, which is about 624,000 parking stalls.

L. Mayencourt: How much does the GVTA expect to raise annually from this tax?

Hon. K. Falcon: They expect to raise annually, on a net basis, about $20 million.

L. Mayencourt: Okay, so the reason we're implementing this tax here, or at least this proposed tax, is to cover a shortfall for the GVTA. Am I correct in assuming that that would be a shortfall of about $200 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: TransLink has a $3.9 billion transportation plan over ten years. The funding commitments that we're able to see are over three-year periods, so I have heard anecdotally suggestions that in the out years they may face some kind of a shortfall. I don't know whether $200 million is the right number or not.

What I do know is that as part of their ten-year plan, this parking-stall tax is really an incremental, relatively small amount of what they're looking for to fund that larger transportation plan. Obviously, they've got fare revenue increases. Assessment values went up, as I recall, which means increased property tax revenues. They've got other forms of revenues, including fuel tax revenues, that they are allocated to fund their program.

I can't comment knowledgably on whether in the out years they have pressure or not. What I can tell you is that this was a form of taxation that they have always been allowed to collect since the legislation was written and introduced by the previous government in 1998.

They went through the appropriate consultative process. As a result of that appropriate consultative process, they made a decision. After many, many public hearings, etc., the TransLink board has at least on two occasions reaffirmed that decision, and they are now coming to us to ask for the technical changes to the legal wording to ensure that they can actually collect that tax, and we are following through on that obligation.

L. Mayencourt: I thank the minister for the answer to that. It may seem like a small amount, but I live in a neighbourhood that has small businesses all along Davie, Denman, Robson. All of those guys are small business people; 97 percent of our employment is through small businesses. In my neighbourhood I've had property tax increases that have been just out of this world, to a point where I've had businesses shut down.

As we look at the potential for this being a $200 million tax or a $500 million tax, we've got to start to think about: are we going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg? The goose that laid the golden egg is the small business people across the GVTA. As a business owner, you don't get to decide whether you want a parking stall or not, like in Vancouver. You want a restaurant? You're going to have to have a parking stall for every six seats, and so on and so forth. Small business is obliged to make those kind of payments to the GVTA under this proposal.

If we can get a better idea of what their…. Are they trying to raise $200 million, or are they trying to raise $500 million?

Hon. K. Falcon: The last part of your question first. This is an incremental part of a whole range of revenue sources that TransLink has to fund, admittedly, a very ambitious transportation investment program. It utilizes tax revenues from a whole range of sources, including the federal government's recently announced cities program, where they return a portion of the gas tax to municipalities to invest in projects. That will

form a large part of the revenue source. They have revenue sources from property taxes, revenue sources from the payments that people make to ride public transit, etc. All of those are part of what goes into the pie of funding the $3.9 billion, ten-year program that is available. This is a small, incremental part of that, granted.

To get to the core of the member's question, which has to do with the first part of the member's question, which is the impact on small business, I am keenly aware of the kind of businesses the member talks about in his neighbourhood, because I spend an enormous amount of time down there. But I do think we also have to, in some ways, put this in some perspective. A small business down in the area that the member talks about — let's use English Bay as an example — may have ten parking stalls with their small business. At the highest rate at which we have capped this, which is just about $45 per stall — that's if they moved up to the very top rate at which we have provided a cap, which is not the rate at which they are starting, according to the consultations they've undertaken and the numbers they've used — that would represent a cost to the small business of about $45 a month.

Again, I don't want to take away from the fact that $45 a month is still a cost. That's an additional cost that they didn't have to pay before, and it's a burden that they would much rather not have to pay. I totally accept that. But from the provincial government's point of view, though I stand here…. I can tell you in all sincerity that I bring this forward with great reluctance, because it is an additional burden regardless of how we wish to define it.

I can also say that I feel very confident that the corporate tax cuts that we have implemented as a government have made a significant benefit to many of those small businesses. The regulatory reductions we have made — the 40-percent reduction in regulation that we have also put into place — has provided great relief to the small business community.

Finally, I would say this, because I hear some comments from the opposite side of the House. One thing we are doing very differently than those members opposite did is that when the government and the GVTA brought forward a recommendation, as the member may recall they did with the licence plate thing, we didn't pull the carpet out from underneath them. What we are saying is that they have gone through the appropriate consultations. They are implementing something that the previous NDP government actually introduced as legislation. This is actually their legislation. Sadly, it was drafted in a way that did not in any way provide any kind of clarity — or protection to the taxpayer, for that matter, in terms of capping it, in terms of having a review period, etc.

We have added those safety features to protect the type of small businesses that member talks about. But more importantly, what we have done, even with great reluctance, is acted differently than the previous government acted in a case like this. We have said that as much as we dislike this — as much as we dislike the fact that they're adding a burden on small business — we will honour and we will make those changes. We will allow that implementation because that was already contemplated in legislation in 1998 that was introduced and passed by the previous NDP government. Because they had gone through the appropriate consultative process and because they had gone through every hoop that was put into place for them to make this decision, we will honour that decision, however much we personally may dislike the impact that it may have on some small businesses and despite the fact that we personally and I personally am not happy to have to do this.

I do feel a moral obligation. Because of that, we will implement. And because of that, the GVTA will be held accountable by many members of the business communities and much of the public out there to actually meet the transportation commitments they have made to the lower mainland. They will have an obligation to do so. Hopefully, the benefits that we will all receive as members of the lower mainland will be more than the cost that is imposed on some of these small business people that will have to deal with the impact.

L. Mayencourt: Just so that the minister is clear, I supported RAV. I support the new buses that we're buying for Vancouver, and I support the transportation initiatives that have been put forward by TransLink. It's just that I'm concerned about the sort of open-endedness of this, because if I was to say that….

L. Mayencourt: Forty-five dollars per year, per parking stall — not per month. Thank you.

Let's say we sort of even it out, and it's 40 bucks. That's $25 million a year. That's a lot of money. So what I'm trying to get at…. Are they trying to hit $250 million or $200 million? What's their goal here? Because if they have a goal of, say, $200 million and they do really well on it and in year six they've reached that $200 million, then in theory this wouldn't be necessary. What I'm trying to figure out is: what is their goal? What are they trying to achieve through this tax? Because that's what's going to hurt the small business people, and by that, it's going to hurt you and me when we go shopping.

I just need to know: is there a cap here on how much revenue they can raise from this, or are we just going to let them keep on doing it until ten years from now and then argue about it again then?

Hon. K. Falcon: The short answer is yes, there is a cap. That's why we put into the legislation a cap, a hard cap, to ensure that there wasn't going to be a situation where there was an open-ended potential liability for a lot of the small businesses that that member quite rightly speaks out in defence of. So there will

be a hard cap. The hard cap is $45.13 per stall, and it's $1.43 per square metre. That is the hard cap that's in place; that is the upper-end amount that they can move forward with.

In their public consultations to date TransLink and GVTA have indicated that they will be implementing a $1.02-per-square-metre charge. So it will not be at the cap that we've set into place, but I think that by setting that hard cap into place, we have provided some comfort that that open-ended liability has been dealt with.

The second thing I want to emphasize that we, the province, have added is that review provision, so that this isn't something, as the member rightly points out, that will be in there till the end of the years as we know them. There is written in this legislation a provision, a review mechanism, that within ten years we will review the parking-stall tax, and the government of the day can look at that and determine whether it was meeting the original objectives that were set out when GVTA brought this in and whether the benefits, in fact, have surpassed the costs that were imposed by the implementation of the parking-stall tax.

L. Mayencourt: I guess what I'd like to just say in conclusion to all of this is that I want to see TransLink do a good job and build a transportation system. I want them to be open and accountable to it. I'd like to know how much money they want to raise off of this particular tax, and they must have given us some forecast. I would like to know that.

There's a potential here to raise $24 million annually for ten years. That's the potential. That's the worst-case scenario, but it is a worst-case scenario. I want to know that they're only trying to raise $200 million or $195 million, or what have you. I know that we can't get that answer right now, but I would appreciate it if the minister would get it for me on behalf of the constituents that I'm speaking for right now.

As I said, my neighbourhood has been…. We've got a huge building boom downtown. That's great for people that are buying houses, and it's a real good sign and all that sort of stuff, except that I've got people that can't afford…. The tenant, the small business person and the person that's got the shoe repair spot on Denman Street are going to be paying this. That's who's going to pay it. Then everybody that gets their shoes fixed is going to be paying it again. I would just feel a lot more comfortable if we were reviewing this in a shorter time period and if I knew, for instance, that they wanted to raise $200 million and that we were able to do that in five years because the economy's good — I don't know why — and that we could shut this down a little earlier.

I know that the minister understands my point of view on this one. I think it's a lousy tax. I don't feel good about it. I don't feel good about voting for it. I want the minister, I want TransLink and I want the GVTA to understand that there are limits. Right now we are nickel-and-diming small businesses. Every time we cut a tax provincially, someone raises it on another level. I think we should be very careful about that. I think that city council should be careful about that. I think that we as government should be careful about it.

I think that authorities like the GVTA have to be especially careful because, as the member for Burquitlam said, they're not elected, and therefore, they're not as accountable as a politician would be. So they wouldn't be, you know, able to sit down…. There's no way for the public to get even with them if they do something bad. I think that's something that happens in this House. If we do something wrong, people come at us. We have to defend it, or we take our lumps.

Anyway, you've got my point. I think the minister has my point as well. I would just like to see that everybody really thinks long and hard whether it's going to be $1.03 per square metre or 75 cents per square metre or, God forbid, whether it's going to be $25 million a year.

Hon. K. Falcon: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Bill 9, Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority Amendment Act, 2005, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. C. Hansen: Now I rise in my capacity as Minister of Economic Development. I move that the bill now be read a second time.

The government has made it a priority to help diversify the economy of northern British Columbia through the Northern Development Initiative Trust, which was established one year ago, in October 2004, with an initial investment that went into that trust of $135 million in funds from the B.C. Rail–CN Rail partnership.

The Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act provides the Northern Development

Initiative Trust with an additional $50 million in investment funds. Now, $30 million dollars of this amount is for a pine beetle mitigation cross-regional account to help communities respond to the beetle infestation. The funds will assist affected communities to help ensure a long-term and sustainable future for the forest sector and the forest workers.

There is also an additional $20 million to be distributed equally amongst the initiative's four regional accounts located in the Peace, Prince George, the northwest and the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet regions. These additional funds will help leverage new investment and partnership to build economic strength. That makes for a total of $185 million in seed capital to create new jobs and opportunities that benefit families and businesses located in the Northern Development Initiative Trust region — lots of good news.

The investments that northern British Columbian communities make with the moneys will generate significant economic growth in northern B.C. for many generations to come. The other provisions in the act include, first of all, adding agriculture to the sectors eligible to receive northern development initiative funding. Secondly, we are putting in a requirement for a review and evaluation of the Northern Development Initiative Trust Act by an independent committee every five years, and that will further promote public accountability. Thirdly, we are putting in a sunset clause to provide for the dissolution of the initiative trust after its funds are spent.

The amendment act will improve the initiative's governance and accountability through legislated best practices. Targeted changes require the board to hire a CEO and a chief financial officer, to prepare a strategic plan and annual report outlining the initiatives undertaken in their respective fiscal year, and to publicly report the trust's annual audited financial statement. A provision is included to allow for the removal of a director by a resolution of the board. These new requirements will all help to ensure that the board is publicly accountable for its decisions.

How will we know if the northern development initiative is successful? Well, the success of the investments will be demonstrated over time by job creation, by business development and by better-integrated planning amongst northern communities. We also hope to see some partnership investments with business and various levels of government to further develop and diversify the economic base of the north.

Mr. Speaker, regional development boards will use this additional $50 million free of provincial government interference. It is northern communities who will decide how to apply the funding across the region to achieve the best possible benefits for local businesses and families. The goal is that regional actions to meet regional challenges will complement the government's endeavours to create a broad prosperity for all people in every region of the province.

M. Farnworth: It's a pleasure to rise on Bill 6. My comments will by and large apply to the follow-on bills, because the series of trusts throughout the province attempts to address many of the same issues.

I must admit that on listening to the minister's initial comments, I am surprised about one comment that he made. I feel I've got to comment before I get into the main body of my remarks. He said: "How will we know whether or not the bills have worked or whether the trusts have worked?" And he listed a whole series of things. I thought it could have been summed up much more succinctly. That is, we'll know if it has worked if there are a lot of dead bugs in this province, if we see the pine beetle no longer infesting our forests. But that's an aside.

Anyway, it's a pleasure to speak to this particular piece of legislation, because it does accomplish a number of things on concerns that the opposition has had. We supported this bill in a previous parliament, which I was not a member of at that time. The opposition supported it at that time. We support any opportunity to get funds into communities across the province, whether it's in northern British Columbia, the interior or northern Vancouver Island. We think that is something that is worthwhile.

What we have, though, is a series of questions around some of the flaws in those initial bills that this legislation is intended to deal with. For example, as the minister quite rightly noted, the list of sectors that are eligible for funding and for projects has been expanded to include agriculture. We're pleased to see that, yet we're puzzled as to why that was not there in the first place. So we'll have some questions at committee stage around that and how the criteria were developed for what should be part of the funding and what sectors should not be part of the funding.

We have some questions, for example, as well, around tourism and how they may be able to access funds and the types of projects that are going to be eligible for consideration under this bill and the criteria around that. We look forward to that discussion during the debate.

This side of the House will also have a number of speakers from those very regions that are impacted by this bill. We'll talk at some length on the specific local nature and the local concerns around this piece of legislation.

It's also important to recognize that while this bill has some improvements, there are some questions that still need to be addressed — for example, particularly around first nations and first nations participation. That's a very important issue and one which we have concerns about in this bill — how first nations do access funds; how they are eligible or not eligible to sit on the advisory councils, for example; and how first nations participate — particularly in light of the government's comments around a new relationship with aboriginal peoples and first nations.

We find it interesting that as much as the government likes to criticize the opposition for its time in government, the governance of the trusts this legislation deals with and the models are based on a successful

model, the Columbia Basin Trust, which was initiated when we were in power. I just make a comment on that. It's nice to see that the government, for all its rhetoric, does recognize that there were a number of successful initiatives done during our tenure on that side of the House.

One of the things we feel very strongly about on this piece of legislation and the original legislation is that local communities must generate the ideas and drive projects. It should not be done from Victoria. We want to ensure that the amendments contained in this bill do in fact accomplish that. That is something, again, that we want to explore further in committee stage, and we will be doing so. We need to know that when we're pumping extra resources into interior, northern and northern Island communities, in fact, the money will be benefiting those areas of the province.

We hope this is something that is going to resolve some of the outstanding issues out there. We hope that the money that is there for pine beetle is something that is useful and is proactive and can help work with the issue. We want to explore that further in committee. We want to make sure that accountability and transparency are issues that this piece of legislation will deal with. That was one of the main areas in the initial piece of legislation that was very much of a concern to the public and to the opposition at that time. We note that there have been some improvements — or hopefully, they're improvements — in the legislation. We will be exploring those further, as well, at the committee stage.

With that, hon. Speaker, I want to make those just as introductory comments to the opposition's main areas of concern. We will have considerably more speakers, and we will have a vigorous examination of the bills during committee stage.

D. MacKay: I stand today in support at second reading of Bill 6. The Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, basically, is amending the act that was introduced into this House one year ago. When that act was introduced in the House a year ago, it benefited northern communities. It benefited them from the B.C.-CN agreement where we saw a billion dollars come into our province. Some $500 million was used to pay down the debt for B.C. Rail, and the other money was distributed around the province.

The northern communities realized $135 million. The province saw fit to give those northern communities $135 million from the agreement between CN and B.C. Rail. The $135 million was free of government interference. They understood that different parts of our province face different situations. It's difficult to say that one size fits all, so they provided that $135 million for the four northern parts of our province — specifically, the northeast part of our province, the northwest part of our province, the Prince George area and the Cariboo-Chilcotin.

From that $135 million we saw $50 million go into a cross-regional initiative — $50 million to help on issues that would benefit the four regions in the northern part of our province. And $15 million went to the four regions. I spoke about those four regions previously. And $25 million made up an endowment to look after the cost of administering the fund for the life of the project. So there's $135 million given to the northern communities to be spent as those northern communities saw fit.

This year we now have an amendment. The amendment actually looks after some of the shortfalls that were in the original legislation about the accountability of the money. That has been looked after in this amendment. What it does more than anything is that it puts another $50 million into the northern development initiative fund, so we now have a fund of $185 million specifically for those four northern regions of our province.

The part that I find most interesting and probably the most exciting, because of the communities that I represent…. Most of the communities are forestry-dependent. Right now the forest in the central interior part of our province is under attack by the mountain pine beetle.

So I'm extremely pleased when I look at section 4 of the addendum of the new act. It is necessary that $30 million out of that $50 million be earmarked or targeted to look after the pine beetle problem. Now, that is great news. That's great news for those small communities like Burns Lake and Houston, Vanderhoof, Quesnel, Williams Lake, Prince George — all those communities that are going to be affected by the pine beetle.

At the present time there is a great deal of forest activity taking place because of the huge volume of wood that has been affected and is going to be affected unless we get a cold winter. The pine beetle mitigation fund of $30 million is necessary, and it's legislated in Bill 6. That's $30 million on top of the $100 million that the province has committed already to look after the pine beetle problem and $100 million contributed by the federal government. So we now have roughly $230 million there to look after those small communities and, more particularly, those that rely on the forest industry for their livelihoods.

As I said, there are a lot of small communities who are solely dependent on the forest industry. Who best to decide on how to spend that money? Who best other than the people that live in those communities and see what's happening to their communities in the forest industry on a day-to-day basis? Those people are on the ground. They face that problem daily. So I think it was a smart move and a wise move to let those small communities and those small groups who are now formed, such as the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition and the Omineca action coalition, more specifically in the Williams Lake and the Burns Lake area, who have been hard hit and are going to see a dramatic change in the way we do forestry and in the way they do forestry…. For those families coming up, the only industry they know is the forest industry.

There are going to be some drastic changes there. Who best should make that decision? Should we in Victoria be making those decisions? I don't think so. I

think it's much better that the people in those communities that have got together and formed these different coalitions and committees are the ones that should be deciding how best to spend that money.

However, just in passing, the member for Cariboo North does not feel that these people who have got together to form these committees are qualified or know best how to spend that money. I'd just like to quote from Hansard, a quote from the member for Cariboo North where he said…. This was in relation to spending this money, giving it to those small communities — how best to spend that money. When he had an opportunity to speak to that, he said: "However, a haphazard and incoherent approach — throwing money at ad hoc groups as they form or into trust funds that will take 18 months or 24 months to get developed and on the ground — is not a strategy." That was a quote from Hansard wherein he was speaking of the problems he saw with allowing those small communities to spend the $185 million on issues that will keep those small communities alive and vibrant, not ten years out from now but for generations to come, because we're going to see several generations where forestry is not going to be what it is today.

I'm not sure how or where the member for Cariboo North felt that money should be spent. I'm hoping he doesn't suggest for a moment that Victoria, this Legislature, should dictate how that money is spent. I agree that there's got to be accountability, and I think this Bill 6 provides for the accountability of the money that is being spent, the public funds that are being spent.

Let me just talk for a moment about what we have done as a government to address the mountain pine beetle. I spoke previously about how the only way we're going to stop the mountain pine beetle is a rather long period of cold weather, and that doesn't seem to be on the books in the short term. We're going to continue to face some rather catastrophic downturns in the forest industry. Just to give you an example, in the year 2004, seven million hectares of forest were infected. That equates to 283 million cubic metres of wood that is soon going to deteriorate and lose its value as it sits on the stump.

Shortly after being elected in 2001, we formed the pine beetle task force. I was part of that task force, and we travelled around the province. We visited all the communities in the northwest part of our province that are being affected or going to be affected by the infestation of that pine beetle. We spoke to the loggers. We spoke to salvage loggers. We asked them what needed to be done and what we had to do as government to allow us to harvest that wood at a faster rate.

We got a lot of recommendations from those people we met with. Sanitation logging was one of the recommendations that was provided to us. We found ways to speed up the process to allow those logs or those trees that had been infested…. We found a quicker way to get that wood out of the area and hopefully reduce the infestation of green standing wood around it.

We moved the annual allowable cut to the leading edge of the infestation. We had people in the Smithers area and the Smithers timber supply area relocate their cut. Where they were harvesting greenwood, they were moved down to the Lakes District so they could harvest and capture the maximum value from those trees that had been affected.

Our Premier met with several small communities, more particularly in Quesnel, looking at ways to mitigate the issue, and finally, we have the northern development initiative fund, which is there to help those small communities through some tough times that are coming. As I said, the activity in the forest industry today is at a peak, and it's going to be there for a few years, but it is going to change.

We have to find ways to mitigate and lessen the impact on those small communities. We've got to find ways to harvest the wood quicker. We've got to find ways to utilize the wood as it sits on the stump to make sure that those communities will survive. That may mean changing the way and the use of the land from which these trees are being removed, whether that means some of the land will go back into agriculture. There's nothing wrong with that. There's a better return per acre on agricultural land than there is from the forest industry. We grow a crop every year on the agricultural lands, whereas it takes 85 or 90 years to grow a tree to maturity where we can harvest it.

There are a number of issues that are going to have to be addressed, and those issues are going to be addressed mainly by the people that live in those communities. I think that was a wise move and I look forward…. I know a lot of the people that sit on the different committees that have been formed to spend the money to mitigate and lessen the impact on those communities. They are very good people. They are honest people. They derive their livelihoods from the forest industry. I can't say enough about the people. They're giving of their time to make sure that the forest industry, for as long as it's possible, will maximize the benefit from those trees that are going to be harvested.

As I said, the public accountability has been built into Bill 6, which may have been missing from the previous Northern Development Initiative Trust Act when it was passed in 2004. All in all, Mr. Speaker, Bill 6 is closing up some loopholes, and I think I have no problem standing here today in support of Bill 6.

B. Simpson: Well, I stand today with mixed feelings about this bill before us. I couldn't agree with the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine more — and make sure that's underlined in the record — that we want to have local control over the destiny of these communities that are being impacted just now. But I want to come back to some of the other comments he made about what I'm purported to have said in Hansard in a previous debate in this House.

One of the reasons that I am concerned about this bill or have mixed feelings about it is, of course, where this money is derived from. Again, I would like to go

back to the document that the Premier said we could all hold him accountable to after he won his first term in office. In that document, under a page that said, "A new era of hope," it says, "B.C. Liberal government will" — and I quote directly — "not sell or privatize B.C. Rail."

I think it's absolutely vital that we are crystal-clear where this money is derived from. The original $135 million is from the sale of B.C. Rail. My ambivalence is a direct result of the fact that the initial money for this NDI is from a broken promise during this government's first term in office.

We agree that trust funds are an avenue that government can use to facilitate local control over dollars for economic development. Economic development is a very difficult task to undertake, particularly given that it is a transition from a resource-based economy to something that's above and beyond the resource that many of these communities have come to depend on.

I have worked in this field, and I can tell you that one of the difficult tasks that communities have in breaking their dependence on resources is that those resources always appear to be there. They've been there for such a long time that the communities begin to believe that if they try to diversify their economies, they will de facto undermine the resource industries that are there. They build a dependence, and it's very difficult to break that dependence. That's why, when the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition tabled its trust fund proposal, it recognized in there that economic development and diversification take a very long time to undertake, particularly when you're breaking that dependence on resources.

I find it curious that here we are in the fall of 2005 and we're finally getting some resources out to our communities to help them with a problem that the Premier recognized was an immediate problem in June of 2001. That's a significant time gap, and from a community economic development perspective, that time gap means that we are really behind the eight ball in making any kind of adjustment going forward.

It was within that context, for the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, that my word "haphazard" was used. This government's approach is a haphazard approach. This government's approach is a willy-nilly approach that has thrown money out only now in this year towards helping our communities to address this problem. It was not, as the member tries to intimate, anything to do with the groups that are working on the ground.

I did use the term "ad hoc," which the member and some of his compatriots seem to like to glom on to. But by definition, if they look it up in the dictionary, ad hoc simply means a group that forms itself, that comes together in and of itself. It didn't have a legislative mandate. It didn't have form or function to it. It just comes together. That's what ad hoc means. There's no judgment associated with the term. It's an ad hoc group that came together.

And why did the ad hoc group come together? They came together because this government left a vacuum that needed to be filled, and that vacuum needed to be filled by local representatives who stepped into the breach. There was no disrespect intended on my part, despite the enormous efforts by a couple of members of the government caucus to try and make that the case. We believe fundamentally in community control over their destiny, over economic development and over the diversification challenge that many of these communities affected and under the umbrella of NDI will have to deal with.

One of the things, however, that I find curious in this is that the structure of the four regions doesn't recognize that one of those regions is, of course, in the throes of a very different phenomenon, and that's a phenomenon of rapid growth. That's up in the Peace region, where it's very difficult to get people into that region to work. They have enormous challenges in terms of housing and so on to accommodate rapid economic growth. Yet in the region to the south we have the opposite. In my area, for example, we're looking at our predominant pine stands on the west side of the Fraser being effectively killed off to an almost 100-percent mortality rate by the mountain pine beetle, including juvenile stands. It's not just this current crop; it is crops in behind it.

Under the NDI act, the proportion of the funds as they're meted out to these four regions doesn't recognize those regional differences and doesn't recognize that the Cariboo-Chilcotin region is going to be dealt an immediate blow on their resource dependence; whereas the Peace region is, of course, in the throes of an economic boom that appears to have some legs to it. That's one of the questions I have and one of the things I'd like to explore with the minister when we get into committee stage — why there isn't that recognition of the regional disparities under this bill.

The second thing that I'm curious about is, of course, the membership and the fact that the government has legislated a membership here. It seems to go counter to a mantra that many of the members on the government side have used, and that's "free of government interference, free of political interference." By legislation, the regional advisory committees of this board and subsequently the majority of its board are made up by elected politicians. I would like to explore the rationale behind that when we get to committee stage, why that's the case.

Then the remainder of the board, the NDI central board, is made up by government appointees. So we have either government appointees, or we have elected politicians who make up this board. Therefore, I'd like to explore with the minister how we can talk about "free of political interference," when that's the case.

In there, as the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain pointed out, there is no room — because the membership is recognized by this government, by legislation — for first nations involvement. As the Minister of Forests and Range would know, he has before

him a document in which the first nations that met together for their beetle conference have indicated that they want to have full participation in NDI. In fact, they want to have a significant portion of the NDI board membership assigned to first nations. The way that this act is tabled and that the previous act was passed, there is no room for that. There is no room for first nations participation at the decision-making level. That's something that needs further exploration, particularly given that the government is moving towards a new relationship with first nations.

However, as I spoke with some of the first nations members who were requesting membership on the NDI board, the real decision-making process occurs at the regional advisory committees. The regional advisory committees have no appointees. The legislation is constraining that membership solely to elected officials. That begs a good healthy discussion around what the thinking is there, how first nations can engage themselves with NDI. I've had talks with numerous bands in my area, who are very disappointed with that. They're very disappointed that all they are seen as are people who write proposals to put before the NDI board. Because they have no first nations representation on either the regional advisory committee or the board itself, they have no avenue to make sure there are people on those boards and in those advisory committees who actually understand the particular circumstances in their communities and therefore will be advocates on their behalf. They're just lumped in with everybody else.

There's another group that have spoken to me about their concerns about the membership of the regional advisory committees and the membership of the board. That is the smaller communities in our locations. The way this board and the regional advisory committees are made up, it's made up of the mayors of the larger communities, it's made up of the regional district chair, and then it's made up of the MLAs. Well, in my community the regional district chair represents a very large area with many, many small communities. Those small communities have expressed significant concerns that because the large — as we look at it, Madam Speaker — urban centre mayors are on the board, their agenda and their concerns may not be heard on an equal footing with those urban centres.

We, as the province does, have an urban-rural split on a macro scale. We have an urban-rural split on a micro scale. The way that this board is structured, that could be exacerbated if there are not some constraints put on to recognize that communities like Likely, Horsefly, Nazko and Wells get some kind of funding from the northern development initiative that's independent of the constraints of pure population. So board membership on this, because the legislation is explicit about that membership, is something we need to explore in the committee stage and in particular, the absence of first nations, given the government's stated agenda of wanting that new relationship with first nations.

The other aspect of this bill that it is important for us to be crystal-clear about — as the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine and the minister himself pointed out — is that the bulk of this amendment is to put accountability mechanisms in place that were not there in the first bill. Now, as a member of the regional advisory committee, I attended that meeting with two of my caucus members. I had one of those meetings back in June of this year.

I can tell you that the people that were on the regional advisory committee were really struggling with the absence of these accountability mechanisms. They were struggling with what the real mandate of this NDI was, what were the kinds of projects that were supposed to be funded, who had the decision-making authority, what was the context within which those decisions should be made and money should be spent. And they were really struggling with their own role as members, as elected officials, in trying to make sure that these funds went to the right projects and that there was an audit trail there for them.

I concur with the government members that this is a good thing, but I would suggest that there's a glaring omission in the first act that these were not seen, that this level of accountability was not seen in the first act, and therefore, this is a fix to that. Certainly, I and the other members from my caucus who raised this issue made it crystal clear that these needed to be added in.

So I'm happy to see that that is being added in at this juncture, and again, as the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain indicated, we have some questions around whether it's sufficient. We have some questions, for example — and I'm sure the minister is already aware of this, because I believe he's had some conversations around this — about the tax implications of this money and whether or not it's tax exempt. We're being told that each one of these trusts will have to spend tens of thousands of dollars on getting an advance ruling from Revenue Canada if there's not something in this bill around its taxable income for the various groups that are going to be involved.

I'm going to go back to something else that the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine suggested, and that is that I gave a time frame of 18 to 20 months for these boards to get active and to get up and running. It is the case that this bill and the NDI process have been in the works for some time. Yet at UBCM, they announced the very first money rolling out from the original $135 million that came from B.C. Rail. They announced the very first rollout of that money, and it was in the form of a zero-interest loan to the city of Valemount. Now, that's quite a significant period of time before money rolls out.

Now we have this amendment, and this amendment puts in a lot more accountability mechanisms. It requires a strategic plan. It requires some changes in how the regional advisory committees articulate with the board. It clarifies some of the issues that were going on with NDI, where regional advisory committees were not sure whether they had the final say or the board had the final say. That is clear in this and helps

to clarify that. However, it means that, certainly in my area of the province, a whole whack of projects have now been put on hold yet again.

The new CEO for NDI, and I give her great credit, has communicated that to people. However, lots of those communities work very hard. Some of those projects are on a time-limited basis, and now we've gone and put them on the back burner yet again, and it may not be until the new year or even later that we start to get some of this money out into our communities. So again, for the benefit of the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine, there is evidence to my suggestion that boards take time to form, that you put the money into them. That doesn't mean the work is getting done.

What this accountability mechanism has done as a side effect is actually delay more some of that money getting down to the communities. I can tell you that there's a high degree of concern and consternation around this. The community of Likely, for example, held a community meeting. They held subsequent working group meetings. They worked very, very hard to get a proposal together under the NDI fund, as it was currently constructed, to get it into the regional advisory committee meeting process in September — under the guise that that was the deadline for them to be able to have the money in place to do some work in the spring — only to be told that now they're going to have to go back and rewrite and do all that process.

So that's considerable community effort that's been put at abeyance in order for this NDI to now get its house in order under the new amendment. We have some questions around that that we'll explore in the committee stage. I look forward to hearing the minister's response on some of our thinking around that.

To the matter of trusts and the amount of money that's being put in here, we are for trusts. We are for this as a vehicle for rolling money out to communities — that communities can take care of their own issues and concerns. However, one of the concerns we have is that this is one-time funding.

We've said in the election that we need to look at something much more sustainable — more long-term funding to our resource communities and a much more sustainable flow of funds. Of course, we recommended that half of the forecast allowance seemed to be a reasonable amount. You put the buffer in your budget. If you don't need to use it, it gives you a pool of funds that then can go out to these communities to grow your economy. If these communities are not growing, if they're not robust, if they aren't contributing to the provincial economy, then not only do we lose their income, but they end up becoming a drain on the economy.

We would suggest that the forecast allowance go on a regular basis. Of course, this act and the subsequent acts to follow all stipulate very clearly that it's one-time funding only. That needs to be explored. We need to find a consistent way of funding community economic development in this province, because it does take a long time. It takes a lot of effort, and it takes a lot of energy.

The other thing that the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain pointed out is that there are designated sectors. There's a bit of schizophrenia here, where again as we get the comments about "free from political interference," and allowing people to make their own decisions…. As the member for Bulkley Valley–Stikine said: "The communities know best to decide." However, the act itself constrains decision-making around projects to sectors. I understand the thinking around this, because they want the money targeted to certain areas. But it does open up the whole question and debate as to whether the sectors are clearly defined, because they are in legislation.

I can tell you from participating in the regional advisory committee process that they look very hard at those sectors to make sure they are pigeonholing the money appropriately. Those sectors hold a lot of weight for the communities when they make their decisions about projects that they would approve or not approve.

Yet, for example, arts and culture is not one of the sectors. The community of Horsefly would like to put in a very high-level arts facility in their community. They have many artisans in the community. They want to capture that. They want to add in masters and potentially Ph.D. work in arts. Yet when that comes forward to the board and to the regional advisory committees, because it's not one of the listed sectors, it does create some grief. So we need to look at those sectors to make sure that they are sufficient and also have the higher-level discussion of whether or not including them in the act as delineated sectors constrains communities from being creative.

The other aspect of the act that begs some exploration is around the strategic plan. Really, it's who determines that strategic plan; who vets it; how constraining that strategic plan will be on future activities of this board; whether or not that strategic plan will be developed in a larger, more consultative process with much more input — or whether it will simply be these appointees and the elected politicians. We need to understand that strategic planning process.

I agree that that needs to be there. I agree that's the missing context, but again, there's some concern around that. If we just roll it out the way it is, is it sufficient, and will it do the job that we want it to do?

As we have already seen, the first act on the northern development initiative was not sufficient. It caused a delay, and that delay has caused communities not to get access to this money for some time now. We now have another amendment on the table. We better make sure that that amendment won't also cause further delay and further deliberation.

One aspect of those sectors and one aspect of the strategic plan is whether or not the communities can actually get involved in infrastructure projects. It's something that's not clear in the act. I know, again, from deliberations at the regional advisory committee

level and deliberations at the board level, that people aren't clear on whether or not they can put money into infrastructure programs in their own area.

That's a legitimate question, because if you look at community economic development, there's a level that you can work at to make yourself attractive to businesses, to diversify your economy and to try and look at alternate economies and so on. However, if your fundamental infrastructure is falling apart all around you, it's an exercise in futility.

As a good example, we are incrementally loading our highway system in the Cariboo-Chilcotin region. That highway system — Blackwater Road, for example…. I've been told by the Ministry of Forests, the Ministry of Transportation and the regional district that it's a main thoroughfare for both residential traffic and school bus traffic and that an increasing number of log trucks are on that road, yet the road is disintegrating.

Our communities have legitimate questions around whether or not some of this money needs to be used to offset what the government isn't putting forward for infrastructure. We have schools closed in our areas. People would like to see whether or not that can be used to supplement the schools.

In Horsefly, for example, they're trying to attract a wide range of people to the Horsefly area. They have a beautiful part of the province to live in. They have all kinds of amenities to show, yet their school is on the bubble of closing. If that school closes, then it becomes a non-starter for attracting young families to that community.

There are questions about whether or not some of this money should appropriately be used to go into the basic attractors for communities to attract new businesses, to attract new residents — particularly residents with younger families — and to attract seniors who wish to retire. That's a question we need to look at. Again, because there is a constrained list of sectors there, it does limit these individuals from making those kinds of decisions.

In sum, I'm ambivalent about this act. I'm ambivalent because of where the money is derived from. I'm ambivalent because of some of the constraints that have been put on membership. I'm not certain, until we get into the committee stage and look at each section of this act, whether or not it does cover all the bases that need to be covered, going on our experience with the regional advisory committee. I'm not certain how the strategic planning process and the sectoral process really free up the regions to determine their own futures.

On top of that ambivalence, there are a couple of things that I think, also, really require a lot of thought and a lot of discussion. One of them is that within the NDI structure, there's the money for the four regions, and then there's a pool of funds for what are called cross-regional proposals or cross-regional activities.

I'm concerned that that may begin to pit regions against each other, because it will start to feel like a competition where these regions have to position themselves with the NDI board in order to get that cross-regional money. We need to explore what that cross-regional money means. We need to explore the mechanisms for our areas.

We don't want to have a race where each of the communities has to put their hand up and say: "I'm worse than that community, and therefore, I need that money more." That's not an appropriate mechanism. In the absence of a clearly delineated mechanism, I'm afraid that is exactly what's going to happen, where you get a Quesnel saying: "We're on the leading edge of the beetle. We're going to be hit with this thing in six to eight years. We need some of that cross-regional money." And Vanderhoof's sitting there and saying: "No, we're a worse-case scenario than that. Most of our pine is already dead." You start to get these communities competing against each other at that higher cross-regional level. We need to understand what those cross-regional funds are for and what they mean.

The final area that I have concern about is the beetle fund itself. The act is not explicit. In fact, it's quite nebulous. All it says is that $30 million is going into mitigation activities around the mountain pine beetle. Well, we have two initiatives already underway. We have the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition, and we have the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition. Under separate funding, those two groups are doing work on economic development around beetle mitigation. Those groups are also asking the question: how do they articulate with this $30 million fund that's sitting now in NDI? Why did it go there and not go out to these other two groups?

As a case in point, as I've already raised in this House once before, the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition asked for a trust fund of its own. They asked to manage a trust fund of their own. The order of magnitude of their request really puts the $185 million for the entire north of the province in perspective, because they asked for $480 million just for the Cariboo-Chilcotin. They asked for that kind of money. I know that the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition asked for $3 million, but it was $3 million to get started on understanding what their own trust fund moneys would be like.

There's a lot of confusion out there around why, then, we partition this. Why are we having these different groups operating in what appears to be the same field? Shouldn't we be doing a more concerted effort, a more coordinated effort and somehow, at least, clearly articulating in the act what the relationship is between these, particularly on the economic development side of it?

Now, I know both those groups are also working on land-based stuff, which is a whole other question, but on the economic development side of it. Again, I would suggest that that's a particularly salient point, because many of the members of OBAC and CCBAC — the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition and the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition — also sit on the regional advisory committees of NDI. It does feel like a

duplication of efforts. It does feel like there's a potential there for cross-purposes.

Madam Speaker, so that I'm not misquoted again and press releases go out, I am not saying that they are at cross-purposes. I'm saying that the potential exists because you've got two different groups operating. I think it would be a much better process if, at least, the act articulated what the relationship was.

B. Lekstrom: It's a pleasure for me to stand here this evening at second reading of Bill 6 and support it wholeheartedly. Listening to some of the discussion on this, this bill is about a number of things.

It's about enshrining some accountability measures, which I think is important. We're dealing with dollars that are going out to the public. British Columbians, I think, want to make sure that when those dollars are expended on their behalf, there's an accountability they can look towards to make sure they're expended properly.

The member for Cariboo North raised some interesting questions. The issue that he spoke about was the funds and how they'll be used. I think that for as long as I've been involved in political life and before that — living in the north, like many of us — we always felt that the governments in Victoria didn't understand. We didn't need Victoria telling us what was best for us and how to spend the money that was allocated.

This bill enhances the existing piece of legislation that was put forward and does exactly what I think the people of the north have been asking for a long time. They've been saying: "Give us the ability, give us the tools, and let us make the decisions for the people in the north by people in the north." That's what we're seeing here.

We have boards, Madam Speaker — regional advisory committees. We have four of those. We have an NDI Trust board that oversees the larger $50 million, now increased with the addition. We have a total of $185 million being invested in the northern part of our province — northern and central, depending on your definition of north. I know mine differs sometimes from my colleagues on both sides of the House.

It's an important piece of legislation. It not only enshrines the accountability portion; it actually advances additional funds — and not just for the pine beetle. It enshrines and tops up the additional funds by an additional $5 million for each of the four regional advisory committees out there.

My colleague from Cariboo North has talked about the pine beetle account. Will it create some people at odds with each other, differences? I think what it can do is build upon what we're going to see. As a province, we have to deal with the pine beetle epidemic that's facing us. It is not a government problem or an opposition problem. This is truly a British Columbia problem that we have to address. We do that to the best of our ability through discussions on this floor and through the Minister of Forests dealing with a number of ministries on what we're going to be able to do.

What this $30 million does, under Bill 6, is allow our local northern regional advisory committees and the NDI Trust to work together to see where they can add on to what we've already done in British Columbia. I'm looking forward to that. I think it's got some good ideas. I think it's going to work for everybody.

Infrastructure projects. We're adding one of the most important sections. When we put legislation in place, I think it's important to know that if there's a better way or if we can enhance that piece of legislation, that's what we do on this floor. We'll bring amendments to the floor. We'll talk about them, and if they're acceptable and people believe they're in the best interests of British Columbians, they pass this floor. That's exactly what this bill is doing.

The addition of agriculture to the permitted uses. We talked about permitted uses in the previous bill. We're adding agriculture. I think it was an oversight. Again, I heard people talk about what wasn't included, and now we're back addressing this. I'm proud we're back addressing it, because agriculture is a huge part of the economy of this province. It's a huge part of the area I represent in Peace River South and of Cariboo North. I'm sure that although we've all faced struggles in agriculture over the last number of years, it's still going strong. It's going strong for the first and foremost reason of the people that are actually involved in the agriculture industry and their love of the land, of the animals and of what they do. If we're able to help them access some additional funds through the thoughts of the people in the north for the north, I think that's a good sign. I'm very proud that we've added that.

My colleague from Cariboo North brought up the issue of infrastructure projects. I agree: if you have infrastructure around you that's deteriorating, the thought of economic development is a far thought. Without sound infrastructure, economic development isn't achievable. When I look at this bill — and I've sat on the RAC, as my colleague has — and discuss this, I would believe that an infrastructure project could fall under this.

One of the lists…. I believe there are ten items now — if this bill should pass, and I believe it will — with the addition of agriculture, and economic development is one of those ten. We talk about economic development. It has wide-ranging ideas right across this province and across this country. Again, I'll go back, and I will support what my colleague said: infrastructure is an important part of any economic development we take.

Now, what I'm going to see as a result of this bill is people from the regional advisory committees discussing issues, what they think is the best way to spend their revenue, the broader concept of the northern development initiative, looking at cross-regional functions. There are a number of issues out there, and it's going to be difficult. This is not an easy job.

Allocating the funding is one thing. Deciding how that funding will be spent is a whole other issue, and it

won't be easy. I think it's just as easy trying to find the money to spend as it is spending it sometimes. That's why we have healthy debate. We have healthy debate in this Legislature. I'm sure each and every council and regional district in this province has healthy debate when they're talking about their budgets and where they want to allocate that funding.

At the end of the day, they make decisions based on what's in the best interests of the people they represent. I think that's exactly what we're going to see under Bill 6, with the accountability measures and the addition of funding that we've added into this.

Again, it's not an easy job to spend money. I know many people will look at that comment and say, "Wow. I don't think I'd have any problem spending $100 million or $185 million," when, in fact, it's far harder than one would think. I've learned that, certainly, in the last four and a half years of my life representing the people of Peace River South and being a member of this Legislative Assembly.

I'm not going to take a lot of time. I think there will be some good discussion at committee stage on this bill, for clarification on a number of issues. For the sectors that are going to be available to access this funding, the key and most important part of this is that we're giving the autonomy to the regions to make those decisions for themselves. We're putting some guidelines on the accountability aspect and outlining where the funds should be headed. In that outlay of the ten different items that are there, economic development is one of them, and I think it's fair to say we can all define economic development in hundreds of different ways, so infrastructure, in my mind, would fall under that.

As well, just in closing, I'm not going to take a lot of time at second reading other than to say I wholeheartedly support this bill. I think it's an improvement on an existing bill. It has some additions — enhances some funding with the accountability measures and the addition of agriculture to some of the permitted uses of that funding.

I want to thank the minister for bringing this bill forward. I want to thank the people of the north, who for many, many years…. When I say north, I want to make sure the people in Prince George and the Cariboo understand I'm encompassing all of them. Without their long, hard devotion to the north and their commitment to making sure governments over the years have listened…. We know what we can do for the people of the north, in the north. I think this bill does exactly that, and I'm proud to stand here and support it. I, too, look forward to committee debate on this bill. Again, this is a good-news bill for the people of north and central British Columbia. With that, Madam Speaker, I'll close.

C. Wyse: I rise tonight in front of the House, and I would like to start off my remarks to the House by saying that generally, I am in support of the original bill and that I am also, generally, in support of the proposed amendments that are here. I have some concerns that I hope, through my discussion, I will be able to clarify for the House, and I will look forward to clarification on those items as we move into the committee stage.

Before I begin, I would like to just point out, as I've mentioned, that I support the principles of the bill that is here, but I do have reservations about where a very large amount of the funds came from for setting up the bill itself, which is from the sale of B.C. Rail. I would be negligent and misleading the House if I didn't make that statement initially when I begin.

That having been said and done, I would also like the House to be aware that I have attended two of the RAC meetings for the area that I'm from, in the Cariboo-Chilcotin-Lillooet RAC. That group of people there extended courtesy. They were looking for accountability. They were looking for transparency, which didn't exist as well as it could have in the original legislation. I do commend the members opposite for bringing forward what I believe are some improvements in this area, and for that, I do wish to acknowledge this House in that area.

I would also like the House to be aware that there are approximately 50 projects from the area I am from that have had approval-in-principle from the RAC and have been passed on to the NDI trust fund itself looking for final approvals. The new application form that is now being put into place…. These grants that have been received in principle need to be squeezed and made to fit in with the new sense of transparency. I have requested that these various areas are aware that the projects have not been cancelled. In actual fact, they are simply being brought into line with what is here in front of our House today.

In other discussions that have taken place, people, as I'm sure I am going to do, take a little bit of liberty at this stage of the bill reading and have moved all over the part of the province, pointing out the need for this particular fund and for the legislation. I'm going to be a little bit more specific and point out why I'm in favour of this fund. I'm going to limit my discussions very specifically here to Cariboo South.

Cariboo South, as I mentioned when we were in the budget speech, suffered some particularly harsh economic realities from the decisions that had been made over the last number of years. As a result of those type of realities, there is the need for this fund so that all areas, but in particular Cariboo South, have a chance of dealing with economic recovery.

Very briefly, there were tens of jobs that were lost with the sale of B.C. Rail. There were hundreds of jobs lost with the centralization of government jobs, and there were changes in the forestry act that brought pressures upon the woodlot operator, the salvage operator and the logging truck owner. I will, in actual fact, tie these items together for the need for the amendment here very quickly, but I would point out that my area also suffered from the effects of the BSE, as well as from the softwood lumber dispute.

As I've mentioned on a number of occasions, Cariboo South has had a particularly tough go over the last while. I mention that because at this moment in time it is one-time-only funding. I believe that there is need for consideration for extension of this fund rather than it possibly winding down in the future.

I had mentioned that I would relate that description to the importance of the amendment. Presently we have sitting in front of us the RAC composition, as well as much of the board itself, consisting of locally appointed elected officials. In that type of situation those local governments, having this sum of money put in front of them, have, of course, looked at directing those funds towards the projects that are important to their particular community. But in doing such, it did leave in the structure some areas of weakness that I believe at the committee stage we need to go and have a look at.

One of the situations that has developed in my part of the province, at least in part, may be resulting from the lack of first nations' involvement at the governance level. There was confusion that did exist, and the confusion existed with the initial $15 million that was set aside for first nations. In discussions of tables that I was at, there was a belief that first nations' applications then should be directed towards that particular funding. That funding disappeared very quickly. It went to approximately 25 first nations groups that had lost lands from their reserve properties directly to B.C. Rail when it had passed through their reserve properties throughout the years.

Consequently — and I will give as an example when the Ashcroft first nations band came in front of the RAC making an application — there was some confusion that those applications should have gone to this other fund. The funds, of course, have disappeared with the commitment very, very quickly. During the committee stage, I will look forward to seeing whether there is a possibility of addressing that particular concern.

Likewise, in discussions, the other group that may have suffered as a result of a lack of the accountability and transparency part contained within the existing legislation, was that of private business. There was initially some confusion about whether those types of organizations could make application for the fund. I'm pleased to report that very recently that type of confusion has dissipated and gone away — again, showing some needs for the amendment here of the act that is in front of us.

The third general area where confusion exists from my constituency is that of those communities that are fewer than 500 people. In Cariboo South the regional chair covers a very large area. There are a large number of small communities contained in it that have populations of fewer than 500. Again there was some confusion upon whether they had access and availability to these funds, whether they be for Riske Creek or Anahim Lake or wherever the particular community may be. So there was some confusion in that area. Again, I believe the amendment that is proposed is beginning to move to address those particular concerns.

Now the fourth general area I wish to go into is the concern that presently funds are given to various groups — and tax exemption. My understanding is that each of these various groups that are likely going to receive some funds from these particular funds set up will need to spend thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in order to determine a tax-exempt status. I believe that during the committee stage we should once more have a look and see whether we can come back and possibly put some clarity into that type of issue so that with the intent of improving on the accountability and the transparency, we can also add some other improvements to this particular legislation.

I would also draw to attention the consistency across the various regions with respect to regional committee guidelines and procedures. There are presently some committees that are allowing the MLAs to vote and others that are not. Likewise, I believe we can clarify that at the committee stage. I don't believe there was any ambiguity, at least in my mind, when I looked at the original legislation around this particular point, but in practice, there apparently is some confusion.

During the committee stage, clarity regarding what types of projects and activities are being funded…. I believe examples have already been given around the one awarding from the NDI Trust fund to Valemount for an interest-free loan. Whether that is in actual fact what the government had in mind, maybe we can have some clarification on that. What I am aware of is that the MFA is already structured in order to provide the lowest possible loans for projects to communities of that nature and whether this in actual fact is the intent of where the funds would be spent.

Some clarity regarding the pine beetle account. The issue of the pine beetle, as this House on both sides has recognized, is of concern. There needs to be some clarity around this particular account where these funds are being spent. I would also like to mention that by my count, I believe this is at least the third fund that is now being set up around the pine beetle. I would wonder whether there is the continuity and the focus of funds being spread across so many different areas — whether the actual focus for what these funds are meant to be may be lost as they are disbursed over so many different areas.

When you also reflect back upon this particular composition for the RACs, I would point out that the same members in a large part of the province also sit on the beetle advisory committees, so there may be some duplication of how these funds are being disbursed.

The last point in this general area is looking at the sector list for funding. I would commend the recommendation for agriculture being added. I believe there is the potential for the inclusion of arts and culture in this area. If sports fit into this broad area of economic

development…. I would point out, again in principle, that they have included such things as improvements to arenas. Then why would we not be looking also at the arts and the cultural aspect of it? They, likewise, have an economic component that runs through them, but as I've mentioned, I'm waiting for clarity of those things to come at the next stage.

In summarizing, I would like to state once more that this bill provides much-needed funding for the resource-dependent northern communities that are impacted by the boom-and-bust nature of British Columbia's resource industry and, in particular, by the devastation of the mountain pine beetle epidemic.

As a member of the opposition, I welcome any infusion of resources to assist these communities with economic development initiatives that will, hopefully, diversify their economies so that they can work towards a more stable and prosperous future. In forest-dependent communities across the northern and interior regions of the province, wood is being cut at an unprecedented rate because of the lift to the annual allowable cut. The communities need resources so that they can prepare for what lies ahead when the cut is exhausted.

The opposition supported the original legislation establishing the trust, and official opposition MLAs have been participating in regional advisory committees. Through this participation, they have raised some concerns about the trust, including concerns about transparency and accountability, which the bill before us today seeks to address and which we will explore further at the committee stage.

The bill also expands the list of sectors eligible for funding. Agriculture is now included as a sector. I am somewhat puzzled as to why it was not included in the original legislation. My understanding is that the Cattlemen's Association and others raised this with the government and opposition MLAs, so I am pleased that this is being addressed. Again, during the committee stage I will have questions about the exclusion of other sectors and about what types of projects are eligible for funding.

The governance structure of the trust is similar to successful models of local control like the Columbia Basin Trust that was brought in by the former NDP government. Local committees and communities, not Victoria, must generate the ideas and drive projects. I know I've heard that statement from both sides of the House. B.C.'s northern communities know what they need to do to diversify and build stronger, more sustainable local economies.

Notably absent from the Northern Development Initiative Trust and Bills 7 and 8 to follow…. There is no role for first nations in the governance of the trust, and that is one of the issues at our next stage. I hope we are able to come up with some solution. The Columbia Basin Trust, for example, has all of the subregions within the trust area represented on the board of directors and, in addition, has a representative from the tribal council. Another example is the BC-Alcan Northern Development Fund Act, which established the Nechako-Kitamaat Development Fund. It, too, includes first nations in its decision-making structure.

I also hope that the government will consider ongoing funding for economic development in the north and in regions throughout British Columbia. This one-time investment is much needed and most welcome, but an ongoing commitment to these communities is what's really required. The NDP election platform called for one-half the annual forecast allowance to be dedicated each year to regional economic development.

Finally, I would once more remind the House that I stood in favour of the original bill. I stand in favour of the amendment that is proposed, and I look forward for this clarity at the next stage as the debate unfolds.

J. Rustad: I stand today in support of Bill 6. Given the time, I will try to make my comments quite brief on this, although it is a very important bill for the north, particularly for the communities in my riding.

I'd like to start by talking a little bit about what some of the members opposite have said. In particular, I found it interesting…. The member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain talked about the fund, and he said he's glad the fund is coming forward to resolve the pine beetle issues but said he hopes it kills lots of bugs. That struck me as a little funny, although I know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek.

The problem is that there's no way that funds or resources are going to kill bugs. The problem that was created by the beetle epidemic is something that takes a lot of resources to try to solve some of the symptoms, but there isn't anything we can do to solve the problem other than be very aggressive with the strategies we have put in place. Really, it's going to take Mother Nature and a very cold winter to be able to solve it over the long run.

Along those same lines, the member for Cariboo North had mentioned that he had mixed feelings about the trust. In particular, he said he's concerned about the time delay and that it took a number of years for the money to come through and the process to evolve. Anything that is worth doing, anything that needs to be done, takes time. You have to develop a plan. You have to put an action in place, and you have to follow through with that plan.

To use his words, you can't be haphazard. You can't just throw money at the problem and hope it can be resolved. This is something that takes time. I find it curious that the suggestion, combined with the fact that this amendment…. He suggests there's been a significant delay in the overall process.

It's a significant delay in the process so that some accountability has been built into it that was overlooked initially but, more importantly, that the accountability that's been put in will allow for some better decision-making, allow for a better process. I'd like to suggest that a willy-nilly approach seems to be precisely what the member for Cariboo North has been suggesting.

I'd like to quote Albert Einstein, who said: "We cannot solve our problems with the same level of

thinking that created them." The mountain pine beetle epidemic is something that started in the early to mid-'90s. Actions were not taken at that time by the government of the day to help prevent this epidemic and to help to try to contain it and minimize some of the damages.

In essence, the willy-nilly thinking — to use the term from Cariboo North — that came from the '90s is what created this problem, and here it's being suggested again that it can try to solve the problem. As one of the greatest minds of the 20th century suggested, the kind of thinking that created the problem cannot be used to solve the problem.

Bill 6, for the creation of the Northern Development Initiative Trust, creates the opportunity in the north for local governments to be able to address their concerns, to be able to help build a future. Quite frankly, it challenges them. It challenges them to do something that they haven't done in the past, and that is to try to come together and cooperate. Gone are the days where communities struggle against communities for the type of resources and the types of functions we need. This is an epidemic that goes across communities, and we need to bring them all together.

The northern development initiative has done that by making these resources available but also by creating the structure that goes across regions so that it brings them together. It brings them to the ability and hopefully raises them to the challenge to make sure that the resources and the communities — the future that we're looking for — can be developed locally. We know that when you build things locally, such as the northern medical program, the success that comes out of those types of actions is phenomenal.

I'm excited about this model. I'm excited about what it can do in terms of the overall potential — in particular, about the fact that there's also a component of this that's being put in for first nations. There is $10 million being put in place to allow first nations to participate in the overall development of their economies in the north but also to participate within the greater group.

That to me is very exciting, because we need to recognize the fact that we're going to have some challenges in the future. We're going to need development of more skills. We're going to need the development of a work pool — of a labour force that's going to be able to meet the demands for a growing economy.

We do have a growing and an exciting economy to look forward to over the next ten years. In order to be able to fully partake in that, we need to make sure that everyone in the north is included. Quite frankly, that's a huge opportunity for first nations to participate in this overall process.

Given the time, I'm going to close by saying that Bill 6 does precisely what we're hoping to do. It's part of a long-term plan. It's part of an overall process that we are putting in place to develop a sound future and a solid economy for B.C. to build on into the golden decade. Quite frankly, I'm very pleased to see this come forward, and I know that the members opposite will have a few interesting comments to make in committees. I look forward to hearing those discussions, partake in those discussions, but I believe strongly that this bill will allow the kind of future we're looking for in this province.

Hon. C. Hansen: There have been lots of good points that have been made this evening. I know there's some misinformation that I hope we'll have a chance to correct when we get into committee stage. I think this bill is really all about empowering local communities and not trying to pretend that we have all of the answers out of the capital city in Victoria — but in fact, enabling communities to make decisions about their economic future. Rather than trying to respond to the various points that have been made by members, I will save some of that discussion for the committee stage, and with that, I will conclude the debate.

Hon. C. Hansen: Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 6, Northern Development Initiative Trust Amendment Act, 2005, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Committee of Supply (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
(continued)

Hon. I. Chong: Before we begin, I would again just like to introduce the staff who are with me, for members who are coming in to ask questions. To my immediate left I have Mr. Dale Wall, who's the assistant deputy minister for local government. To my right is Sheila Wynn, who is deputy minister for the ministry. Behind her is Barb Walman, who's assistant deputy minister for women's, seniors' and community services; and Shauna Brouwer, behind me, the assistant deputy minister for management services. That's for the benefit of the members who are asking questions today.

N. Macdonald: What we'll do again today, as I was saying, is go through with local government issues. Once those are for the most part exhausted to the satisfaction of members, then we'll move on to the issues around women's and seniors' services.

The first question is just a quotation from, I believe, the service plan. It's that "Community Services helps create strong, healthy, safe British Columbia communities." As a former mayor, I dealt very often with the ministry, but often the issues we dealt with, especially in rural communities, were forestry, diking, health — things that would sit off in ministries other than the Ministry of Community Services.

I guess the question is in trying to understand exactly how things work. Many of the questions I asked you last time that impact tremendously on communities sit with other ministries, so the question I have for the minister is: do you see yourself as an advocate for communities within government? Is that part of your role?

Hon. I. Chong: Clearly, the Ministry of Community Services is the ministry that works most closely, of course, with and directly with local governments. It provides opportunities to have a forum and dialogue through the UBCM or through other area associations. That's how we are able to determine some of the areas that local governments wish to pursue in terms of allowing them to remove barriers that allow their communities to become safer or to provide for services for their citizens.

This ministry absolutely would work across government with other ministries to ensure that, where programs fall within this ministry in dealing and dialoguing with local governments, we have the opportunity to bring in other ministries cross-government to work together to ensure that, wherever possible — whether it's two, three or four different ministries — they can come together. But this ministry can in many opportunities take the lead on specific issues, if that's necessary.

N. Macdonald: I wonder if I could give you some specific examples and you could just tell me some from the past and maybe some more present. Just explain to me how that advocacy works or how you bring people together.

If we take something that we talked about the last time we met, I guess, around the Significant Projects Streamlining Act…. I think it was probably over a hundred communities that indicated they were very much against that act. I realize you weren't the minister at the time, but you were perhaps in cabinet. Or perhaps you have some insight into how something like that…. You speak for communities within government. When there's so clearly a view from local government, how do you take that forward? And what do you see as your role?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to, again, make clear in terms of the ministry and our working with local governments and the UBCM and the area associations…. The opportunities that we have to work with these organizations and with local governments sometimes directly, as well, are to work on areas of commonality. There have been instances where we have been able to provide assistance and were able to harmonize local and provincial approval processes, and that has been successful. We've worked on areas such as the resort memorandum of understanding, and that has also proven to be helpful.

I understand that the member is questioning more a particular piece of legislation that was passed in 2003 — that is, Bill 75, the Significant Projects Streamlining Act, which was a piece of legislation that was not directly the responsibility of this ministry, but it did provide for municipal views to be heard at the time. As was stated in that piece of legislation, it just provided an opportunity that allowed for significant projects, should they need to be undertaken, that a streamlining process could be undertaken, and that act was passed.

I should note that that piece of legislation has not been required to be used. At the time it was introduced, it was very clearly stated that it was there should the occasion arise, and to this time, it has not been used.

N. Macdonald: It confuses me sometimes around the language, like within the Community Charter, you have section 276 that requires consultation, and it talks very much about the importance of that communication between this level of government and local government. I mean, that's one example — the Significant Projects Streamlining Act. Because within the service plan you talk about the Community Charter as being…. I think the terminology is the broadest or the most enabling in Canada. Yet overlying it is an act that restricts it in a pretty substantial way, and that's from the UBCM's own words.

Just leaving that aside, because that's something that has taken place in the past, if your role is as an advocate, something more current would be Terasen. With Terasen you have a unanimous motion passed by

the UBCM asking for the Utilities Commission to hold public hearings. We're receiving letters from communities all the time.

What do you see your role there within cabinet, within government? There are promises around consultation. There are promises around listening to local government. What do you do? How do you make sure that voice is heard so that it seems to communities that it's more than just words and that the government has actions that follow?

Hon. I. Chong: I know that this member is familiar — he's attended a number of UBCM conventions, as I have — that oftentimes there are resolutions put on and that it is an opportunity for local governments to have that dialogue with other local governments throughout the province. Each resolution can carry with it some recommendations they would like government to review and sometimes recommendations they want other bodies to look at.

In this particular case this is exactly what happened at UBCM. The local government members decided that they would like the B.C. Utilities Commission to have a look at this. As the member knows, the B.C. Utilities Commission is an independent quasi-judicial body, allowing them to hear and receive submissions and determine what action they will want to take. At the end of the day, if they wish to have a hearing or a forum whereby they can allow for input from members from UBCM or otherwise, that's certainly well within their powers to do that. But it is the B.C. Utilities Commission's purview to explore those options, if that's what they choose to do.

N. Macdonald: Just for my information, then, does that mean that the B.C. Utilities Commission…? The government cannot ask them to look at things? Is that beyond the possibility for government?

Hon. I. Chong: As the member has indicated, the fact that this resolution was passed at UBCM…. It certainly is in the public domain. People are aware of this resolution. I'm confident that the B.C. Utilities Commission is also aware of this. They are certainly capable of contacting UBCM or making whatever other forms of communication they wish — to listen to them and to understand just what kind of role they would like UBCM to have in terms of if there were to be more dialogue to take place.

But as I've indicated, with the Utilities Commission being a quasi-judicial body, it would not be a body that…. I would hope that the member isn't suggesting that we would direct that this quasi-judicial body take specific action.

They are independent. They, certainly within their purview, are able to host any number of forums if that's what they wish, to accept submissions if this is what they wish to do. They certainly are aware of this. UBCM will, I would expect, have certainly forwarded them this information and passed that on to them.

N. Macdonald: I just want to understand the process then. Do I understand it properly that you're saying the Utilities Commission is completely independent and that government would never ask them to look at something or never direct them to look at something? I just want to understand the process. How does it work? Is there any history of something…? Is it possible for government to ask the Utilities Commission to look at something?

Hon. I. Chong: There are many quasi-judicial bodies that exist in this province, and the independence of those organizations, those agencies, those bodies…. It's integral and fundamental for them to be able to operate without political interference. It's for that reason that the B.C. Utilities Commission is currently taking, perhaps, a broad look at the issues that have been raised. They then will make the decision on what formal process, what formal hearings they may wish to have — whether they invite submissions and whether they be formal or oral submissions. That certainly is up to them to do.

If the member would like more information regarding the Utilities Commission, certainly he can contact them. As well, if he would like, he can contact UBCM to see what kinds of arrangements may be made with the B.C. Utilities Commission, but these are quasi-judicial bodies. They have independence insofar as how they conduct their hearings, and they will continue to do that. I would hope that's what the member would also support.

N. Macdonald: Just so I understand. I just need a really clear understanding on the one point. Can government direct? Can government ask? Can government sit as an intervener? And somehow, if there is a topic that they want discussed or if they have a particular approach that they think should be taken….

This is not a suggestion that it should be done. I'm just asking what the possibility is. Is that possible? Has it been done? Just on that particular point, can it be done?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps it would be easiest to explain to the member the interaction between the BCUC, or the potential or possible interaction between the B.C. Utilities Commission and government, would be through the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. He probably would be better served to ask those questions of that minister, that ministry, to find out what possible interaction there can be — if there is any between BCUC and that ministry.

N. Macdonald: Just on this same topic, I guess what I'm not fully understanding is exactly how the government interacts with the BCUC. I can take that question to the Minister of Energy, and I'll do that. What is

your role in this, then, if you are acting as an advocate and if you believe as do you that locals have the best grasp of issues and that this touches on communities in a way that they voted unanimously to ask for a certain thing to happen?

Where do you take it? Do you meet with the group? Have you met with the UBCM? All the language that's within the Community Charter and the obligations and in the service plan — what does that actually look like? I guess that's the question. Have you met with the communities? Do you intend to meet with them? Are you having meetings with the UBCM? Will you go to the BCUC and make a presentation to them? What actions flow from the pretty clear voice of the communities on this matter?

Hon. I. Chong: UBCM and other area associations having their AGMs…. Oftentimes hundreds of resolutions are passed and, of course, are not always affected or directly related to this particular ministry. When those resolutions are brought in and passed, or not, and brought to the attention of the ministry, we certainly will respond to them. Those that pertain to other ministries…. We would, of course, facilitate that by forwarding them so that there can be a more fulsome response, if necessary, that another minister wishes to provide information on.

In terms of meeting with UBCM, I will be meeting regularly with them. As the member knows, just after the election, and having been appointed to this position in June, I took the first opportunity to meet with them in July at one of their executive meetings. Then, of course, they didn't hold many thereafter in getting ready for UBCM. With a new executive coming in, I will also await their invitation to attend their next executive.

It has been a practice of past ministers to meet fairly frequently with UBCM and their executive to find out what issues they want the minister to take up, what issues they think are of particular importance, what areas they wish to advocate on — things such as the new deal for cities, things such as the infrastructure programs. These are, I would say, fairly often the kind of issues that UBCM as an executive would want the ministry to work on and be able to work with other levels of government as well.

From time to time there may be some other policy that UBCM may want to advance. Of course, if they affect other ministries, I'm happy to ensure that my colleagues are aware of them so that they can meet with UBCM, if that is a necessary step to take.

N. Macdonald: Maybe just one more question, then, on Terasen. There's a list of things we could talk about that predate your time as the minister, but on this one issue there is a finite amount of time. It is an issue that has been raised in the House. I'm sure that you're receiving letters from communities.

N. Macdonald: You haven't. Okay. Well, then I will pass them on to you, because we are receiving the letters. I'll pass them on to you.

The question, then, is: if you get a clear indication from communities that they want something to do and feel that something should happen around this issue, how do you take it forward? What are the things you do as the minister to meet the obligations that are laid out in the service plan around consultation and within the Community Charter around conferring, deliberating together, dealing with things that communities feel are important? How do you see your role in this particular issue as we go forward — obviously, bearing in mind that you'd have to move pretty quickly on it? What's the plan?

Hon. I. Chong: The member began by asking whether I had received a number of letters, and I was asking my assistant another question. I didn't want him to think that there might not be letters that have been written in. The letters that he's received and copies of them which I'm sure he's received — if he wanted to send them along our way to ensure that we have them, that's fine. To be clear, because the B.C. Utilities Commission is a body that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources would have more interaction with and perhaps would be in the best position to answer questions on, those letters would perhaps be best forwarded to that minister, given his concern about the short time line and that he is worried about input to the B.C. Utilities Commission.

N. Macdonald: Let's move to something else, then. Something that had been talked about is the equity of opportunity. Perhaps it was talking about…. I think it was something that had been mentioned around communities having equal opportunities to certain types of programs. In your service plan it talks about facilitating implementation of the inclusive Olympic commitments. The 2010 Olympic bid document talked about opportunities for inner-city residents, things like that. It was talking about short- and long-term employment. Do you have any plans on working to meet those commitments?

Hon. I. Chong: There have been a number of very positive steps that have been taken regarding the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Quite proudly, this government has stepped up to the plate and said that we wanted to host the very first inclusive Olympic Games. For that reason we did work very closely with the host community, being Vancouver-Whistler, to ensure that we can bring in an agreement which would allow for that, and a real commitment and statement as such. For that reason there are a number of things that have been done. Maybe, for the benefit of the member, I'll just read them into the record.

It began with the fact that we were able to consult with a number of stakeholders and community organizations in preparation for the planning and hosting of

the Olympic Games, working with the federal government and the city of Vancouver, in particular, to prevent any displacement of low-income residents from low-cost housing as a result of the Olympics. We heard a lot about that. It was raised at a time, I believe, just shortly after the last municipal elections took place, and very much, a part of the conversation was around ensuring that this displacement does not occur.

As a result, this government made a commitment to find innovative measures to address affordable housing issues. We've worked closely with, as I say, the city of Vancouver, and there has been some progress. Vancouver, for example, has legalized secondary suites in all parts of Vancouver. The city has also adopted a single-room accommodation bylaw, which requires permits for the demolition of rooming house stock in the downtown core.

We're also working with the city of Vancouver to see whether we need additional steps to prevent unfair evictions. As these matters arise, we will continue to work with the city of Vancouver, which has been very helpful to this point in providing information as to how they can ensure that these things happen and that there is inclusiveness.

I was also happy to be in Vancouver last week at the launch of a new organization called BOB, which I believe is called Building Opportunities with Business Inner City Society. They call it BOB for short. Again, that is about residents from the inner-city communities having employment, business and housing opportunities as a result of the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

N. Macdonald: With this initiative, how much money have you put towards that sort of support? What have you budgeted to continue with this work? Do you have performance measures? Do you have some way of seeing whether you've been successful with this? So two questions, then: the budgeting and the performance measures.

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps a bit of background might assist the member regarding the 2010 Winter Games inner-city inclusive commitment statement. This was a commitment statement that was developed at the time the bid was being prepared with the provincial government and the city of Vancouver staff as well. The commitment statement includes commitments that relate to this ministry with a number of areas of responsibility that government has to ensure that people are not made homeless as a result of the Winter Games.

As I say, this was an issue that was raised, I think, frequently in the Vancouver area. It provided an opportunity for us to create training initiatives and a continuum of short- and long-term employment opportunities for inner-city residents as well. As a result, and after having won the bid to host the 2010 Winter Games, the Inclusivity Planning Group…. They have members from the Vancouver Organizing Committee for the Olympics and 2010 LegaciesNow.

In the Vancouver agreement, they get an opportunity to come together, to meet, to take a look at implementation of a number of initiatives that will accommodate the commitment that was made. In part through the Vancouver agreement, which this ministry has responsibility for and which this government has committed $10 million towards, it allows us to bring together some of these strategies and these initiatives that allow for this.

If the member would like more detailed information regarding this particular commitment, we can certainly have a briefing made available to provide him with information, because it continually evolves in terms of what opportunities can exist. It's constant with the fact that the city of Vancouver is very much involved, very much engaged in ensuring that the residents, particularly in the downtown east side, are considered regarding the commitment that was made. If that would be helpful, I'm sure that the ministry staff can provide a more detailed briefing for the member or any other members of his caucus who may be interested in this. It is a very unique commitment statement, and I think he may find it very interesting.

B. Ralston: I wanted to ask some further questions in the area of the inner-city partnerships program. You advised that your ministry is responsible for the Vancouver agreement. Is that correct?

B. Ralston: In the service plan, you speak of discussions that are underway with Prince George, Surrey and Victoria, which have also expressed interest in the partnership agreements. Specifically dealing with Surrey, can you advise what is the state of those discussions at the present time, including the past history leading to this point?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, a number of cities have expressed interest in developing an urban development agreement. These agreements are being negotiated or prepared not just here in British Columbia but across Canada. Certainly, Surrey is one of the municipalities, and Surrey has expressed its interest to address the particular social issues affecting its citizens through an agreement, whereby Surrey, the federal government and our ministry are still in the stages of developing some kind of a tripartite agreement.

Various cities are in various stages. I know that Victoria, in particular, is perhaps one of the furthest that has moved along. What our ministry has continued to do is to provide staffing resources to support the development of these agreements.

It was in November 2004 that the government did provide a $50,000 grant to assist with the implementation of what they called a Surrey solutions forum. I believe that forum was held, the focus of which was to enable participants to develop a plan for improved and coordinated service delivery. I know that here in Victoria the same kinds of things have happened. A number

of forums have taken place where citizens have been able to come together and stakeholders have been able to offer ideas and input prior to a formal agreement being made. I attended one of these meetings myself here in Victoria.

The objective is to ensure that from the very local level, the opportunity exists for the residents, the citizens, who know best how they want the structure of their urban development agreement to look. There have been some dollars provided to Surrey. I believe they're still having forums, or they may be actually be looking at the information they've received from forums before they may host another one. As a ministry, our staff is here to help facilitate that process if they ask for assistance.

B. Ralston: Continuing with the Surrey proposed agreement, you've mentioned a meeting that took place in November 2004. Was that a public meeting?

Hon. I. Chong: The dollars we provided were to Surrey, and I believe that they did in fact hold a forum, which was a public forum. When we are first entering into assisting with an urban development agreement, every city will approach with their expressed interest, and each may have a different process on how they are going to proceed. Some may wish to have a series of meetings that bring in stakeholders and get ideas or to bring in a consultant prior to having a public forum where they then bring in all the other stakeholders and community organizations. Some may go the other route.

I'm not sure where we are with Surrey, other than the fact that I do understand they did have a public forum. They engaged, I believe, some consultants to help them with that. I'm also aware that they are planning on having another meeting next month, and again, I would expect that that will be a public meeting whereby they will receive input from stakeholders.

What I found in what happened here in Victoria was it was very helpful, after several meetings…. When a number of boards were put up with a foolscap paper, people from the public were able to add their ideas onto it or express some thoughts on it, and that's what made it a very interactive forum and planning session. I'm not sure if Surrey has decided to go that route, but they may well do that. They will have another meeting next month, I understand.

B. Ralston: Are you saying, then, that the invitations to this meeting in November of 2004 were issued by the city of Surrey and not by any member or minister of the government?

Hon. I. Chong: My understanding is, in fact, that it was a public forum. Invitations were likely sent out so that there was an opportunity to ensure that the right-sized room could be accommodated with the participants. In fact, it was public in that participants were invited to come in. I don't have a list of the participants. I don't know if…. I was just asking to find out whether the staff had a list of that, but it's not likely, because this was done with the city. They likely would have had a list of participants that they would have wanted to invite in.

The dollars we provided were to allow them to embark on, I would say, the first step in getting their urban development agreement in place. Oftentimes it is about, perhaps, inviting members of the public, but again, it may have been limited only in terms of size due to what they can accommodate in a meeting room. Then there could be a series, a number, of meetings happening.

As I say, I know that they held four or five meetings in Victoria prior to opening up for a wider canvassing of people to come in, just so that they would have things on the walls that everybody could go around and look at and agree with, disagree with or fine-tune some of the ideas brought forward. Some of the facilitators had also been able to canvass and find out about what the general public was after.

If the member has something specific that he's looking for regarding this particular forum, maybe he can make it more clear. Then I can find out for him through staff.

B. Ralston: I don't have something more specific other than that I'm looking for an answer to my question. Are you saying that the invitations for this forum, which you think may have been a public forum, were issued by the city of Surrey? Or were the invitations issued by a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a minister? That's my question.

Hon. I. Chong: In November of 2004, as I indicated to the member, $50,000 was provided to assist with the implementation of, I guess, the first forum to kick-start the interest regarding an urban development agreement. As a result, a number of invitations were sent out to community organizations then. It also included the three levels of government: any representation from the federal government; the provincial government, of course, because we wanted to kick-start this; as well as the local government, from the municipality of Surrey.

Since then there have been a number of other forums that have taken place, because Surrey has sponsored a number itself to, again, gather more stakeholders and receive information from that initial forum, from which they were able to take a look at some ideas that were brought forward. Next month, as I understand, there will be another meeting.

That meeting will be with the three levels of government and perhaps with a number of other organizations and with Surrey — with three levels of government — just to take a look at all the information, collate all the information that has been gathered. This is how, I understand, a number of the urban development agreements have been implemented in terms of putting

a tripartite agreement in place. I don't know if that's more helpful for the member.

B. Ralston: With respect, you haven't answered the question. Who issued the invitations to this meeting in November 2004? Was it a Member of the Legislative Assembly or a minister — yes or no?

Hon. I. Chong: As I understand it, the local member of the Legislature at the time did offer up the names and provide community organizations' names to invite to this particular forum.

Hon. I. Chong: I understand it was the member for Surrey-Whalley or Surrey–Green Timbers — MLA Brenda Locke, I think; I can't remember what her riding was.

Will the minister confirm that that meeting…? The invitations were issued by the member for Surrey–Green Timbers to a select list and not to the public at large.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the list of the participants, but my understanding was that invitations did go out to community organizations and economic organizations as well, because this was to kick-start what was or is going to be an urban development agreement.

As we all know, when we are MLAs representing our areas, we are familiar with a number of organizations. Invitations are sent out. Some respond. Others don't. I don't have the entire list or that of those who actually attended the forum, but if the member is interested in knowing who attended, I can see if I can find out where that list is.

B. Ralston: Will the minister make the commitment on the record to provide within 14 days' time the list of the participants in that particular meeting?

Hon. I. Chong: Because provincial ministry staff were there, we'll have to go back in the records and find out who attended. We will endeavour to get that information to the member as quickly as we can.

B. Ralston: Will the minister further confirm that the public was not invited, that there were no public advertisements of this meeting, that it was a closed-door meeting to a select list handpicked by the minister?

Not by this particular minister, I should say but by the member from Green Timbers.

Hon. I. Chong: Well, I'll have to take a look at the list of people who received the invitations and those who responded as to whether they were going to be there. It's not a question of just who attended but, in fact, who was invited. I would imagine that the list did span people from social community organizations and people with economic interests as well.

As I indicated, the dollars were provided to kick-start, to begin, the talk about an urban development agreement. Oftentimes you do want to go out to members in the community who are aware of who should come together, first and foremost, to start putting some words on blank pieces of paper. Thereafter, after other subsequent forums, we have some opportunity to change and tweak and add to them.

I know that's what happened here in Victoria. They started out with community organizations being involved. Once more meat was put on the bones and more information was provided, more of the public were then engaged and asked to participate. It could well have been that more community organizations were interested in seeing a development agreement, and then, as I say, further meetings and forums that were held would have engaged the public in a much more wholesome way.

B. Ralston: Is the minister saying, then, that the way these agreements are kick-started is for the minister or the MLA in the area to handpick a list and have a closed-door meeting with that handpicked list?

Hon. I. Chong: We are still very much in the initial stages with a number of cities — Victoria, Surrey, Prince George and Burnaby — and every city that enters into an urban development agreement will do so in a different way. Generally, you are approached by the city that is looking to have an agreement, and for that reason they are very much involved in the initial stages.

My understanding with Surrey is that they did not initially instigate this urban development agreement, but once it was kick-started, once it was initiated, there was an interest. Now Surrey is very much involved in it. It's a very positive approach that has been taken now, and Surrey is very much engaged, very much involved. But my understanding is that at the beginning, Surrey wasn't that interested in it. It was a good thing to at least bring it to their attention and see, in fact, whether they wanted an urban development agreement. Clearly, it's what they want to have now.

B. Ralston: Is the minister prepared to table the document, the letter of transmittal, that went with the $50,000 cheque and that set out the commitments being

Hon. I. Chong: We will certainly gather the information that I think the member is looking for and try to get that to him as quickly as possible. Can I just perhaps ask him to be clear about what specifically he is looking for? He mentioned a transmittal form. Is he looking for some specific document? I'm not clear on what he's asking.

B. Ralston: I understand from what the minister has said that an expenditure of $50,000 was made to, using her words, kick-start this process. I'm interested in whether there was a formal agreement or whether there was a letter explaining what that $50,000 was being committed for. Was there a report that followed up on the expenditure of $50,000? Is there a list of the participants, which you've said you've committed to providing? Was there a record of the proceedings made? Is there a note of where that meeting took place and the duration of that meeting? I'm interested in finding out about all of those details for the expenditure of $50,000.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for listing out and detailing the exact information that he wants. I certainly will endeavour to have my staff put all that information together, as he's just outlined and has recorded in Hansard, so that we can get that information to him.

B. Ralston: After that initial meeting, which you say kick-started the meeting, what steps took place next from the perspective of the province? I'm not talking about the city of Surrey or the federal government. From the perspective of the province and those involved in it, what were the next steps taken by the ministry representatives on this file?

Hon. I. Chong: After the first meeting in November, the city of Surrey, through the city manager, did in fact contact the ministry requesting a meeting with all three levels of government to see what steps then would be necessary. I understand a meeting between our ministry staff, with federal government representation, and the city of Surrey then took place sometime early in the year. I believe it was February. We can get the exact details, if that's what the member wants — but early in the new year. Discussion took place to see how all three levels of government would work towards moving towards the development of an urban development agreement.

I understand, as well, that things went quiet for a while. Then in June the city once again contacted the ministry and asked to move forward. That is why there is a meeting that is being scheduled next month to allow three levels of government to come together again and see how they might move this agreement forward.

B. Ralston: Can the minister tell me what commitments were made by the provincial government or its representatives in the meeting in February 2005, at a date that you will provide? Presumably, you'll provide the details of who was there and all of the other pertinent details. I'm interested in what commitments were made by the provincial government in that meeting in February 2005.

Hon. I. Chong: The meeting that was held early in the year was, I guess, to set out some formal understanding of how the three levels of government would work. The commitment that would have been made was to ensure that we will continue to provide staffing assistance in terms of the expertise we have developed in having the Vancouver agreement in place. The federal government, as well, committed to providing their staff resource person, who also has experience with having done the Vancouver agreement. The city, if anything, was the one that had the least experience in how to move this forward. We had staff who were available to do this, as well as the federal government. That's what these meetings are designed to do — with the three levels of government, to at least get to a point where we can move this agreement forward.

B. Ralston: The minister said: "The commitment that would have been made…." Was a commitment made or not?

Hon. I. Chong: The commitment that was made would be that we would work with the three levels of government. The three levels of government would work together.

B. Ralston: Is the minister saying that no financial commitment was made by the provincial government towards this agreement at that time?

B. Ralston: Going back to the kick-start meeting, if I can call it that, what representatives of the federal government were present at that meeting, or what agencies were represented?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll have that information available when we are able to provide that list to the member.

B. Ralston: I gather from the Vancouver agreement that there's a very detailed protocol which is available on their website about, I think in particular, the western diversification fund, which supports these kinds of agreements. Is the minister saying that she does not know whether any representative of the federal government or a federal agency was present at that meeting?

Hon. I. Chong: What I'm saying to the member is that I will provide him with the list as to who attended the meeting. Clearly, oftentimes when you send out

invitations, not everybody responds — that is, who are interested but who can't attend because of scheduling conflicts. I'll certainly look into that, but I will provide him with a list, as I've committed to do.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can try it this way. Can the minister then advise which agency or federal department is the lead agency in fashioning these agreements from the perspective of the federal government?

Hon. I. Chong: From the federal government, western diversification would be the federal agency.

B. Ralston: At the meeting in November 2004 or at the meeting in February 2005, did any representative of the federal government or a federal agency make a financial commitment to support this kind of partnership in the city of Surrey?

Hon. I. Chong: There has been no financial commitment made as yet towards the urban development agreement. We're still in the working stages. Three levels of government are still discussing how this is going to look. That is where we're at.

Hon. I. Chong: I guess, hon. Chair, you'll be calling a recess for the vote.

B. Ralston: Can the minister then confirm, just where we left off, that in the meeting of February 2005 no financial commitment to a partnership agreement in the city of Surrey was made?

B. Ralston: Will the minister provide a detailed statement of the spending of this $50,000 that was spent for the meeting in November 2004? I gather that money — the $50,000 — was spent for a single meeting.

Hon. I. Chong: Yeah, we will provide that information when we provide all the others that the member has requested, so that he can see how the forum took place last year.

B. Ralston: Just for my edification, then, could you tell me precisely when that information will be provided? Will it be provided in a matter of days or a matter of weeks? Will the minister make a firm commitment as to when the information will be provided?

Hon. I. Chong: We will certainly aim for the target that the member has suggested — within 14 days. If we can get it any sooner, we certainly will. If we require the staff person who did attend to provide that for us and they're not available, we may have to find out where that information is. We certainly will endeavour to meet his requests at the time that he has indicated.

B. Ralston: Can the minister advise how much money is available for this program for prospective inner-city partnerships in this fiscal year?

Hon. I. Chong: Currently our ministry is providing the staffing resources, through the expertise we have in our ministry, to support the four cities that are looking to develop an urban development agreement. As yet, because it is very much in the formation stage, dollars have not been set aside specifically. Once we get further to having an agreement signed, this is where we would then work with the federal government, the local government and ourselves, as well, to see exactly how that should be. It's still very preliminary, in the sense that we're still speaking with other levels of government to see exactly which things each city wants to have in terms of their agreement.

B. Ralston: Can I then confirm that there's no money available at all in the present fiscal year for this program, other than staff resources?

Hon. I. Chong: We have not budgeted for a dollar amount, because we don't have the amount that has been requested by any of the cities that are looking to have an urban development agreement in place.

B. Ralston: How much has the city of Surrey requested be provided in a dollar amount for this program?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the city is still working with staff and working with the federal agency representatives and has not got to the stage yet where they are able to advise us as to the dollar-ask they will be looking for to have an agreement in place.

B. Ralston: You have mentioned a meeting that's scheduled for November of this year, to take place in the city of Surrey, regarding this prospective inner-city partnership. Can you tell me when it's scheduled for?

Hon. I. Chong: If I wasn't clear earlier to the member, I apologize. This will be a meeting for the three levels of government still to work out the next steps, the process in moving this agreement forward. My staff have indicated it is next month. It could be the end of this month. We will get the exact date and have that available to the member as quickly as we can.

B. Ralston: Is it intended that this meeting be at the level of staff, or will there be any political representa-

tives at this meeting, either from the city of Surrey, the federal government or the provincial government?

Hon. I. Chong: It is a working group where staff will be there. The city manager from Surrey, the federal representative from Western Diversification and a member of our staff who works in our inner-city partnerships branch will be attending. There will be no political persons attending this meeting.

B. Ralston: In the Vancouver agreement there is money allocated for local economic development. In the discussions with the city of Surrey, at any of these meetings — including the kick-start meeting in November 2004, the February 2005 meeting or the revived-interest meeting, if I can call it that, in June 2005 — has there been any discussion of the province or the federal government providing money for local economic development?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is probably aware that the objective of these agreements, these partnerships with local governments, is to provide a number of outcomes, particularly when cities approach a provincial and federal government for assistance. A number of the outcomes are focused in areas such as increased economic activity, as has been mentioned, improved living conditions and — in particular, we know it's a primary focus in Vancouver — increasing community cohesion.

These are a number of the outcomes discussed when an agreement is made or formalized. However, they're very much in the discussion stage right now. Each city that is interested in this is looking at how they may partner with community to provide these outcomes. At present that's why dollars haven't been set aside. They haven't got to the stage where they can talk about what financial resources are going to be necessary. When we move further along, we will be able to discuss that. The meetings have all been held with the focus of talking about what things they think are priorities.

It could be very different in Prince George versus in Surrey, Burnaby or Victoria, for that matter, as to what is one of the first areas they want to target or focus on. We're still very much, as I say, in the discussion stage here. We are exploring these partnerships. Once we know what it is these cities would like to have, then we'll be in a situation to look at levering financial resources and partnering with other people in the community, if that's what's necessary.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then saying that there is money available through this program for local economic development if an agreement is reached?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize if I'm not making myself clear. I don't know if the member is seeking something specific. The opportunity of these agreements is to take a look at a number of outcomes which the cities themselves are going to formulate as to what they want to see. Increased economic activity is clearly one that continually surfaces for all these agreements.

As each city approaches how they want to see increased economic activity, they will then share with us just exactly what that is. Many times it's for capacity. It's to take a look at revitalization and things of that nature. Every agreement will be unique in its own way.

I don't know how much more clear the member or what more information he wants…. It still is very much in the discussion stage, and until such time as we know those priorities and how they're going to play out with Surrey, I can't provide him with any more. Nor do I want to suggest that the city go in a particular direction. They will need to have this discussion with our ministry staff as well as with the federal government representatives, and then we will work towards having an agreement that is truly tripartite.

B. Ralston: Perhaps I can try it, then, this way. I am looking for specific answers, and I want to get some sense of the scope of the financial commitment that the provincial government is prepared to agree to if an agreement were to be concluded in Surrey. Perhaps I can be even more specific.

There is a business improvement association area called the Whalley business improvement area. There's an association that was formed out of that. They raise money through local ratepayers. I'm wondering: if an agreement were to be concluded, would this be a source that might be funded through this program? I don't know if I can be more specific than that, but that's my question.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member. That's more helpful if he was looking specifically for that.

Again, I'm not able to address whether the Whalley business improvement association would be able to actually be in receipt of dollars, if this is what he's suggesting. Once an agreement is signed, once there has been discussion as to where economic activity may take place in the entire Surrey…. It may be in Whalley. It may be in Green Timbers. It may be in Newton. It may be in Panorama. I don't know. That is something that will have to be part of that discussion.

Once it's determined as to what areas — and I can understand that the member from Whalley is particularly keen on his area being revitalized — it may well be that this is where Surrey council wants to direct some attention. Then they may suggest that the business improvement association needs to come along and also share with the Surrey council just exactly what they intend to do in that district — whether it is a revitalization, whether it is taking a look at more employment opportunities for people and residents in that area.

It's not unlike what has happened with the Vancouver agreement, where we are looking at ensuring that residents there are not displaced, that they have employment opportunities and things of that nature. If

that is what the desire is as a result of the consultation that will take place once the three levels of government and staff have been able to work together, then clearly, I would expect that the residents will come out and offer some input. Then we'll have a plan in place. Then we'll have an agreement, and we can move forward and proceed to sign.

That's when we certainly will have the federal government made aware of the financial commitment we're expecting from them as well. Provincially, we would also work on seeing that put in place. Right now, because we are so at the early stages of it, we cannot provide or put that in the budget not knowing, until the discussion takes place, what each of these cities would like to have.

B. Ralston: Perhaps if I could just summarize it, just so I can make sure that I've got it clear, then. Perhaps the minister could then comment on whether my summary is accurate.

Three preliminary meetings have taken place in this process. The initiative to begin that process rests with the city, and to continue, it rests with the city. At this stage no agreement has been concluded, no financial commitments have been made, and the next meeting is scheduled for November or late October at the staff level. Again, thus far, no financial commitments have been made.

Hon. I. Chong: That's a fairly accurate depiction of what's taken place. Again, to confirm, no agreement will be finalized without community consultation. Certainly, the meetings that have taken place have been able to sketch out what is desired.

I want to make it clear for the member and others who represent Surrey ridings that what took place was that in fact, at the very beginning, Surrey was not necessarily the instigator of this agreement. They had not thought that they needed to develop or have an urban development agreement. My understanding is that there were people from the community who saw other communities that had taken advantage of looking at urban development agreements, so a decision was made to say: "Well, let's take a look and see what kind of interest there is there."

To Surrey's credit — and I hope the member would also see this as a very positive initiative — Surrey said: "You know what? We were wrong. Yes, we should have an urban development agreement. We want to be involved. We want to be engaged. Will you continue to have your staff people there? Will you continue to provide the resources we need? Let's move this on as we see other large cities are doing."

I hear all the time that Surrey is one of the fastest-growing municipalities, so certainly an urban development agreement probably is well suited to them. I hope the member will support an agreement that comes forward, one that is going to have community consultation, provided that's what the city of Surrey is after.

B. Ralston: What is the budget projected for this program and the service plan for the coming fiscal year?

Hon. I. Chong: The inner-city partnerships branch of our ministry has a budget of about $363,000. That is, as I say, for the staffing and resources that allow the staff essentially to do their work on these numbers of agreements.

B. Ralston: Just so I can understand that, then: aside from staffing costs, what money is available to expend if there were to be a concluded tripartite agreement between the city of Surrey, the federal government and the province?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is asking about funding for an agreement once it's determined that there will be a signing…. I think I see that's what he's after. That would be requested through our normal budget process — again, not knowing when a city is ready to have an agreement formalized.

If it falls within the normal budget process, we certainly would include that. If it falls outside of a normal budget process and it is a new agreement that we want to sign, then we would always be able to make the request through Treasury Board for dollars to put a new program, a new agreement, in place. That would very likely be through supplemental estimates, but again, it depends on what agreements do come to fruition.

We don't know if all of the four cities that are currently in discussion will in fact have an agreement. We don't know the extent of one versus the other, and that is one of the reasons why we can't just put a dollar in the present budget. If they should conclude some dollars next week as we are entering a budget cycle, then it may be very possible that we would put that in, but I have not heard from any city that is ready at this time for an agreement that could be signed with actual dollars attached.

B. Ralston: Just for ease of reference and to get some sense of scale, can the minister advise how much was expended by the province to satisfy its obligations under the Vancouver agreement in the current fiscal year?

Hon. I. Chong: Perhaps a bit of context might be of use. The original Vancouver agreement was signed in March of the year 2000. For about three years they operated without real dollars expended, because they were still working on coordination with a number of the partners involved. It was in March of 2003 that the government provided $10 million towards the Vancouver agreement, and that is the money the province has committed towards that.

B. Ralston: Just so I understand that $10 million, is that $10 million in a lump sum, or is that an ongoing annual commitment?

Hon. I. Chong: The $10 million was provided as, I guess, our one-time lump sum dollars for it. It's not an annual commitment. It was meant to be a five-year agreement expiring this year. They still have the dollars there to expend to continue on with their program. It's certainly not an annual amount that is provided.

B. Ralston: Just to conclude, then, I understand that if we annualize that, the province has committed $2 million a year over the life of this five-year agreement in pursuit of its obligations under the Vancouver agreement — just to get some sense of scale.

Hon. I. Chong: Yes, that is correct. A $10 million commitment was made for a five-year term, and the federal government matched that amount as well.

B. Simpson: I gave blood today, so I'm supposed to be nice. No, wait. You're supposed to be nice to me, I think. Isn't that how it works?

I have a couple of lines of questions. The first one I'd like to start with is around the note in the service plan around the Community Charter. The statement is: "Local governments will continue to require expert advice and guidance as they explore and apply their new powers under the Community Charter." I'm curious whether any communities have requested of the ministry support for understanding section 226 of the charter.

Hon. I. Chong: Regarding section 226, there is information on the website that provides more detailed information for those who are wishing to avail themselves of that. When we receive requests from time to time from local governments who need more information, my staff are always readily available to assist them and will continue to do that.

B. Simpson: My question was more specific, though. It was whether or not any municipalities have actually asked for assistance in understanding the implications of section 226. My understanding is that there are a number of communities now that are getting requests for application of 226, and it's causing them a little bit of trouble. I'm curious whether they've engaged the ministry.

I'll add a supplemental to that, though, given what the minister's response is. Is the minister suggesting that the website is a sufficient resource to municipalities as they apply the Community Charter?

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, to respond to the last part of the question from the member, my reference to the website is just to indicate that we put a variety of information on there for people if they want a little bit more explanation, and also, actually, for the public who may not be members of local government or local councils, who may not have the charter or the Local Government Act at their fingertips, who may want to go to our website and look at certain sections that are of particular interest. It has been helpful. I think the public has looked at it, and perhaps as a result there have been more requests that have come in.

We continue to provide assistance for any requests that we receive for any interpretation of sections of the act or any queries there might be. If the member has a particular local government or council he's aware of who are finding that they're not able to get information, I'd be pleased to hear from them and then see how we might be able to assist them.

B. Simpson: My curiosity was whether or not the communities are actually engaging the ministry. I'll move on from there.

As a reminder, this was a section that was not wanted by the Union of B.C. Municipalities in the Community Charter. They actually voted against this, and it was over their request that this was put in.

Given that, I'm curious if the ministry has any intention of tracking usage of section 226 against stated intent. The specific question is: will the ministry track application of section 226 on a case-by-case basis against the intent that the ministry had for putting section 226 in the Community Charter?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, to the last part of the question first. Certainly, we will be monitoring the use of this section, as we will with other sections of the Community Charter, to see what sections the local governments are finding particularly beneficial for them.

I do want to make some clarification. I understand that UBCM originally had been opposed to an earlier provision designed around this tax exemption. It was as a result of working with UBCM that 226 was then drafted to take into consideration some of those concerns that were there. It may have begun as a section that was originally not well liked, to which there was some opposition. In working with UBCM, with the Community Charter Council, 226 then was drafted and put into the Community Charter with some acceptance.

B. Simpson: Well, I think UBCM was very concerned about this section, because they didn't want to engage in a race to the bottom with various communities competing with each other, particularly interior communities that were going to go through a time of

significant economic transition. They would then start to use their tax revenue as a lever and start to compete against one another. That's why I think it's vital that the ministry really track this and find out how it's been utilized, who it's been utilized by and if, indeed, it's been used as a competitive advantage for one community over another community.

I guess, in the business I come from of helping organizations set up metrics, you get what you measure. I'm curious whether or not the ministry, in applying measures to this one, is going to look at the offset of loading on communities who actually use section 226 to give away some of their tax base. Will the ministry be monitoring the incremental loading on municipalities if they do give away some of their tax revenue generation? If so, in what way would that metric be formed?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, we will be monitoring this. I've been informed by staff that there has not been as great an interest as perhaps was at first thought. Perhaps in the region that this member represents he's heard about it more. I know that I haven't heard about this section being of particular concern in my region.

We certainly will monitor it, and until such time as we have some statistics, some information, I don't think it would necessarily be prudent to design some huge system to track at this time. Just know that we will be watching and seeing how local governments use them. Now, with the fact that the member has raised it, we will watch it that much more and see, as a result of his comments, whether this is something that more municipalities are aware of and want to take advantage of. We certainly will keep our eyes on that.

B. Simpson: Well, I appreciate that, and I can assure you that I'll be keeping my eyes on it as well. I'm sure we'll be having this discussion a little further down the line with the next budget process.

I'm going to switch tack now. Again, from the ministry service plan. It speaks of working in collaboration with other agencies and orders of government to address social, health and economic issues facing inner-city communities within British Columbia's larger cities. I'm curious if the minister is aware of the recent homelessness studies that have been done in smaller communities in the interior of British Columbia.

Hon. I. Chong: I am aware, generally — as, I think, all members of the Legislature are — of the homelessness issues that are being done in small rural-remote communities as well as the large urban ones. Oftentimes it is the larger urban centres that get the attention, simply because the media is there to cover it that much more often, and we see the homelessness counts, etc., that go on.

The Premier had initiated the Premier's task force on homelessness to bring together not just the mayors of the large cities. He did also encourage and bring in people from the smaller areas with that in mind. We acknowledged that this is an issue that is not limited, necessarily, to one region.

I would have to also advise the member, though, that the homelessness task force, which deals with housing, is now with the Minister of Forests. If he needs more specific information on it, I would ask that he refer those questions to him for a more detailed explanation as to what may be happening there.

B. Simpson: I understand that aspect of it and, as the critic for one portion of that minister's portfolio, will be engaging in a number of conversations. However, I want to talk about the service plan that the minister has for her ministry. It does recognize only the larger urban centres. As we move into the next iteration of this, I'm curious if the minister will expand that. That's one.

The second is that there's a suggestion here that it's taken decades for these things to become established. The hon. member for Cariboo South and I can attest that our communities have seen a dramatic increase in these kinds of things — rural crime, downtown crime rates, homelessness and what we call "couch surfing" — over the last four years. I'm curious whether or not the ministry will engage in this collaborative effort to look at its own policies, its own cost-control measures and the implications for rural communities on increasing homelessness, increasing crime in our downtown cores and the increasing number of young people that are engaged in both couch surfing and those crimes.

Hon. I. Chong: Firstly, if he's referring to our inner-city partnerships and our urban development agreements…. It certainly is, currently, the larger cities that have approached the ministry in order to put something in place, because of the variety of issues that they're dealing with and that large cities normally, I guess, have a propensity to have three levels of government work on.

I was speaking earlier to one of his colleagues and talked about Surrey, looking at their urban development agreement. Prince George, Burnaby and Victoria have all expressed interest in that. The smaller communities, at this point, are perhaps still looking at capacity, still looking at how they may develop an agreement. We have not heard from smaller cities at this time or the more rural, remote areas as to what their desires are in terms of an agreement.

In doing these agreements, we do them with all levels of government — local, provincial and federal — so we would want to have the federal government, also, come to the table to see whether there is a capacity to do that. If that were not possible for the smaller communities, there are a number of other avenues that smaller communities are able to access to take a look at initiatives.

Certainly, this ministry will work cross-government. What has been, I think, lacking in the past — it goes back 20 years, even — is that oftentimes min-

istries work independently of each other, and there is a lot of overlap. We are trying to change that culture so that we are able to work across ministries. This is a ministry that is clearly able to do cross-government coordination and collaboration. We do touch on local government and local communities, where we have an opportunity to speak to communities much more frequently through the UBCM or the local area associations.

We will continue to do that, but a number of initiatives and funds have been announced to deal with some areas that have not had the opportunity to take a look at economic opportunities that they had in the past. The member is aware of the funds that have been set up that are available in their areas. In other areas they may not be available, such as here in Victoria. I know our community is considered excluded from access to these development trust funds that have been put in place.

I guess the short answer is that we will continue to meet with local governments. I'll continue to hear from the area associations as to how we can assist them, what kind of cross-government coordination and collaboration they feel we need to work with them on, and what initiatives. But at the end of the day, the local governments also have to acknowledge the capacity that they may or may not have, different from the larger communities.

B. Simpson: I'm not sure that my question was even remotely touched on in that answer. What I was asking, and I guess I reflect on the Minister of Finance's comment, is that it's about choices. This government made some choices over the last four years, and a number of those choices were to retract services, to cut service provision to youth and family and to remove people from various ministries and agencies that used to do that work.

In the reports on homelessness we've had tabled and that were funded by the federal government, we have seen over that same time period an increase in homelessness and couch surfing; we have seen over that same time period an increase in youth crime rates and vagrancy; and we have seen things that would indicate to me that a government in good conscience needs to sit down and look at its own policies and whether or not they're culpable.

That's the question I asked. Is this government, at some point in this collaborative exercise, actually going to look at itself, at its own policies and at the increase in homelessness and in these kinds of activities — that it says it's trying to stop — being directly attributable to those policies? My question, quite clearly, to the minister is: will the government engage in a policy review with the intent of seeing whether or not its policies have driven some of these indices upwards in rural communities in British Columbia where we were not seeing them before?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, there are a number of things that have happened in the last four years. We were a province that was not doing particularly well. We had a lot of young people leaving. We had very few jobs that were available. We had a lot of communities that were, quite frankly, in trouble.

What we had to do was turn the economy around and bring investment back into this province. In all regions of this province we are seeing that the opportunities are beginning to exist where they didn't exist in the past. It also means taking a look at employment opportunities for a number of people who had, I guess, gone into a cycle of dependency on government, where we've been able to get them into training opportunities, where they are now working and able to provide for their families and, therefore, to build stronger and safer communities.

In this ministry what we've also been able to do is provide communities with more resources in terms of returning 100 percent of their traffic fine revenues so that they can deal with things such as community safety and crime prevention initiatives. We'll continue to take a look at those areas and, as well, will continue to work with UBCM as to what they see as areas that we can work on and where we can collaborate.

You know, things have changed. We have a record number of people working in this province. We have small businesses doing fairly well. I acknowledge that in some parts of the province there are still some challenges to be had, and we will continue to work with those communities that have those challenges.

B. Simpson: Well, I guess we can turn this into question period, if we wish. I was hoping for something a bit less political in the answer than the golden decade and, you know, the abysmal decade before. My question is very specific. Will the ministry, as part of looking and examining these things, look at its own policies and look at the implications of the cost control measures, look at implications of policy changes, look at implications of cuts?

We can agree to disagree on the rest of the stuff, but I think it's a fair question that whenever an organization makes a change, it has to make every effort to make sure that those changes were meaningful and got the intent that was desired. It has to be open to the possibility that the changes that it made did not get the intent that was desired. I think that may be the case here in some of the specific cases that we've talked about.

My question isn't about whether or not we're heading into a golden decade or we came from a dismal one. My question is whether or not the ministry, as it looks at these problems, will look at its own policy changes to see if they're part of an increase in these problems in rural communities.

Hon. I. Chong: I think that perhaps the best way to speak about this ministry…. If the member is asking questions that need to be addressed to other ministries, then I would ask him to direct his questions there. In terms of this ministry, one of the first policies that we

made when we formed government was that we were not going to reduce the local government grants, which over the past number of years had been reduced.

We also said that we would work with local governments to develop a community charter — which we've done and which we will continue to monitor — and see how that works in the various local governments. We will also be able to take a look, from time to time, as to what new initiatives should arise in this ministry in particular.

We're supporting the Premier's Council on Aging and Seniors Issues. From that, I imagine, there will be a number of policies that come forward and recommendations that this ministry will look at and see how we can support those. So there are a variety of policies that are reviewed. Our service plan sets out a number of our performance targets and measures — and obviously you strive to make that. We will continue to look at new ways and new initiatives as they are presented to us.

B. Simpson: I'll take the short answer as no. It strikes me, though, that if any organization does a course change, and particularly one that has as much potential impact on society as our government — and multiple layers of organizations have had to do a significant course change — that you want to make sure that that course change takes you in the direction that you want it to go.

I would suggest that this ministry has, throughout its service plan…. It's going to be the one to help coordinate collaboration on all of these things. Maybe it's one of the ministries that's best positioned to say what the stated intent was of this policy, what the stated intent was of these program cuts and the direction that we took here. Did we, in fact, achieve that stated intent as a neutral third party, if you will, in that collaborative process?

I think the ministry is very well positioned for that, particularly if it works with the municipalities in the regional districts to have that done. I know, and many of the members in our own caucus know, there are lots of people who are saying that these program cuts that the government has done over the last four years — or changes, or whatever the case may be — are directly culpable in some of the social issues that we are confronted with. If that's not being heard by this government, then I think they're turning a deaf ear to a lot of voices.

I think this ministry is well positioned. The minister has spoken herself about the fact that it's a ministry that's well positioned for that kind of cross-ministry collaboration. Therefore, I think it might be well positioned to begin to do some of those realistic appraisals, and would recommend that.

On that note, for the minister, I'd like to know: can you give me an example of what this cross-ministry collaboration might look like? As I said, it's been mentioned a number of times. Is there a concrete example of what that might look like? Are you going to bring a task force together? Is the minister going to chair some sort of cross-ministerial group that's going to look at something? Is there an example that we can understand — that function and that aspect of the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member putting his views on record. I just want to, again, not trying to be adversarial…. I just want him to understand, as well, that we did make choices. We are going to continue to measure those choices we made. When he speaks about a course change that occurred…. Well, yes, the course change that our government took was to have a revised economy and to have more people working. We've been able to put more dollars into health care, more dollars into education, more dollars into social housing. But people will still say that there are more demands and that more dollars are needed.

There are still challenges; there will always be challenges for any government. That will never go away, and we will continue to work through those and continue to work with local governments, in particular, to see how we can help them address some of the challenges they face.

When the member compliments the ministry — and I'll take it as a compliment — that we are well positioned to work across government, I agree with him. That's why I'm very pleased to be part of a ministry that is able to see a number of things across government.

He asked for a specific example, and perhaps the best one I can give him is something I know he'll be particularly interested in personally: the pine beetle. While it may seem to deal solely with forestry, it affects communities as a whole, and this ministry will need to help those communities go through a transition period and work with the Ministry of Economic Development, as well, to see what they can do to assist a community that might have to look at diversifying.

We may have to provide some resources to help look at a strategy about diversifying, so a number of things can happen. A community can change from a resource-dependent to a tourism-dependent community. Again, our ministry can provide assistance. I have a deputy minister who sits on a deputy ministers' committee which brings in a number of these committees, and also some of the social committees, to ensure, particularly when communities are going through a transition, that we're able to coordinate in a more collaborative way and that we don't continue to work in silos, as has been in the past.

I hope that gives some comfort to the member as to how this ministry, through our staff, can be able to work with other ministries in a much more collaborative way.

B. Simpson: I was hoping for something a little bit more concrete. I'm glad you raised the question around the social and economic impacts of the mountain pine beetle, and I'm wondering if you can be more explicit about what that looks like. It's easy to put in words like

"collaboration" and "work with" — all of that stuff. When you're dealing with a behemoth as big as the public service, those words take on quite a different meaning, so I would like to know some specifics. For example, has your ministry had any communications with the Omineca Beetle Action Coalition or the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition, and if so, what's the nature of that communication?

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate that the member, as well, has an interest in this, because it is fairly clear that the mountain pine beetle infestation has progressed beyond forestry. It's no longer a forest issue.

Certainly, we know that it does demand cross-government, cross-ministry, cross-jurisdictional attention, and national attention as well. The member is probably aware that the federal government has committed $140 million to date, and we are continuing to work with them to have certainty that they will continue to provide more support in the future.

There's a community advisory group on the mountain pine beetle, and this group is comprised of communities, first nations, forest industries, scientific communities, logging contractors and the federal government. The group is there to review progress and to provide input on the Beetle Action Plan. I'm also aware that our staff have met with the Cariboo-Chilcotin Beetle Action Coalition that was established. We have had discussions with them, and we have an interministerial mountain pine beetle working group that has been convened. That includes people from the Ministry of Forests and Range, our ministry of course, Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation, Economic Development, and Agriculture and Lands. So this is where, cross-government, we are able, together, to collaborate and to deal with stakeholders as well as with other non-government agencies to see how we can deal with this epidemic.

B. Simpson: I wonder if you could give me a little bit more on this interministerial advisory group, please. When was it struck? Who is the lead agent in it? And what, if any, is its working mandate?

Hon. I. Chong: The interministerial mountain pine beetle working group…. The ministries that I've indicated are staff, so that, cross-government, we're able to speak to each other about what issues are arising. The province is the Community Advisory Group on the Mountain Pine Beetle. That is another group, but it's very much…. It's led by the Minister of Forests, so he would have more details as to who the participants are on that. If I could ask the member to canvass that with the Minister of Forests, he might find out even more information.

B. Simpson: Yes, I'm aware of the community advisory committee. I'm curious because the interministerial mountain pine beetle working group is a new group. Again, I'm wondering if the minister can tell me when it was struck, whether or not it has a definitive mandate and what, if any, the role of her ministry will be on that. You've tagged yourself as the socioeconomic component of it, and lots of the money that's going to be flowing to communities and around socioeconomic…. Will you have the lead?

So, when was it struck? Who chairs it? Does it have a mandate? And what's the role of your ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: The interministerial mountain pine beetle working group, as I say, is comprised of staff from the various ministries that I've indicated, and senior staff will likely be there. At times it could be the assistant deputy, and at times it could even be the deputy who will be there. The committee itself, or the working group, has been convened. I guess a formal meeting hasn't officially taken place, but it was to establish a working group so that we would work cross-government and ensure that the mountain pine beetle would be something that the many ministries that were affected and especially the many communities affected would know that we were working cross-government on this.

Once established or once the working group has a chance to meet and is able to determine some of the terms of reference and understanding of what takes place, I would be happy to provide that to the member so he is aware of what's taking place. It's a fairly new concept. In some cases, as much as we like to say that we'll work cross-ministerial, until you actually put a working group together, it doesn't happen.

It was very clear from the Premier's own words that the mountain pine beetle was more than a Forests issue, so he was very insistent on the fact that we needed to have a working group in place if we're going to really deal with this and deal with communities. Absolutely, our ministry had to be involved in it. When the staff meet and all sit around a table, I think it will become very clear how each will contribute towards that. Again, I'll be happy to provide that to the member.

B. Simpson: Thank you, and I look forward to that information. If I could make a recommendation to the minister: lots of water before you go in next time to give the blood — right? Make it flow out easily. Thank you very much for your time, and I'll turn the floor over.

C. Wyse: It's good to see you, hon. minister. I'd like to start off and acknowledge your generosity of going out to the blood clinic today to make your offer, to donate your blood. It's very generous. For a father who lost a child to leukemia, I'm very appreciative of your generosity. Without that type of generosity, the people who suffer from blood disorders have no chance of recovery. I do wish to acknowledge that. Thank you very much.

I would ask you to have a look at page 19 in your document. My questions will be relatively specific. It's to deal with goal two, seniors' and women's full par-

ticipation in their community and, underneath objective one, that women and their children are supported to deal with their experience of abuse. I refer you specifically to key strategies underneath number two, delivering counselling services to women who have experienced abuse and their children, and number three, making outreach services available to women.

I hope that type of direction will assist us as we go through our questions. I will describe to you the situation that exists in one of my communities in Cariboo South, the 100 Mile area. The women's centre in 100 Mile has become the advocacy centre for a variety of different services required by women, men, the aged and children to find out where they go to answer questions on a number of issues, whether it be WCB or whether it be legal.

The accessibility to services for women and children who have directly experienced such abuses is provided from an area larger than just the 100 Mile area. They come from a large, dispersed rural set of circumstances. The question I have of you is: what funding assistance is provided to this particular organization to meet your two objectives that are listed here on page 19?

Hon. I. Chong: You may or may not know that a year ago, when I was the Minister of State for Women's and Seniors' Services, I travelled around the province as much as I could. I visited many communities — mostly the smaller communities, to be quite frank — to find out just how they were dealing with some of the programs and services to do with women who have experienced abuse and, of course, children who have witnessed abuse — the two program areas that our ministry is primarily responsible for providing funding for.

As I met with the service providers and the front-line workers, I did clearly hear from them that they could do with a little more assistance to provide for more outreach services, for more counselling. In some cases, where I thought they might want a full-time person, they said: "Actually, no." They didn't have the capacity. They simply didn't have the person there who could provide the services. So it was very helpful to go out to the communities and speak one-on-one to some of them, who were able to share with us what their needs were.

As a result of that, I was able to come back to my cabinet and share with all my colleagues in the caucus and say that we need to put in a substantial increase for the program area that we were funding. We were able to successfully put a 33-percent lift in the base budget for these programs, which had not seen an increase in about a dozen years. I know that even after the increase, as often is the case, communities come forward and say: "Well, you know what? We could even do with a bit more." So as I mentioned earlier, there will always be demands and will always be some challenges. But I was very happy to have been involved in the process and to see a lift made in this area.

I apologize for not having made it to 100 Mile House. I was in Quesnel, and I was in Williams Lake and those parts, but I didn't make it to 100 Mile House. What we do provide are dollars to specifically provide for the delivery of those programs: the Children Who Witness Abuse program, the Stopping the Violence program for women who've experienced abuse. We fund the transition house. We fund second-stage housing. We have safe homes, as well, that we provide funding for — and of course outreach, which had apparently been clearly a gap. We provide extra dollars for that.

I am aware that 100 Mile House receives in the '05-06 budget somewhere in the neighbourhood of a combined total of about $125,000. They both go to the 100 Mile House and District Women's Centre Society. In one case, they provide the Stop the Violence program for women who've experienced abuse. That's about $72,000, and the other $53,000 is for, I understand, the safe house — safe home — that is there for them. If the member was looking for those dollar amounts, those are the ones I'm aware of that are being funded.

The programs that are offered in 100 Mile, as I've mentioned, require an environment in which you have mixtures across ages and genders. In the information I've been given by representatives of the society, they have difficulty in making that separation, in providing all this advocacy work that has come their way as a result of a number of ministerial closures — not yours but in other government decisions that have been made. Specifically, this particular centre is finding it difficult to provide that safe type of environment, given the two contracts, given when men are also in the same situation and there are women seeking support who have suffered the abuse that I've mentioned.

What are your plans for specifically addressing the results of choices that have been made across this government as they have affected a community like 100 Mile? My hon. colleague from Cariboo North has, in a general aspect, mentioned situations around increased couch surfing, increase of crime, delinquent acts that have been taking place across our communities. But very specifically, I would like to come back to the 100 Mile–area women's centre and the forced delivery of services in a mixed-gender environment, when very clearly that is against the intentions of numbers two and three.

Hon. I. Chong: I appreciate the member seeking to see how this particular society is able to access more resources to provide the variety of services they are endeavouring to provide.

This ministry, because our focus in particular is on providing services for women and for children…. While understandably there could be men who are also victims of violence, our funding program in this particular ministry deals strictly with those programs. There are other programs that dollars are provided for, through other ministries. I know through the Solicitor

General and the Attorney General, there are victim-based counselling services. There are community-based services. If the member is seeking to determine whether there are additional dollars available for that, I would need to refer him to those ministers to find out whether or not there's any likelihood of any changes being made there.

What I know is that in this particular ministry, we had a budget that had been stagnant for these particular services for about a dozen years. When it became apparent to me that we could look at a funding increase, we did a significant increase of about 33 percent, and we've devoted it to those very specific direct services that this ministry provides. Those are our transition houses, our safe houses, our second-stage housing. It is our counselling program for the women who have experienced abuse and children who witness abuse, in addition to outreach services, because we were finding that was what was needed.

We've also provided some more dollars for providing training. We were hearing from the front-line workers that it is a specialized victim services program, and it would help if they had more training and learning opportunities. So again, we provide support in that area.

This ministry is very much focused on these services. That's where our dollars are dedicated. If the member needs to take a look at some other programs that he would like to see the society and support the society in providing, they may be ones that are provided for through another ministry.

C. Wyse: We've heard the hon. minister talk about lifts across the board. What were the total sums of money that the 100 Mile centre would have received, let's say, last year?

Hon. I. Chong: The 100 Mile House society has funding for the safe house and, as well, for the STV program, which is for women who have experienced abuse. The new program that they have the capacity to provide for is our Children Who Witness Abuse program. They will be receiving a $35,000 increase for that — increase being that it's a new program they're going to be offering, which they couldn't do in the past. I hope that is satisfactory for the member.

The Chair: Noting the hour, I declare that the committee will recess until 6:40.

M. Farnworth: I'd like to take this opportunity to advise the minister that I have some questions around the Community Charter, and how they relate to an issue in my constituency, so that's the area I'd like to focus on a bit.

The Community Charter has been in force for a few years now. I'd just like to find out if the minister is satisfied with the way that the Community Charter is working. Is it working in the way that the government anticipated that it would?

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for Port Coquitlam–Burke Mountain, who in a previous role was exactly where I am at now — so, a role reversal.

At the present time I'm advised that we have not received or had to deal with any issues in relation to the Community Charter. I had a meeting with the UBCM executive shortly after I was appointed to this role. They informed me that they felt the Community Charter was working well and that in fact, if anything, perhaps the Community Charter was still an instrument or a tool that municipalities and local governments were still getting their teeth into. If they had questions, they were always able to contact the ministry for elaboration if they needed it.

M. Farnworth: I understand that municipalities are coming to terms with it and that they are functioning with it. How about members of the public? Has the ministry had issues in terms of the public being concerned about some of the powers that the municipalities have now had access to under the charter — some of the responsibilities that it gives municipalities? If so, do they keep a record of complaints or concerns that have been communicated to the ministry from members of the public?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm not aware of any significant complaints that are unusual for that. Citizens sometimes have issues with municipalities as a whole, but nothing specific to the Community Charter has been raised that is of significance or of concern. The ministry staff do in fact track, in that when we get calls, if one particular section is problematic, we would become aware of it fairly quickly, but I have been advised that that has not occurred.

M. Farnworth: I'll outline the problem area for the minister. It revolves around section 32 of the Community Charter, and it is in terms of when municipalities are going in and doing, for example, road-widening and road expansions and bridge-building. What is happening is that property is being either expropriated for road rights-of-way…. In some cases, it's for land use decisions and other rights-of-way, involving various things from fish habitat to road rights-of-way to a whole host of things.

In particular, in the Burke Mountain area of my constituency a number of people are seeing their property alienated. They're trying to work with the municipality, and they're finding it frustrating because they're feeling the municipality is not treating them fairly.

They're looking to the Community Charter for some sort of redress, and they're not finding it there.

Hon. I. Chong: I just wanted to confirm with staff whether we have received any complaints, particularly from Burke Mountain area residents, on section 32. Apparently, we haven't received any formal letters or e-mails in that regard that we're aware of.

As the member would know, this issue has been around before. In the Municipal Act in the past, that has happened. Perhaps with the Community Charter we have broadened authority with municipalities. We would still encourage municipalities and local officials to work more cooperatively with their citizens as in the past so that they don't disenfranchise their electorate. The charter does not provide a provision for any specific redress in relation to section 32.

M. Farnworth: I understand the minister's answer. This issue is one that has been around for a long time. With the charter there has been, I think, a sense of increased responsibilities on municipalities. Clearly they have a role to play in ensuring they treat people fairly.

This is what the nub of my questioning comes down to. They're not being treated fairly. There isn't that avenue of redress, particularly when you're dealing with land development and small land holders who are not able to advocate for themselves in the way that major developers are. There needs to be some sort of mechanism for people who feel aggrieved to pursue that avenue without expensive litigation.

Municipalities try sometimes to come to an agreement on the compensation for the land that's being expropriated in terms of fair market value. One of the things I'm wondering: has the ministry considered looking at a non-judicial, whether it be a tribunal or an adjudicator, to help in disputes between local governments and citizens in terms of resolving these types of disputes?

Hon. I. Chong: The suggestion of a non-judicial approach has, I think, come up from time to time. The difficulty is that there hasn't been consensus — that's the best way to describe it — as to whether or not that is the best approach. Other jurisdictions, other provinces who have attempted to put in place a tribunal or something similar have encountered it to be a problem in that it has become rather large and somewhat bureaucratic. The challenge has been not that it hasn't been able to achieve what its desired outcomes were — that is to ensure that complaints can be heard and resolutions are found. It has become just another area where a complaint is perhaps heard, yet without necessarily any kind of a desired outcome.

I'm aware that we do have a municipal best practices guide, which deals with certain sections of the charter, not with all sections. Perhaps it would be worthy of consideration whether section 32 should have some best practices that municipalities could adhere to that could go into this guide as another section that has become a problem.

While I would like to offer that up, at the same time, it's not…. As I say, until today and the member raising this, it hasn't appeared to be a large problem. Again, you don't want to set up a tribunal just for one section with one area. The best practices appear to be working somewhat, and if that's where we can expand upon them, that might be where we can look at that.

M. Farnworth: I appreciate the minister's answer, and I won't belabour the point. I will suggest to the minister that this is going to be a larger problem than she may have anticipated in the past, particularly as development takes place in some of the larger areas of developed land in the lower mainland, many of which are in the northeast sector of the lower mainland and many of which involve significant small land holders as well as large private land holders and a considerable amount of Crown land. These issues are going to be there, particularly when landholders are seeing their one-acre lot rendered sterile by the actions of the local government. They are rightly upset.

This is clearly an issue, so I will bring further information to the minister's attention if she will commit to looking at it. As well, the issue around best practices may be something to look at.

I would, also, ask the minister, just to re-emphasize, that the option of a tribunal, I think, would be something that could be looked at by the ministry. I understand the issues that the minister has mentioned. However, I think there may be models out there of something that would work that would not be bureaucratic and would at least get some resolution — perhaps using B.C. Assessment, but ensuring that people are treated fairly. Right now they're not being treated fairly, and it's generating a lot of hostility at the local level with local government. They are looking to the statute, the Community Charter, as a place to help resolve that.

If the minister would commit to that, I'd be pleased to provide her with further information as to the nature of the problem.

Hon. I. Chong: I'm always happy to receive information from members of the opposition who would like to offer some constructive thoughts or ideas on how we might make it better. I welcome his input.

N. Macdonald: Just looking at "Goal 2: Seniors' and women's full participation in their communities." Towards the bottom it says something about outreach services. This is on page 19 of the Service Plan Update. The ministry funds outreach programs.

The question is around information in one community where initially there was a contract, a proposal put out, that didn't include for-profit companies being able to bid. That was subsequently switched.

The question is just around the use of private companies to provide these services. Is that something that

is a new initiative? What's some of the thinking around it? Is the information I have accurate — that you have private companies bidding on these contracts?

Hon. I. Chong: The member may be aware that the government has a fair and open procurement policy and, as such, does provide for services to be provided by other than a non-profit if a particular service provider is able to satisfy the terms of the RFP that is put out. I am aware that there have been cases of people who are in profit enterprises who are providing these services, but the vast majority of those providing our services are non-profit organizations and societies.

N. Macdonald: How many contracts for these sorts of services, then, have gone to the private sector, a for-profit company?

Hon. I. Chong: I wanted just to be very clear on what has occurred. As I say, the government's open and fair procurement policy that is out does provide for those in the private sector to bid on service contracts. Currently there are none that have been let to anyone in the private sector. We are negotiating for one who is interested, but that's still in negotiation.

The criteria are based on the ability for the service contractor or service provider to meet our contract needs for the service to be delivered. That's why the majority of these will be provided by the non-profit sector. They have had the historical, I guess, expertise, background, training and capacity to deal with most of these. As I say, when the RFPs go out, there will be interest from people in the private sector, but they will not necessarily be successful in receiving that contract if they cannot meet our criteria.

N. Macdonald: In terms of timing, is it accurate to say that when this was first put forward, it did not include for-profit companies? Is it accurate to say that the first time it came out, it did not include for-profit companies?

Hon. I. Chong: As a result of the increased funding in this program area that we were able to have in the budget, we were able to, for the first time, really offer up a new RFP for services. When the RFP was posted for contracts, I guess in March, it was done so without having followed the guidelines of our fair and open procurement policy, so an amendment was made to ensure that it was open to private operators as well as the not-for-profit operators.

N. Macdonald: The amendment was made at what date, please? I'll repeat that for you. The initial contract was put out in March. Then you said it was amended to include for-profit. What's the date that the amended contract was put out, please?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll get that information for the member. As I say, it was first posted and was posted incorrectly in that it did not meet the government's open procurement policy. The amendment was put forward. It would have been within a fairly short time frame because the closing date was May 16. If it was posted at the very beginning of March or the end of February, even, it would have very shortly thereafter been noticed that it needed to be corrected and amended in time to ensure that the closing date of May 16 was a reasonable time for all those who were interested in the RFP.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, there is only one that we are currently negotiating with at the moment. It has not been let, and therefore there are issues of privacy. When a person is successful, that is when the information is made available. We would be happy to let the member know who those will be when they have received those contracts.

B. Ralston: I want to deal with the women's area by beginning with some general questions. After the election in 2001 the government that the minister represents decided to dissolve the stand-alone Ministry of Women's Equality after pre-election commitments that it would maintain it and after election promises that: "A B.C. Liberal government will be guided by the principle of equality — equality for all British Columbians." There is now not even a minister of state for women's equality. Can the minister tell me why her government decided not to appoint a minister of state for women's equality?

Hon. I. Chong: The area of responsibility that includes women's issues is, I think, appropriately housed with the ministry that I have responsibility for — that is, Community Services — because I deal with all local governments and local organizations that work with local governments. A number of organizations that exist in our local communities also have interaction with local governments. There are a lot of partnerships and agreements that are oftentimes made to include community organizations with local governments and with the provincial government. So it's appropriately placed in this ministry, and I am very confident that we will continue to meet the needs as necessary.

B. Ralston: Can the minister tell us: what are the underlying goals of this ministry in terms of women's equality?

Hon. I. Chong: The member, I know, has a copy of our service plan, and it has been referenced by other members. If he looks at page 19, he'll see that our objective is: "Women and…children are supported to deal with the experience of abuse."

We have a number of key strategies. We have our performance measures as outlined. We also have an objective to explore women's options for participating in the economy to ensure that those are enhanced. As I say, these are the items listed in the service plan. If the member has something specific, then I'd be pleased to answer.

B. Ralston: Does the government include working towards equality for women in B.C. as one of its goals?

Hon. I. Chong: In our ministry we continue to do policy work in the area of developing strategies that increase women's safety, as well as for children who have witnessed abuse. We also look at opportunities and work on areas where we can enhance participation of women — to participate fully in all facets of British Columbia's social and economic opportunities.

We have a number of areas where we work cross-ministry. We know that in some communities women are more vulnerable — in the area of our first nations women. We know that we need to incorporate some of our government programs that include them in a more specific and unique way. We have ensured that by defining a new relationship that we have with first nations and aboriginal people. We certainly support, as well, the inclusion of the National Aboriginal Women's Association of Canada in our first ministers' meeting that the Premier had been involved in.

We take a look at housing as another example, which the Minister of Forests has responsibility for. We also take a look at housing needs of women and low-income persons. We certainly take a look and see how this ministry can support other programs that are being delivered by other ministries, but our key objectives and goals in this ministry, as pertain to the women's programs that we fund, deal with ensuring the safety of women and children — vulnerable children who have been exposed to violence. Again, if the member has a specific item he would like to raise, I would be happy to hear that.

B. Ralston: Thank you, minister, for that recitation of the tasks of the ministry, but my question is: does the minister include working towards equality for women in British Columbia as one of the goals of the ministry?

Hon. I. Chong: We certainly take a look at those barriers that do exist. I realize there are disparities that exist between women and men at times. We are able to, as I say, work cross-government, and we will continue to do that as those issues present themselves. We want to ensure that women are able to fully participate in the economic opportunities that exist, and we will continue to work to ensure that we can remove those barriers that are there for them.

B. Ralston: Can I put it in a shorter way — that the minister is agreeing that one of the goals is working towards equality for women in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, I will repeat for the member that the goals of this ministry are to address some of the barriers and disparities that exist and to continue to work to find ways to remove those so that women can participate fully in our economy.

B. Ralston: Does the minister believe women have achieved equality in British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, we certainly have made a number of strides in this province. We know that women are achieving more and more in terms of opportunities in small business. I've heard members opposite, as well as members on our side of the House, quote a number of times this week that women operate 35 percent of the small businesses in British Columbia, which is the largest percentage in all of Canada.

There will continue to be areas that we can work on. There will continue to be areas where we can put attention towards assisting women, and we will continue to do that.

B. Ralston: How does the minister measure the success of the ministry in terms of achieving women's equality?

Hon. I. Chong: As I indicated earlier to the member or perhaps to one of his other colleagues, our program areas in this ministry are focused primarily on direct essential services for violence prevention, for providing the necessary supports for women escaping violence and for children witnessing abuse and on outreach counselling services, transition houses, things of that nature. A number of other programs are provided to assist women in a number of other ministries. This ministry will and does work across government in ensuring that we have input into those programs and services so that if a particular program or initiative is to be started in another particular ministry, we have input as to how that may affect women.

Again, I would say that we have made progress and a number of strides in terms of women in this province. We know that women are now comprising the majority of those enrolled in post-secondary education. We also know that more women are obtaining university degrees and that the likelihood of women being employed has increased dramatically over the number of years simply because of the employment opportunities that exist. Women's labour force participation has increased. As well, I have advocated that women be more involved in non-traditional roles. In particular, women in the trades is an area that I had dealt with in my last portfolio.

So we are continuing to work in a number of areas to address where there may be disparities, and we'll continue to do that.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for that recitation of trends that would appear to be well-known social

trends. Are those included as part of the performance measures of her ministry or is that simply anecdotal evidence that she's using to support a general position?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, as I've indicated to the member, the program area in our service plan, which I know he's reviewed — again, and I will repeat — focuses on the Stopping the Violence prevention, the Children Who Witness Abuse program. Those are certainly the measures we have in terms of providing services there.

I continue to advise the member — and I don't know why he's not interested in the fact — that we in this ministry will continue to work cross-government, interministerially, to have members of senior staff who work with other senior staff in other ministries participating on these interministerial committees. We participate on one, for example, in the area of prostitution and on another one on fetal alcohol syndrome.

I can tell the member that at a recent forum I was at, they were very pleased to hear that this kind of work continues and is cross-government and that it's not exclusively the area of one minister. And that, again, we have some shared responsibilities so that when a program is initiated or an initiative is provided, the other ministries will come to this ministry and ask if, in fact, we have taken into consideration those impacts they may have on women.

B. Ralston: In the 2002 service plan for the ministry, the then Ministry of Community, Aboriginal and Women's Services, the goals included: "To ensure that government programs address issues relating to women's economic and social equity." Included in that rubric, was: "(1) Develop a reporting method to assess government's progress in advancing gender equality; (2) Develop a provincewide perspective for the delivery of women's services, including an inventory of all services that are available to women; and (3) Develop strategies for protecting the availability of abortion services." These initiatives have not been kept and are completely absent in the 2005 service plan. Can the minister explain why these performance measures have been dropped?

Hon. I. Chong: Some of the issues relating to women are addressed in other ministries. However, we have input or collaboration and opportunities to work with those other ministries.

One of the last items that the member indicated was in the area of abortion. Well, that is under the Ministry of Health. Of course, in the Ministry of Health there is a strategy on women's health that was worked on. I recall having been involved in the launch of the women's health strategy. There'll be other issues pertaining to other ministries, such as in terms of housing, which will be in another particular ministry.

Our service plan shows our area of programs that we're responsible for; our objectives, as I know the member is aware of; and the funding that we have available for those programs in this particular ministry. Those are the areas that this ministry has responsibility for and focuses directly on.

In other aspects that affect services for women in other ministries, as I say, we have an opportunity to meet with senior staff or the minister through committee work. We will continue to have those committees participate to ensure that the issues brought to my attention that affect women will be raised in those other particular ministries.

B. Ralston: I thank the minister for her response. Could the minister advise where the issue of reporting methods to assess progress in advancing gender equality is now housed? If it's not in the minister's ministry, can she advise where it is now housed?

Hon. I. Chong: I guess, perhaps, the member's reference to the 2002 service plan…. I will say that that is the service plan of 2002. We're currently dealing with our service plan of 2005, and again I refer him to the fact that we do have our program area, our objectives and our key strategies there.

For his benefit…. There are a number of programs that are delivered in other ministries, which those ministries can report on. For example, in the Ministry of Advanced Education the minister there will have information and will report on how women are achieving more university graduates and enrolling at the graduate levels.

In the area of child care the Ministry of Children and Family Development would have information as to the progress that we have made in providing subsidies and making changes, in having more day care spaces and things of that nature.

In the area of income support and employment the Ministry of Employment and Income Assistance will have their reporting out on the dollars that have been spent and the amount of commitment made to assist women who are able to work, to find jobs and keep those jobs, to become self-reliant, to have programs such as the bridging program, as an example, where women are assisted there.

There is a number of reporting that takes place in various ministries. Our role in this ministry is focused on our Stopping the Violence and our Children Who Witness Abuse programs. We will and do ensure that gender issues are addressed in these other ministries by virtue of having a cross-government committee that our senior staff or deputy sits on and is able to provide information to other ministries from time to time.

B. Ralston: Am I then to understand that this ministry no longer plays a central role in coordinating measures of progress in advancing gender equality? It has been distributed out to all the ministries in government and occasionally, accidentally, by chance or by the occasional meeting this ministry will find out some of those progress measures, but it plays no role at all in coordinating, in maintaining a central register and a

provincewide perspective on the progress across all ministries. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. I. Chong: I apologize. I guess my familiarity with the fact that we've had fact sheets and information out there…. I guess I had thought that other members were aware. There is posted on our ministry website a number of information…. If that's what the member views as a sort of a progress as to how the status of women is occurring in this province, there is information there.

Just as an example, there is a fact sheet in regards to women in the economy in terms of, first of all, what the female population in British Columbia is, as well as those who are over 65. We also have the percentage of women in the economy who are employed, as well as those who have jobs created since a specific time frame — for example, December, 2001.

We also, as I've indicated earlier, have a fact on the numbers of women-owned small businesses in Canada. We've also tracked women who have been employed in a variety of occupations — non-traditional roles — as I've indicated: in the construction sector; in forestry, fisheries or mining and manufacturing; in education and health.

We also have information regarding women and their health outcomes here. Particularly — and I hope that the members opposite will all be very proud of — there's the fact that we have the best mammography screening that takes place and therefore the best cancer mortality rates in British Columbia. So we track information on that.

We have information, as I say, in regards to a number of programs we offer. We have a variety of facts and information which do outline a number of program areas that have been enhanced. Those programs and services may have been delivered or provided for in another ministry, but we have been able to put that on our website. I am familiar with it, and it may be something that is not used as often.

I know that from time to time getting that information, the most current information, posted on there is not as timely as it can be. I've been informed by staff that there is a project or initiative underway to have that website updated more to ensure that we have included all the government services or programs that are available to women and exactly where they are in which particular ministries.

B. Ralston: I just want to make sure that I'm understanding this. In the 2002 service plan for the predecessor ministry, one of the goals was to develop reporting methods to assess progress and advance in gender inequality.

Am I understanding the minister to say that there is no need to develop any further reporting methods because that process is complete, and all the reporting methods that are necessary and required to measure across all of the responsibilities of government are contained on the minister's website right now? Is that what she is saying?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, the member quotes from a service plan from about three years ago, and the objectives of that were provided for by the previous minister who was responsible for achieving that particular performance measure or objective. As I understand, the mechanism to provide for that reporting of information was done by way of the women's website and directory and by way of a number of fact sheets that I was familiar with when I had checked the website a couple of years ago.

That is how that particular objective was achieved. As I've indicated to the member, our staff has in fact been reviewing whether this is appropriate or adequate to gauge women's progress. That is why they are looking at what mechanisms or what better reporting we might be able to provide to showcase, to highlight, to provide information as to all the government services and programs for women and the changes that have been made in some of those programs and services from year to year. We are undertaking that review. We will be able to have that available on our website.

Specifically to the member's question as to what was available in the service plan of 2002, that was the previous minister's objective. Her mechanism was by way of those items that I've just listed.

B. Ralston: Then am I to take it from the answer that the minister has provided that the objective of developing reporting methods to assess progress in advancing gender equality was satisfied? In other words, it was complete; there was no need to go any further. All the necessary analytical tools to make that assessment were in place and satisfied in the 2002 plan. That was fulfilled. There was nothing further to do from 2002 to 2005. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. I. Chong: The answer to the member is yes. That would be the previous minister's objective. It was felt that that met the responsibility, as I said, in her service plan.

I would be pleased to speak to issues in this current service plan as to areas of responsibility that we have. Again, I offer to the member that we certainly are reviewing the adequacy of gauging some of this information regarding women's services and programs. When we're able to provide an update on that, we certainly will.

B. Ralston: I'm not talking about programs or assessing programs. I'm talking about an assessment of overall progress and advance in gender equality within the province. Let's tackle it from this perspective. In the

budget or in the service plan, is there a plan or a desire to develop further reporting methods to make that assessment?

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated to the member, the service plan that I have responsibility for deals with specific objectives. Perhaps it may be more obvious in our objective number two, on page 20 on the flipside of the service plan he has there, where we indicate that we are committed to promoting and supporting women's participation in every facet of life in British Columbia, and thereby will be able to identify emerging trends and key issues that affect women to government and the public and then to inform policy development and program direction.

We have already indicated that we will continue to provide an opportunity to gauge women's progress. We're going to be doing it in the context of our objectives, and when we're able to provide more updated information on that, we will do so.

B. Ralston: When will the results of that study or scan that apparently is going on — I take it, from what the minister is saying — be complete? Will that work be housed within the ministry, or will it be scattered throughout all the ministries of government, as the minister had earlier indicated was the case in a number of these measures of progress?

Hon. I. Chong: I can't give the member an exact date, although I know that staff is aiming to have information on progress by the end of the fiscal year. There is some analytical work that has to be prepared. There has to be some data gathered. As I've indicated, there are some measures in terms of women's health, for example, which is in the Ministry of Health. We would want to obtain that information and put that in perspective and do some analytical work with it. But at the end of the day, yes, that information will be provided for and housed in our ministry.

B. Ralston: In the new service plan, one of the principal goals appears to relate to violence against women. Is this the area that the minister feels is most important to the women of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: There certainly are a number of issues that affect women and a number of areas that our ministry will continue to ensure are addressed by virtue of programs that are delivered in other ministries. However, in this particular ministry, the specific programs we have responsibility for are to ensure that women have a safe place to go when they have been victims of violence and also to deal with children who have witnessed abuse. Those are very important areas that need to be addressed.

As I say, as of July of this year, 2005, there are a number of government programs and services that have been identified as having a particular relevance to women. It's also clear that these are provided through a number of ministries. Probably around 13 different ministries through government have programs for women; 21 of these programs and services are specifically for women in these 13 ministries. Another 41 programs and services may not be specifically for women but are heavily accessed by women for themselves or on behalf of their families. Clearly, the member is aware of the areas of responsibility in this ministry. As I've indicated many times now, we continue to address issues that affect women that are programs and services provided in other ministries, and we will continue to do that.

B. Ralston: Can I take it, then, that the minister agrees that the goal of preventing violence against women and dealing with the consequences of violence against women and children is one of the highest priorities of her ministry?

B. Ralston: Can the minister give an indication of how decisions are made in terms of policy? I'm specifically interested in what women's groups the ministry consults with in order to decide how best to direct funding.

Hon. I. Chong: As the member is aware, our ministry is primarily focused in terms of funding on our Stop the Violence program, which is about women escaping violence. But I have met and will continue to meet with a number of organizations that serve women.

I have met with the B.C.–Yukon Transition House Society on a number of occasions. They not only work with the transition houses around the province but also are always looking at projects or initiatives that specifically deal with violence against women. They've had a project to deal with elder abuse for older women escaping violence, which has received national attention. One of their projects, I believe, is called What's Age Got to Do With It? — a very well-received video that they prepared and produced, which I've shared with other ministers across Canada. I meet with a number of aboriginal-serving agencies that deal specifically with women and will continue to do that.

So the opportunity exists to meet with a variety of organizations. I continue to do that and have done so. Quite often they are the ones that come forward and suggest a new program, a new initiative or a new service they feel is necessary, which is one of the reasons why, when I was the minister of state for women and seniors and I travelled around the province, I was able to return and provide to our caucus and cabinet a need to increase the base funding for these programs by about 33 percent. As I've indicated, this was the largest increase in over a decade.

It was as a result of input from a number of organizations that I met with and visited. They had direct opportunity to share with me some of the services that needed to be provided that had not been.

S. Fraser: Will the minister be allocating any funds to support counselling services for men that batter?

Hon. I. Chong: Notwithstanding that I know men are also victims of family violence, our ministry does fund directly those services for women who have experienced abuse, including our transition houses and our counselling services, as I've indicated. There are other counselling programs and services that are provided for, I believe, through victim service–based counselling. I think that is through the Ministry of Attorney General, who provides funding for a number of the organizations who provide that.

However, we do fund early violence prevention and intervention programs for children and youth. Sometimes young boys will receive the benefits of some of the counselling programs that are available — programs such as Respectful Relationships and Violence is Preventable, which is a program that works with the schools and school-aged children in particular about helping them build healthy relationships with their peers, their family and the community. But if the member is specifically looking for counselling services for men as opposed to youth, this ministry does not provide that directly. That would be through the Ministry of Attorney General.

S. Fraser: Will the minister be allocating any funds to address the significant lack of second-stage housing services in the province?

Hon. I. Chong: With the increase in the budget that provides for these programs and this ministry, the priority areas that required attention and required funding were primarily in transition houses and in counselling services. As a result, there have been more dollars that have been available to fund new transition houses and new transition house beds, as well as for the additional amount in counselling.

In terms of second-stage, though while important, it did not receive additional dollars in terms of providing new second-stage housing. However, we have been able — again where we worked cross-government — to work with B.C. Housing and the Ministry of Forests to indicate that we need to take a look at opportunities to provide for second-stage housing, and B.C. Housing is very much interested and involved in that.

I am familiar, as well, with a particular project here in Victoria that — while it is not second-stage housing and it's not a transition house — is a housing opportunity for older women. When I say older women, I have to be careful here because it is between 40 and 60. So they're not seniors, and they're not young women with young families. But there is a segment of our society, of these mature women, who also need housing. It hasn't been called second-stage; they're actually preferring to call it third-stage in that sense. Again, that has been a project with a new initiative that, as a result of working with B.C. Housing, is hopefully going to break ground in the not too distant future.

So in terms of second-stage housing, there were not specific dollars allocated to that from the budget list that was received. However, we continue to work with B.C. Housing and to look for opportunities where we can partner with the community and see where more housing can be made available. Well, we call it second-stage housing. It just really is another form of housing that women are finding they are in need of. We again would like to work with communities, work with local governments and work with B.C. Housing to see what we can find and what communities can provide if a case can be made for that.

S. Fraser: You've touched on transition housing, and I'm aware of the ministry's…. There have been funding increases in some regards with transition housing. Does the minister plan on any further additional funding to transition houses to deal with the realities of the need for a 24-7 type of operation? Currently, I don't believe that's available, and I know there are needs in transition houses for that sort of resource to be there — for 24 hours, seven days a week.

Hon. I. Chong: I thank the member for raising that, because that was an integral component upon which the funding increase was supported when we had requested these additional dollars. It was because 24-7 wasn't available to the existing transition houses around the province. As I indicated, when I visited a number of them…. To hear stories of the fact that there was no one there and when someone showed up late at night they had to find someone to come and unlock the door to allow them to come in…. That wasn't acceptable.

The increase in funding that we have provided, in fact, has allowed for all the transition houses to be 24-7. There are a few transition houses that have indicated that while they are accessible 24-7, they may not appear to be, in the sense that there might not be someone who is there throughout the evening necessarily, but that a phone call will bring someone out. Those transition houses have said to us and decided that that this is how they would want to operate because of the capacity in their community — simply because of the size and nature of where they're located, that that works fine.

When we provided the additional dollars, which is why the majority of the funding increase went to the transition houses and counselling, it was with the objective of having 24-7. In all cases that has been provided except for the circumstances or situations where they themselves have chosen not to put that in place.

Has the ministry allocated continued funding support for training for front-line workers in the anti-violence sector?

Hon. I. Chong: Yes. Exactly $400,000 was allocated to train front-line workers. This is something that a number of the front-line workers had asked some dollars to be set aside for, so that is available.

S. Fraser: Will the minister be allocating any funds to address the issues of working with women that are victims of violence and who are also living with mental health issues or substance dependencies or addictions?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm aware that two transitions houses do specifically have the capacity to deal with women escaping violence who also have mental health and addiction problems. I can say from experience, having visited a number of these transition houses, that's certainly a difficulty when you have a house where there are six or eight women and then you receive a new client who arrives and has severe mental health or addiction problems.

It creates a very severe disruption for the other households. In cases like that, the transition house workers and support workers are usually able to find another service provider in the community as a result of the networks they have, because they certainly do have to deal with it from time to time.

There are two houses that provide the service. It certainly requires a special…. Well, they're all very special, the support workers who work in the transition houses, but it still requires a very special person who is able to deal with all those issues for women escaping violence.

S. Fraser: Just to be clear on this, there are no new funds allotted for that, and to be clear, there are two facilities that can provide some resources in the province. Is that what we have? Are there any plans to increase that? I just want to make sure I have that clear.

Hon. I. Chong: As I've indicated, the majority of the budget increase, the annual $12.5 million lift that was provided in our budget for these services, went to the services in the transition houses and therefore allowed for capacity to deal with, sometimes, some very strenuous situations.

There are two houses in particular that have the capacity to deal with those arriving with mental health and addiction problems. However, there are also the other houses that receive women that can also make referrals and know now to make referrals to other agencies when they need to deal with someone who has a mental health problem.

Maybe it is to find them a bed in a mental health facility, if that's the case. They certainly have that. With the additional training that is being provided for front-line workers, this will also increase the capacity for those dealing with those situations. It may even allow additional facilities to take in those particular clients and deal with them.

It's not necessarily just the beds themselves. Sometimes it is about the workers who may or may not have the capacity to deal with certain situations that arise, which is why training was very much a part of it. I did hear that when I was visiting a number of the transition houses.

S. Fraser: Has there been any allocation of funding for detox shelters for women that are exposed to domestic violence?

Hon. I. Chong: In terms of detox, that is an area that the Ministry of Health would have responsibility over, so I would ask him to refer that question to that ministry.

S. Fraser: Does the minister plan to work with other levels of government — federal government, local governments and other provincial ministries — to support increasing safe housing in communities across B.C. for vulnerable individuals, including women fleeing violence?

Hon. I. Chong: In fact, at a recent Status of Women FPT meeting that I attended just this past month…. The opportunity to share information and find out what works in other jurisdictions and their initiatives and programs is where we are able to work together in terms of other levels of government, where the federal minister is also there, who is hearing what needs to be addressed.

An issue that continually is an area of focus or attention, of course, is aboriginal women who are living off-reserve and the services and supports they need, which is why our ministry will work very closely with the new Ministry of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation to ensure that the minister is aware of the impacts he has on aboriginal women. We certainly will continue to, as I say, work across government.

In addition, the CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as a federal level of government, then works with B.C. Housing, our provincial level, then works with local communities and local governments, always looking where partnerships make sense in their communities — what can be provided for. As the member may or may not know, sometimes it's not just about having a program. It's when it goes into a community, having the community have input as to where to place a particular house. That can always be a challenge. Some communities are much more receptive to seeing that. Others have come up against a few NIMBY attitudes that have occurred. We will continue to work across government and with other levels of government to see what can be done to build capacity, but it certainly depends on a good working relationship and cooperation with all those individual agencies.

S. Fraser: Just to finish off, for clarification, then. I'm glad to hear this, but is the minister saying there are funds being allocated to investigate and address the

situation? You've indicated it's a different one; it's complex. But are there specific funds being allocated to investigating the situation?

Hon. I. Chong: If the member is wondering whether there's a line item that specifically is allocated towards looking at housing options and initiatives, I would say that what we do is have the staff resources that are available to work with the Minister Responsible for Housing and also with B.C. Housing take a look at what opportunities exist there. We are funding directly the services — being the transition house services, the shelters, the safe homes, the second-stage, the counselling programs directly. That is the area we have to focus our dollars on.

Again, I want to let the member know that as a result of working with other levels of government, we were instrumental in having the federal government provide dollars for an aboriginal transition house in British Columbia, the first of its kind — I believe, in Penticton. It is about sharing with another level of government, indicating to them what a great project it would be and asking them to provide the funds. I believe CMHC was a part of that particular project as well.

B. Ralston: As you may be aware, this government was chastised by the United Nations Committee on the Elimination — of all forms — of Discrimination against Women in 2003 for its treatment of women's issues. I propose to read a brief passage from that report, and then I propose to ask the minister several questions arising from that report.

Again, I'm quoting from the report of the committee: "The committee urges the government of British Columbia to analyze its recent legal and other measures as to their negative impact on women and to amend the measures where necessary."

My question is for the minister. Can the minister please tell us what steps she has taken and will be taking in the coming years to work with the Attorney General on the impact of cuts to legal aid on women and to work with the Minister of Employment and Income Assistance on the disproportionate impact that cuts to welfare and disability assistance have had upon women?

Hon. I. Chong: I just want to assure the member that the government does remain committed to ensuring that women who need legal aid services can, in fact, access them. We have continued to provide legal aid in cases that involve domestic violence or child protection matters and mental health reviews and others.

Our commitment to legal aid is further evidenced by the announcement in February of '05 of this year. An additional $4.6 million for family law and child protection matters was provided, another $800,000 for immigration and legal aid.

In the area of employment assistance, again, we are committed to assisting all British Columbia reach their highest potential. We do continue to provide income support to those most in need and also to assist those who are employable by providing employment programs that are available to them. We do invest $80 million a year in employment programs to provide people with the skills and the supports that they need to break the cycle of welfare dependency.

We are certainly working on these areas. I know that the members will believe and say that more needs to be done. We will continue to work at looking at what more can be done. This ministry will continue to provide input to those ministries in particular.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then prepared to agree that the level of legal aid provided to women in this province is not adequate? You've said here that more needs to be done, so are you agreeing that the level of funding provided to legal aid for women is at this point not adequate in this province?

Hon. I. Chong: I know oftentimes it's stated that in order for more to be done, it's always about more dollars. It's not always necessarily about more dollars. It can be about the way that those dollars are used. Are they as effective? Is the legal aid service reaching those who are in need of those services? We can look at a variety of ways.

At the end of the day, the Attorney General will take a look and see whether he wishes to expand the program or whether he wishes to make it more efficient in other ways. Our input that we can provide to the ministry is information that we receive, and we could advise the Attorney General as to how he may make those legal aid services more accessible or how he can make them more effective for those accessing those services.

B. Ralston: Let me rephrase my question then. Does the minister agree that the dollar amount of money provided to legal aid in the province for services for women is adequate at this time?

Hon. I. Chong: I would ask the member that he if he needs to understand more about the legal aid services, he may want to speak to the Attorney General about it. But the Legal Services Society has demonstrated in the last number of years that there are more affordable alternatives that can more fairly and effi-

ciently resolve family disputes at a lower cost, which is one of the reasons why I say that when we are providing additional dollars, we are also looking at new ways of providing service that is more effective.

As a result of some changes, we are now providing a more efficient and responsive civil legal aid system with less money. Again, if the member needs more information on that, I would refer him to the Attorney General, but I am pleased that $4.6 million funding for family law initiatives was provided. It means that it will allow more lower-income families in crisis to get access to legal services.

B. Ralston: My question here is to the minister then. From the perspective of the minister and the advocacy for the women of this province, is the minister satisfied that the cuts in legal aid and what she calls more efficient delivery of service are providing the kind of assistance in legal aid for women in the province that the United Nations Committee on the Elimination — of all forms — of Discrimination against Women expressed a concern about in 2003, particularly in regards to aboriginal women?

Is the minister satisfied that those, what she calls more efficient, methods of service delivery and fewer dollars are meeting those objectives and that all the objections that have been raised by the United Nations and a number of other community groups over the last several years have been met?

Hon. I. Chong: What I will say is that when the government provided the additional $4.6 million increase in funding to the Legal Services Society in February of this year, it was to provide for services in four program areas: additional family legal services in cases involving domestic violence, the provincial family duty counsel program, a new Supreme Court family duty counsel program and a limited Supreme Court family referral program.

These programs support our government's plan to provide alternative methods to resolving disputes and to encourage people to work together to solve their problems collaboratively. We understand that the Legal Services Society is pleased to be able to work on these program areas to address the access to legal aid.

B. Ralston: I understand that the $4.6 million was part of the pre-election budget announced this spring. My question to the minister is: is she now of the view, presently at this point right now, that the amount of money provided in the legal aid plan, from her perspective as the minister responsible for this area…? I'm particularly concerned about the equality of women in the province. Is she of the view that that amount of money is adequate and meeting the concerns that were raised by this committee?

Hon. I. Chong: Again, if the member wishes to understand all aspects of legal aid, how it is accessed as well as what alternative services can be provided, I would ask him to refer those queries to the Attorney General.

What I have been informed by the Legal Services Society is that programs that encourage people to work together to find solutions and programs that help people get the help they need allow us to use the legal aid funding to create solutions rather than create conflict. The $4.6 million has been able to do that. It has been provided, perhaps not in the traditional sense of just providing the dollars but looking at alternative ways….

If the member wants to canvass legal aid specifically and what legal aid provides for, then he would perhaps find more clarification from the Attorney General.

The Chair: Could I remind the member to direct his questions through the Chair. Thank you, member.

B. Ralston: My question is to the minister. In the service plan, objective one is delivering shelter programs to women and their children leaving abusive relationships. It is contemplated in the service plan that you are dealing with women leaving abusive relationships.

One aspect of leaving an abusive relationship is the legal consequences of that. Those kinds of situations, as I'm sure the minister is well aware, are not always susceptible to what is called by the minister "a collaborative approach." When someone is fleeing domestic violence, sometimes a collaborative approach just doesn't work.

So is the minister saying that, from her perspective, the amount of funding provided for women in that situation — which is largely what that $4.6 million was directed to — is a sufficient budget to provide those services for the women of British Columbia?

Hon. I. Chong: The member is quoting our service plan, which is fine. We have indicated earlier today that the services in our plan deal with programs that provide a safe place for women and children when they're escaping violence — that is by way of our transition houses — and also support, by way of counselling programs, for those women and children thereafter.

Legal aid is provided for and is funded through the Ministry of Attorney General. He has, as I indicated, been able to provide an additional $4.6 million for a variety of programs. Much of it does involve legal services involving domestic violence. If the member needs more information on how and what kinds of services can be delivered for that, then again I would ask him to direct those questions to the Attorney General.

B. Ralston: I take it, then, that the minister accepts what she describes as the judgment of the Attorney General that that amount of money is adequate to provide the services for the women of British Columbia.

Hon. I. Chong: The member would need to ask the Attorney General what his thoughts and views are.

That's why I've suggested that he direct those questions to the Attorney General.

B. Ralston: Is the minister unwilling to express her agreement with the Attorney General?

Hon. I. Chong: I just had to make sure I heard the question right. I have indicated that the member can ask the Attorney General as to what legal aid provides for and the kind of funding in terms of the programs. I've given him examples of four programs that have applied, which are alternative methods to resolving disputes. If he wishes to canvass this further, he can.

What I have said is that our ministry will continue to address issues that are raised. As programs and services are provided for in other ministries that impact women, we will have a voice, through our cross-ministerial committees, that provides input as to how that program or service will impact women.

B. Ralston: In that cross-ministerial committee will the minister direct her staff to advocate for more funding for this particular area that affects women fleeing abusive relationships — namely, the legal consequences involving those women and their children and the requirement to have some family law services in order to successfully get out of those relationships and enter a new phase in their lives? Would the minister give us the assurance that she will direct her staff to advocate in that interministerial committee for increased funding for this area?

Hon. I. Chong: Our senior staff or assistant deputy or deputies who will be on these committees will continue to bring to the attention of the ministers those issues that arise and that have been canvassed in a number of areas. We will also provide input as to how a government service or program impacts women.

If the Attorney General is looking to enhance legal aid, if he is looking to change the way legal services are accessed by way of providing access to the justice system in a different way, certainly, we will want to have input on how that is and how that program can be delivered and how it will impact women. But the Attorney General will best know what changes he would like to put in place, and he will have had discussions, as well, with other Attorneys General across Canada to find more effective ways of resolving disputes.

Again, I know that oftentimes people feel that when you put more dollars into it, whether it's health care or any other service, that is the solution. It may not be the only solution. It may be part of the solution. But what may be part of the solution, as well, is how additional dollars, when they are received, are going to be effectively and efficiently used for those who need it.

The $4.6 million that has been provided in February of this year has provided funding for four key areas that I've indicated. I would suggest that they're not being applied to the programs in the same fashion as they have in the past. It was just not about providing the services in the same way. This is one of the reasons why we are looking at the resolving of disputes and encouraging people to work together and find ways to solve their problems in a different fashion.

Our staff, who will be participating in an interministerial committee, will ensure that whatever the Attorney General brings forward in terms of changes to any of his programs and services will have the input of our senior staff and our representative.

B. Ralston: Is the minister then saying that the cuts to family legal aid that were brought about — and she describes it as a more efficient delivery of services — indeed did have that result, that those cuts in legal aid were simply a question of providing a more efficient delivery of legal aid and that the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 2003 and a number of other community groups throughout the province who protested those cuts were simply wrong?

Hon. I. Chong: What I will say is that the public funding that's available for family law services has varied greatly in the past, and choosing one point in time to return to would be arbitrary. As a result of the additional dollars that were provided to the Legal Services Society for family law services, one of the results of the new funding was the permanent establishment of the family duty counsel program that was not in place before.

Now we have that, and reviews, certainly at this point, indicate that people who receive services through the family duty counsel program are overwhelmingly satisfied with the services they receive. I would suggest to the member, Mr. Chair, that if he is curious as to how legal aid dollars are used efficiently and effectively, he can further canvass that with the Attorney General.

B. Ralston: I can see I'm not going get an answer on that question from this minister, and I reluctantly accept that.

Would the minister agree that violence against women, since that's one of the key focuses of the service plan, doesn't happen in isolation and that the causes of violence against women are many and include cuts to income assistance, legal aid for family law, poverty law and child care? Would she agree that those cuts have had a disproportionate effect on women and that they have reduced women's options when attempting to flee abusive situations?

Hon. I. Chong: You know, the cycle of violence is something I think all of us as members of this Legislature would like to stop, and breaking the cycle of violence is not going to be an overnight…. There is no overnight solution for it. For years, for decades, programs and initiatives have been introduced. Some have been more successful than others, but it does start at the very earliest ages.

This is one of the reasons why we have a number of programs that get to dealing with the cycle of violence at the earliest stages. We have a Roots of Empathy program. We have Violence is Preventable. We have Respectful Relationship. We have a number of programs that are targeted to young people at the earliest stages possible.

I would hope that all members of this House would work with us to break the cycle of violence. We will continue to take a look at initiatives on how that is. We hear from community organizations. I have met with them and continue to meet with them, and they have ideas and thoughts on how that can be. There's certainly no magic bullet on how we're going to deal with that.

If the member would like to start pointing fingers at a number of things, I can tell him that in the '90s, I heard from people who said a poor economy was what was creating a problem with violence in the families. We can point fingers at a number of things. I don't think that is particularly helpful. What is helpful is to know that all members on all sides of the House are committed to dealing with breaking the cycle of violence.

B. Ralston: From this year's service plan, one of the notes says there's increasing pressure on programs and, in particular, transition housing. Is the recent trend of an increasing number of women being referred to transition houses for reasons other than abuse? Does the minister take responsibility for the fact that women are turning to transition houses as a result of cuts in other areas, such as income assistance, legal aid and funding to women's centres?

Hon. I. Chong: One of the commitments we have in this ministry is to ensure there is a safe place for women and children to go to when they are fleeing abuse. In some cases people…. Well, I shouldn't say in some cases. Public awareness that violence should not be accepted, should not be tolerated, has raised the attention, the awareness, of women who are fleeing abusive relationships. Rather than having them stay at the home, they now know that they can find a safe place, and they can find help to go to.

I have indicated that we've provided additional dollars to provide for more transition house beds, as a result of the increase we have had in the budget. I will continue to work with our front-line workers to find other programs and initiatives that they feel are necessary to help these women and children when they are fleeing abusive relationships.

B. Ralston: The minister has mentioned transition houses. In the 2003-2004 budget women's and seniors' services had a budget of $51.6 million. In the 2004-2005 estimates this number had been cut by almost $14.5 million. This year the budget for seniors', women's and community services is back up to what it was before the cut.

Prior to this election the government boasted it could raise funding for transition housing by $12.5 million, which I've just heard the minister do in a, perhaps, less pre-election mode. Can the minister tell me if this funding boost simply restores the funding back to 2003-2004 levels?

Hon. I. Chong: The figures that the member is quoting from have to do with restatement of the line item for the Women's and Seniors' Ministry from 2002 or 2003, as he was indicating. What our budget this year compares to is the direct program, direct essential services, that we have had for our transition houses, for our second-stage housing, for our safe homes, for our counselling programs, for our Stop the Violence and Children Who Witness Abuse programs.

That amount was restated. Therefore, we were able to make a determination of what our baseline for those services was. Our $12.5 million increase is a reflection of the fact that it's over a 30-percent lift from that amount that had been provided to what is now in the budget. It is a real increase in those direct essential services that we provide for.

B. Ralston: Just so I can understand it, the minister has used the language of accountants about restatement. For the category of women's, seniors' and community services in the 2005-2006 plan, could she explain how that differs from the category of women's and seniors' in the 2003-2004 plan? I think that's the restatement I took her to be referring to.

Hon. I. Chong: I don't have the '03-'04 budget books with me here. We can certainly provide that information to the member. I am going on my recollection of what had occurred, and again, it was to ensure that the comparison for those direct essential services that we fund can be compared to what is being funded now. That is what I am familiar with in terms of the programs and services. I can get that information for the member and provide that to him. If he would like us to do that, I certainly will.

I know, hon. Chair, you've requested that, noting the time, 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.


	YEAS — 40

Falcon	Reid	Ilich
Chong	Christensen	Les
Richmond	Bell	Bennett
Roddick	Hayer	Lee
Jarvis	Nuraney	Whittred
Cantelon	Thorpe	Hagen
Oppal	de Jong	Campbell
Taylor	Bond	Hansen
Abbott	Penner	Neufeld
Hogg	Sultan	Krueger
Lekstrom	Mayencourt	Polak
Hawes	Yap	Bloy
MacKay	Black	McIntyre
	Rustad

	NAYS — 31

S. Simpson	Evans	Farnworth
James	Kwan	Brar
B. Simpson	Cubberley	Hammell
Coons	Thorne	Simons
Puchmayr	Gentner	Routley
Fraser	Horgan	Lali
Dix	Trevena	Bains
Robertson	Karagianis	Ralston
Krog	Chudnovsky	Chouhan
Wyse	Sather	Macdonald
	Conroy