Hansard — Monday, October 31, 2005 p.m.

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		1389

Introduction and First Reading of Bills		1391
	Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 11)
	Hon. M. de Jong

Statements (Standing Order 25B)		1392
	First nations veterans
	S. Fraser
	Immigrant services in Burnaby-Coquitlam area
	H. Bloy
	Little Mountain Place care facility
	D. Chudnovsky
	Northern Lights College
	B. Lekstrom
	Chum salmon run in Maple Ridge area
	M. Sather
	Community living
	G. Hogg

Oral Questions		1394
	Closing of Midway sawmill
	C. James
	Hon. R. Coleman
	K. Conroy
	N. Macdonald
	Hon. I. Chong
	J. Kwan
	Assistance to forest industry workers from forestry revitalization trust
	H. Bains
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Reinstatement of standing committee on forestry
	B. Simpson
	Hon. R. Coleman
	Coroner's inquest into death of Savannah Hall
	A. Dix
	Hon. S. Hagen
	Water quality in first nations communities
	C. Wyse
	Hon. G. Abbott
	Weed control on E&N rail line
	S. Fraser
	Hon. P. Bell
	Potential changes to school boards' mandate
	J. Horgan
	Hon. S. Bond
	R. Fleming

Point of Privilege		1398
	M. Farnworth

Petitions		1399
	Hon. M. Coell
	M. Polak

Standing Order 81.1		1399
	Hon. M. de Jong
	M. Farnworth

Motions without Notice		1399
	Appointment of Special Committee to Select an Information and Privacy Commissioner
	Hon. M. de Jong

Tabling Documents		1399
	Hon. M. de Jong

Second Reading of Bills		1399
	Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 14)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	R. Lee
	N. Macdonald
	D. Hayer
	C. Trevena
	J. Rustad
	H. Bloy
	R. Austin
	C. Evans
	J. Yap
	S. Simpson
	G. Coons
	M. Farnworth
	H. Lali
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)
	Hon. W. Oppal
	L. Krog
	World Trade University Canada Establishment Act (Bill Pr401)
	R. Hawes
	G. Robertson
	R. Lee
	G. Hogg

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1421
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. M. Coell
	B. Simpson

Hon. S. Hagen: Today is the last day of Community Living Month in British Columbia. This past year has been very exciting for the families and the individuals and communities involved in this sector as we move towards community governance with the establishment of Community Living B.C.

I want to take this opportunity to introduce some of the people who have been integral to that move. With us today in the gallery are the chairman of the board and board members from Community Living B.C. Also in the gallery we have members of the British Columbia Association for Community Living, one of the largest and most effective advocacy groups on behalf of persons with developmental disabilities. Joining us today are 18 members from various locations around the province. Thank you for the important job that you do. I ask the members to join me in giving them a warm welcome.

D. Routley: I'm pleased to see in the gallery a constituent of mine, Anne Balding, a housing advocate from Ontario who recently transplanted herself here to B.C. to help us with our housing issues — and a fine volunteer in our constituency. I would like the House to help me make Anne Balding welcome.

Hon. M. de Jong: We're honoured today in this chamber to have visiting a large collection of professional firefighters from right across British Columbia. I will introduce the executive of the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association: their president, Al Leier; secretary-treasurer, Robert Hall; executive vice-president, Joe Robertson; and then vice-presidents from the various regions around the province — Richard Melnyk from the Kootenay, Rod MacDonald from lower mainland, Harold Heyming from Okanagan, Ted Greves from the Island, John Iverson from northern region and Tim Baillie from lower mainland. Their administrator, Shelley Barrett, keeps them all organized, particularly for these meetings that they have scheduled — their meetings here in Victoria.

They are here, besides that, to bear witness to an event which will unfold in this chamber in just a few moments. I hope all members will take this opportunity to thank them and, in thanking them, make them welcome here in Victoria.

G. Gentner: It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the House members of Delta's fire department, Local 1763: Rob Munro, Mike Calbick, Sean Croply, Mark Pfeifer. They're all members of a department that has the newest hazmat response team in British Columbia. Would the House please give them a warm welcome.

Hon. C. Taylor: I'd like to, as well, welcome some of our finest firefighters who are here today, particularly from Vancouver. Please give a warm welcome to Gord Wilson, Lance Ewan, Jeff Dighton, Chris Coleman, Gord Ditchburn, Paul Sihota, Manny Dosange, Rolyn Potter and Al Gregory.

S. Fraser: I see friendly faces from Alberni-Qualicum. There are too many to name, so I will just ask you to help welcome them from Alberni-Qualicum, please.

Hon. O. Ilich: I'd like to introduce to the House today a friend, constituent and former colleague of mine from Richmond. John Watson is here today as the chair of the British Columbia Safety Authority where he continues a long history of service to British Columbia. He's a past president of the Consulting Engineers of British Columbia and also the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists. He has been a director of the Canada Ports Corp., chair of the library board, and has served his community in a variety of other capacities as well. Would the House please join me in welcoming John Watson today.

N. Simons: I'd just like to welcome two constituents from the Sunshine Coast here today. We have Bob and Brian Ware, who do their best to make the quality of life even better on the Sunshine Coast. Will the House make them welcome.

Hon. S. Bond: We're delighted today to have a number of northern residents in the gallery with us. The president of the Fire Fighters Association has already been mentioned — Al Leier — and John Iverson, who is the vice-president of the northern region. But on behalf of my colleagues from Prince George North and Prince George–Omineca, we'd also like to make welcome Fred Wilkinson and Blake King.

J. Yap: Today I'd like to introduce two firefighters who are here representing the city of Richmond. They're in Victoria to attend the British Columbia Professional Fire Fighters Association legislative conference taking place today and tomorrow. One of these gentlemen is also a constituent. I would like the House to warmly welcome Tim Wilkinson and Cory Parker.

R. Cantelon: I'd like the House to join me in welcoming a large contingent of professional firefighters from Nanaimo. I hope and trust — I see the gallery is full — that we're not stressing any of the fire codes here today. This is a group of firefighters I've come to know well in the presenting of their issues. Please make them feel welcome — Ted Greves from Nanaimo, Bill Eggers, Brian Wood, Mike Rispin, Brian Cripps, Ron Daly and Geoff Whiting.

J. McIntyre: On behalf of my colleague from West Vancouver–Capilano, I'd also like to welcome two fire-

fighters who are here in the gallery today and who I look forward to meeting later on. Their names are Tony D'Angelo and Gord Howard. I hope the House will join me in making them feel very welcome today.

M. Polak: Today in the House I would like to welcome two professional firefighters from Langley, Chris Miley and Bob Perry. Would the House please make them welcome.

H. Bloy: I would also like to recognize two firemen who have been strong advocates for the presumption of cancer, but I would also like to thank the firefighters for all the volunteer work in making British Columbia a better place to live. Would the House please make welcome Randy Hamel and Ray Skukas.

A. Horning: I'm pleased to introduce to the House today my very special guests from the Kelowna fire department: Sir Robert Schleppe, Gord Darchuk, Harold Heyming and Larry Hollier. On behalf of my other colleagues from the Okanagan, I'd like to wish them…. Give me a hand in wishing them great…. They're courageous people, and I want to make a special effort this time to give them a very special welcome to this House.

J. Kwan: I, too, want to extend a very warm welcome to all the firefighters visiting us today and tomorrow. We understand that they will be meeting with government members as well as opposition members. We know their issues are important, and we want to hear from them to make sure that their representation is brought to this House and to make sure our firefighters have a voice in this Legislature. So with this introduction, I ask all of the House to please welcome all of the firefighters visiting us today.

Hon. C. Richmond: On behalf of my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson and myself, I'd like to welcome two firefighters from the great city of Kamloops. Please welcome Dean Olstad and Chris Krutov.

R. Fleming: It gives me pleasure to introduce Dr. Michael Prince from the faculty of human and social development at the University of Victoria. He's a full-time instructor there, and he's a part-time media pundit in this area. Would the House please make Dr. Prince feel welcome.

J. Nuraney: We have in the audience two firefighters from Burnaby. I shall introduce one of them, and the other will be introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North.

But before I say that, they are here to witness the introduction of the presumptive cancer legislation, in which one of my previous colleagues, Patty Sahota, had a very large role to play. I would like to acknow-ledge her work as I introduce the firefighter from Burnaby, Rob Lamoureux. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Ralston: Among the many firefighters here today, I would like the House to recognize Larry Thomas, who is the president of the Surrey firefighters local. On behalf of all the members from Surrey, I'd like to recognize Larry and make him welcome in the House.

R. Lee: In the House today we also have one other firefighter from Burnaby. His name is Jim Peever. I would like the House to make him welcome.

V. Roddick: I, too, join with my colleague from Delta North in paying tribute to our Delta firefighters who, in partnership with the province, brilliantly fought the recent Burns Bog fire.

Also in the gallery today is a Delta South constituent, Olav Naas, who came to Canada from Norway soon after the Second World War. He worked his way through McGill University and travelled west to see our country. He met a beautiful young nurse, aptly named Victoria. He stayed to work on developing Delta's current transportation infrastructure — the Massey Tunnel, Highway 99, Tilbury CN railbed, the B.C. Rail railbed to Point Roberts port.

Olav is here today contributing vigorously to the planning of Delta South's portion of the proposed south Fraser perimeter road. Will the House please give him a very warm welcome.

D. Hayer: On behalf of members from Surrey–White Rock and Surrey-Cloverdale, I'm pleased to introduce our very special guests from Surrey fire department: Terry Hunt, John Caviglia, Larry Thomas, John Murphy, Davinder Deol and Tim Hickson. Would the House please make them very welcome.

Hon. I. Chong: Representing Oak Bay and Gordon Head allows me the opportunity to introduce firefighters from both Saanich and Oak Bay. On behalf of the member from Saanich South, I'd like to welcome from Saanich Jerald Kustaski, Mitch Williams and Lee Clackson; and from Oak Bay Don Roskelley.

I should say that in Oak Bay, we have an annual event, the Oak Bay Marathon, which Mr. Roskelley is particularly involved with. I would like the House to make them all very welcome today.

B. Lekstrom: It is my honour today to rise and introduce two guests to the House — firefighters but very good friends of mine. We've grown up together and participated in many local events over the years. These gentlemen, along with all the other people that were introduced today, put their lives on the line each and every day for our safety. It's my pleasure to introduce Terry O'Dwyer and Dennis Kesterke from Local

Hon. B. Bennett: I'd like to introduce two Cranbrook firefighters, Murray English and Rob Taylor, sitting up in the gallery — both veteran firefighters but both young at heart. Please help me make them welcome.

D. Jarvis: I would like to introduce, last but not least, two fine firefighters from the district of North Vancouver, Kevin Macauley and Brian Leavold. Would the House make them welcome.

L. Mayencourt: We must be just about out of firemen, but I want to mention two friends of mine that have joined us today and helped a lot with some legislation that we've worked on: Rod MacDonald and Gord Wilson. I'd like the House to make them welcome.

I also have some guests that I'd like to introduce. There is a group of ten health officials visiting from Russia. They're visiting us here in the Legislature and talking to individuals involved the Health Ministry. I'm going to be meeting with them as well. They're participants in a study tour of Canada as part of the World Health Organization and Canadian International Development Agency's Program on Health Care Policy and Stewardship. The group has come to Canada to gain firsthand exposure to the Canadian approach to the development and implementation of health policy.

They've joined us in the gallery today along with the project manager, Mary Collins, and the project coordinator, Stewart Goodings. They are Boyarski Sergey Georgievich, Chepurnoy Mikhail Alexandrovich, Makhakova Galina Chuluevna, Palinkash Mikhail Vasilievich, Shepin Vladimir Olegovich, Son Irina Mikhailovna, Suychkova Elena Nikolaevna, Tolokonsky Alexey Viktorovich, Vorobiev Sergey Viktorovich and Zaborovskaya Alina Sergeevna. Would the House please make them all welcome.

Hon. R. Thorpe: I have a couple of introductions to make. First of all, on behalf of the member for Penticton–Okanagan Valley and myself, we would like to welcome the firefighters from Penticton, Ken Younghusband and Mike Richards, and thank them very much for all of their hard work. I'd ask the House to make them very, very welcome.

Also, it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House today two constituents from the northwest side of my riding of Okanagan-Westside. Jim and Anne Edgson are retired, but you will not find two more active community volunteers. Jim and Anne are involved in their church with the Emergency Social Services program, the Northwest Side Fire Rescue organization, the Ratepayers Association, the Regional District Advisory Planning committee and the Westside Road improvement committee — just to name a few.

So thank you to Anne and Jim for everything they do in the community. I'd ask the House to give them a very warm welcome here in Victoria today.

Hon. M. de Jong presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005.

Hon. M. de Jong: The hazards that our firefighters face in the course of their duties can often be overcome by teamwork, training and courage. But occasionally we find that as a result of a career spent fighting fires, some of our brave first responders face yet another uphill battle, and that is a battle with cancer. Today I'm pleased to be introducing to this chamber a change in the Workers Compensation Act that will recognize certain cancers as occupational diseases associated with long-term employment as a firefighter. These cancers are primary site brain, bladder, kidney, colorectal and ureter cancer, primary non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and primary leukemia.

This bill will create what is called a rebuttable presumption. It puts the onus on the employer or WorkSafe B.C. to establish proof as to why an injured or ill firefighter should not be eligible for compensation, easing the burden for someone who's already struggling with a terrible illness. WorkSafe B.C. has undertaken extensive examinations of the links between the occupation of firefighting and certain cancers. Having considered the information gathered by WorkSafe B.C. and others — including, I might add, the B.C. Professional Fire Fighters Association — as well as the developments in other provinces, it makes sense to take this step now and make these changes.

I would like to thank, on behalf of all members, the work undertaken by the members of the Professional Fire Fighters Association. I think the only firefighter that wasn't recognized is Mr. Larry Hoogey from Abbotsford, so I'd best do that now. These are people who face incredible risks and discharge themselves in a way that we can all be proud of, and it is important that we recognize that risk. In a moment I will seek leave to table the regulations that go along with the bill.

I move that Bill 11 be placed on the orders of the day for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 11, Workers Compensation Amendment Act, 2005, 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.

S. Fraser: A group of first nations, Métis and Inuit spiritual leaders, ceremonial helpers and youth departed for Europe last week to conduct a calling-home ceremony to invite the spirits of fallen warriors to return to their homeland and rest with their ancestors here in Canada. They are participating in commemorative ceremonies in Belgium and France to honour Canada's war dead from the First and Second World Wars.

As we are all aware in this Year of the Veteran — and I think it fitting to highlight the significance of first nations involvement here — from the Battle of Queenston Heights in the War of 1812 up through World Wars I and II and the Korean War, native peoples have fought long and hard, volunteering en masse for active duty during the Great War in 1914. An estimated 4,000 men gave of themselves to fight in that conflict, and 300 never returned home. Nevertheless, when Canada declared war on Germany in 1939, the native community once again rose to the challenge and rose quickly.

But enlistment was made difficult by racism. There was discrimination of the soldier in the barracks and at home with relatives in Canada. As a result, the native contribution to the western world's freedom went largely unreported and unacknowledged. It was not until November 11, 1992, that native veterans were permitted to place a wreath at a cenotaph during memorial ceremonies — 1992, Mr. Speaker. Traditionally, they had to wait until the conclusion of official ceremonies.

This year, the Year of the Veteran — and with the native calling-home ceremonies underway in Europe as we speak — let us all be mindful this Remembrance Day of all the soldiers, both native and non-native, who gave their lives to defend the values that were and continue to remain so important to all Canadians.

H. Bloy: On Saturday, October 22, along with many of my colleagues from this House, including the member for Burnaby-Willingdon, I had the pleasure of attending the Burquitlam SUCCESS office's volunteer evening of appreciation. The event was to thank those who have made a real contribution in helping hundreds if not thousands of new immigrant families to settle in Canada, especially in the Burquitlam area. Over 160 volunteers were present and were treated to a smorgasbord — I must say it was very good — of international cuisine and a great evening of entertainment.

The Burquitlam SUCCESS office is managed by Mrs. Shirley Tsang, who oversees its various programs. Ms. Tsang also coordinates the 300 host program volunteers who hail from all walks of life and whose origins are truly global. One such person is Mr. Brian de Amorim, who has volunteered as a host since 1998. Mr. de Amorim was especially recognized at the volunteer recognition night and has been instrumental in helping many families settle within the Burquitlam area.

Since the SUCCESS office opened in Burnaby-Coquitlam, it has offered information and referral services including information about employment, housing, immigration, medical and health services, education, citizenship and social benefits. On top of that, they also offer English language services for adult citizenship programs, a new immigrant orientation class and services to help those with gaming problems.

Please join me in thanking SUCCESS and their volunteers for their work in helping to make British Columbia the best place in the world in which to live, work and raise a family.

D. Chudnovsky: Today I'd like to speak briefly about a wonderful service provider in our community of Vancouver-Kensington. I'm referring to Little Mountain Place care facility. Little Mountain Place provides specialized and holistic services to residents who are visually impaired, infirm or disabled, frail or elderly and to those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and other dementias in a spirit of compassion and with respect for diversity.

The staff and board of the Little Mountain Society have implemented an approach to their work called gentle care, which recognizes each resident's abilities and seeks to support their existing skills, functioning and independence. Each resident's care is individualized to meet his or her needs. Primary nurses, LPNs and care aides work with residents and their families to develop, review and evaluate each resident's plan of care.

Recognizing that medical and nursing care are only a part of providing quality care for residents, Little Mountain provides a variety of programs such as Tzu Chi Chinese luncheons, news week discussions, carpet bowling, bingo, video nights, bus trips, pub nights and music therapy.

One particularly impressive part of the Little Mountain program provides a home-like environment that supports, nurtures and enhances the potential of residents who suffer from Alzheimer's disease and other forms of dementia. This includes a common living area with limited access and a secured patio and garden area. Families feel comfortable visiting and participating in residents' lives. In addition to an active and energetic volunteer community board, governance of Little Mountain Place includes the family council, an

I've had the privilege of visiting Little Mountain care centre on a number of occasions and participating in a small way in its program.

B. Lekstrom: It's my honour today to rise and speak about Northern Lights College, a college that delivers services across a vast part of this great province of ours. I'm going to focus on the trades and apprenticeship portion of the programs they deliver.

In August of 2003 Northern Lights College had 524 apprentices registered in that college region. Today, as of September 30, we have 891 apprentices registered in our college region, which is great news. This is an increase of 59 percent in just over two years.

We're also at Northern Lights just completing the hiring of five new trades instructors to assist in the completion and delivery of the apprenticeship training and dual-credit training programs that they've initiated. We have 14 trades and apprenticeship programs that are available to high school students, which are accessed in grades 11 and 12 through the dual-credit program. Other programs combine both adult learners and high school learners in the same classes.

In most of these programs they receive both entry-level skills and level one of the apprenticeship technical training. As well, in some of these programs they receive both entry-level one and -level two apprenticeship and technical training.

We have 53 percent of all industrial instrumentation apprentices in British Columbia registered in the Northern Lights College region. As of September 2005 we've started a new millwright and plumbing program, and all of our trades programs allow apprentices to start and finish their chosen trade in our college region.

I'm very proud to represent an area that has services delivered by Northern Lights College, like many of my colleagues from both sides of this House. The Northern Lights College trades motto is straightforward. What you can do is "train in the north to work in the north." I'm proud to say that they're accomplishing that and have a great future ahead of them.

M. Sather: This is the time of year when the chum salmon make their return to the rivers and streams of Maple Ridge. This is a remarkable event and truly one of the wonders of nature that many British Columbians have the fortune to be able to observe close to home.

The 2005 Return of the Salmon event took place at the 240th Street fish fence in Maple Ridge on October 23. The event attracted almost 500 visitors. The Kanaka Education and Environmental Partnership Society sponsored this event, and their members were on hand to discuss with the public their efforts to protect Kanaka Creek and to explain how the fish are counted, collected and then transported to Maple Ridge's Bell-Irving Hatchery.

My wife and I recently had the pleasure of escorting Lewis Lukens, the U.S. consul general in Vancouver who was recently introduced to this House, his wife, two girls and two friends in an exploration of the salmon phenomenon in Blaney Creek in the Alouette River. Hailing from the eastern seaboard, they had never witnessed salmon spawning before and were very impressed.

As a conservationist, I am used to dealing in bad news. However, I am pleased to report a success story with regard to our chum salmon run in Maple Ridge. Thanks to the past work of the Alouette River Management Society and of Ross Davies, the community has been successful in convincing B.C. Hydro to increase the flow from the Alouette Lake dam for the past several years. That and rehabilitation measures have resulted in our chum salmon run increasing from 10,000 to 150,000 fish at a time when our lower mainland salmon are under pressure from an increasing human population. It is wonderful to report a success story, and the individuals involved should be commended.

G. Hogg: Community Living British Columbia's vision is that children and adults with developmental disabilities, supported by family members and friends, will have the opportunities and supports needed to pursue their own goals and participate as full and valued citizens in their communities.

October is Community Living Month. It is a month in which we should reaffirm our belief in people, in the knowledge that all people have gifts, capacities and contributions which they can make to their communities.

Deinstitutionalization and the community living movement are the result of contributions made by self-advocates, individuals, families, caregivers and service providers all across British Columbia. Three different political parties have for over 25 years kept a vision of inclusion in the forefront of their decision-making. Today, thanks to them, B.C. is a world leader in this field.

We have become a more understanding, more responsible and more inclusive society. Developmentally disabled people across this province have used their gifts to the benefit of all British Columbians. No community in history has ever been built based on the needs and problems of its people. They have always been built upon the mobilization of the gifts and the capacities of people and upon the use of the assets which they have. The community living movement has taught us much, which we can apply across all of our communities.

This month we celebrate the progress, and every month we should remember it and nourish it. As author Maya Angelou said: "I may not remember what

you say, and I may not remember what you did, but I will always remember how you made me feel." May we all work towards ensuring that the feeling which we leave is positive.

C. James: Last Thursday we asked the Minister of Forests why the people of Midway had to learn about the closure of their mill in a cavalier and offhanded way. The very next day came the announcement that the mill was closing. The minister clearly knew this well before the people of Midway. My question is to the Forests Minister. Why didn't the minister immediately act to put in place a plan to help this community through their crisis?

Hon. R. Coleman: I didn't know that Pope and Talbot would be making that announcement on Friday. I didn't know that at the time the House was asked the question. Nor did I know the next day when the member for West Kootenay–Boundary actually told the people of Midway that that was what was happening. Pope and Talbot, after those comments, released their transitional report to the community.

C. James: Well, it was very clear, when the mayor of Midway wrote to the minister on October 7 asking for some help, that he had some information coming from the minister. The government knew about this closure, and yet they kept it a secret from the people of Midway. Again, to the minister: why did he know about the mill closing and make the comments to the mayor of Midway at UBCM, and why did he do nothing other than to say to the community: "Gee, we're sorry to hear about your mill closing"?

Hon. R. Coleman: The company had a number of conversations over the previous 12 months with the people in Midway, as they advised me on Thursday afternoon. They felt that the council and members of that council were well aware of the concerns they had with the mill and were actually quite surprised at the letter of October 7 that came from the mayor. They also advised me that during this period of time, while this was going on, they would be…. They basically said that the minister and the ministry were as helpful as possible, and yet at the end of the day the numbers just didn't work for the community of Midway.

C. James: We understand the challenges that the minister speaks about in the forest industry. We certainly recognize on this side of the House that there are challenges in the Ministry of Forests. What we want to know is what the government is going to do about those challenges. So again to the Forest minister: how many more Midways are there right now around British Columbia, and why is the minister acting like he doesn't care about the future of small communities in our province?

Hon. R. Coleman: I won't rise to the bait about whether I care about other communities across this province. I do.

The reality is that Pope and Talbot spent $25 million-plus in the Grand Forks operation to modernize that operation. They were adding a second shift to it so that they can do a workforce adjustment for the people of Midway who work in their mill. This is a company that really cares about its people. They had a tough decision to make. They agonized over it. They care about the people of Midway; they care about the workers. They think their workforce adjustment will take care of everybody through early retirement and other jobs within their other mills so people will continue to work.

K. Conroy: Yes, Pope and Talbot does care about its people, and they did say that they were going to bring out a strategic plan. But with the minister's surprise announcement, it came out a little sooner than anticipated. The minister has indicated that it is not his responsibility to inform communities that a mill is going to close. Yet in the case of Midway, the minister did just that even before the company was ready to make that announcement.

To the Minister of Forests and Range. The minister says it is not his job to inform communities of closures, but it is certainly the minister's job to assist communities. What assistance is this minister giving to the village of Midway?

Hon. R. Coleman: It was the member opposite that pre-empted the announcement from Pope and Talbot on Friday. The member opposite should know that Pope and Talbot were not going to announce this on Friday until that member decided to make an announcement. In actual fact, they were still trying to work through what their timing would be. But they did have their transition plan in place. They've told people what it is. Their employees have been informed. They are working through the issues with their community. The Minister of Community Services has already indicated that we have transitional funding and assistance for communities that go through this sort of thing, and the Minister of Community Services will be dealing with that.

K. Conroy: This minister is quick to blame everyone else but his own ministry. The Ministry of Forests and Range has not responded to the letter from the

mayor of Midway dated October 7 and the official request for help. The minister says it's not his responsibility to speak to communities about mill closures. If the minister actually takes the time to respond to the village of Midway's request for help, what does the Ministry of Forests and Range have to offer for communities in transition?

Hon. R. Coleman: Transitional operations are not the responsibility of the Ministry of Forests but of the Ministry of Community Services.

N. Macdonald: The announced closing of Midway's main employer has thrown that community into crisis. To the Minister of Community Services. She received a letter dated October 7 requesting "immediate assistance" — the term used in the letter — and asking for a meeting with ministers as soon as possible. My question to the minister is: why hasn't the Minister of Community Services met with the mayor of Midway? Why isn't she dealing with the crisis in Midway with the urgency that it requires?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, in fact, I can inform the member that earlier today, my assistant deputy minister for local government did speak to the administrator for the village as a result of the announcement that came on Friday. But previous to that, when the letter was received in our office, our staff had been in contact with the village regarding possible community transition services.

As the member knows, there is a community transition program within our ministry which is there to assist communities going through transition.

N. Macdonald: I'm aware of both of the phone calls. I'm also aware that the mayor of Midway feels this has been dealt with, with a lack of urgency. Look, you need to understand that in a single-industry town when the main employer goes down, small businesses face — and I will quote from the letters — "financial ruin." Those are the mayor's words. Housing prices face collapse. The community's viability is in question. The community's viability is in question. Those are the mayor's words.

What is deserved is a more appropriate and energetic response. My question to the minister is: will she go to Midway? Will she go and understand what a community is like when it is going through this sort of process? Will you take charge, show some leadership and help this government understand the obligations it has to people in the interior of British Columbia? Will she do that here now?

Hon. I. Chong: I'm glad the member is aware that those two conversations…. His first question led me to believe he wasn't aware that they occurred, so I'm glad we brought that out.

As the member is aware, the community transition program is an important program. It is done on a case-by-case basis. We have indicated to the village of Midway that there are certainly options for the village moving forward, that we will be there to help them to diversify their economy and that we will be there to assist them. We will work cross-government to provide the supports that they need, and we will await the village's request as to what specific needs they have.

Again, I need to stress to the member that those towns, those villages, affected by a closure of this nature do have unique challenges. We want to deal with them specifically, and we will do what we can to help them. This government is there to help these communities.

J. Kwan: In response, the mayor of Midway wrote a letter dated October 7 to a number of government ministries asking for immediate assistance and a meeting, since by the closure of the mill they would have suffered "horrific consequences." The government only responded this morning. The minister, by her own admission, only called the administrator this morning. Nearly a month later, since the government's been given the notice that there is a crisis going on in the village of Midway…. The government did not respond. The minister did not respond prior to this time.

I'd like to know from the minister: what has this government done by way of a transition plan in putting dollars in place and pulling ministries together to provide assistance to this community and to speak directly with the mayor and their council?

Hon. I. Chong: Well, then, I wish the member had listened to the first answer I gave to the first question from the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke. I said in response to the letter that we received, the one that we were copied on from October 7 to our ministry, that in fact our staff did contact the village. We did ask about what possible community transition services they wanted us to assist in.

Communities are unique. Communities will address the needs they find appropriate. We will work with them. We will provide the assistance that they need. I have also indicated that we will work across government. We will work with other ministries that will impact the services that the communities need, and we will put a plan in place for them. But we need to work with them. We've made contact with them, and we will continue to be there to assist them through this difficult period.

J. Kwan: I've got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that what the Minister of Forests is saying and what the Minister of Community Services is saying are two different stories. You know, the minister says there's a crisis going on, and she says: "Oh, we have made contact."

Well, let me tell you, the Ministry of Community Services responsible for transition funding only replied by phone to confirm that the mill was in fact closing. The government knew about this since October 7, and quite frankly, it's only now the minister is saying that she's doing something.

Well, you know what? The mayor is saying — and I'll take the word of the mayor any day over this government — that they have not received any help from this government. They deserve to know what exactly the government is doing. Where are the transition plans, and where are the dollars flowing to the community that is faced with a crisis?

Hon. I. Chong: I'll try this one more time, and I would hope that the member listens carefully.

I did indicate to the member for Columbia River–Revelstoke and then to this member that we received a copy of the letter dated October 7. Upon receipt of that letter we did make contact with the village to….

Hon. I. Chong: No. I said that we made contact. The member for Columbia River….

Hon. I. Chong: I said that the first contact we made was as a result of the letter that we received. But then after the announcement was made public on Friday, my assistant deputy minister made another formal contact with the administrator to ask what community transition program they would like in place.

Every community is different. Some of them may want to develop a plan. Others may want other areas of people to be contacted. We will work with them. Our government is here to help them.

H. Bains: Forestry Revitalization Trust recognizes loggers who are displaced because of their camp closures and are provided with severance packages. Will this government commit today to extend the same benefits to the sawmill workers who are losing their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that that trust was set up with regards to people that would be affected by a 20-percent takeback, and it did not apply to mills.

H. Bains: Over 150 workers of Western Silvertree division had lost their work Friday last week. They are told that this government has no plan to help them out.

Why does this government continue to treat Silvertree division workers and Midway workers and hundreds of other workers in this province who are losing their jobs as a result of plant closures as second-class citizens? Why don't they extend the same benefits to the sawmill workers who are losing their jobs?

Hon. R. Coleman: Through to the member: at no time did you do it. You had mills close when you were the NDP government. At no time, through the Speaker, did you do that.

Hon. R. Coleman: He's asking about a trust that was set up with regards to 20-percent takeback for forest workers affected by the takeback, and it did not apply to mills.

B. Simpson: Will the Minister of Forests and Range commit today to lead the process to reinstate the standing committee on forestry and provide it with an extensive mandate to address the crisis that we have in our forest sector?

Hon. R. Coleman: The member knows that the select standing committees of the Legislature are charged by the Legislature in agreement between the House leaders and the parties. The reality is that we're going to move very quickly. Very shortly there are going to be some things done out there that will assist our forest sector, particularly on the coast, which is facing some significant crises, and those things will be done expeditiously.

B. Simpson: I note that the minister has evolved quite dramatically in his thinking since the election, when he called anyone who said there was a crisis "Chicken Little." He has now admitted that there is a crisis and, in fact, last week stated: "We need to fix forestry in B.C. We need to work together. We need to work together to do it."

If the minister will not lead the process to resurrect the standing committee on forestry, how does the minister expect us — and what avenue do we have — to work together on this and take it beyond partisan politics?

Hon. R. Coleman: I have been taking information in from the coast forest sector as well as the interior forest sector through financial institutions looking at trying to find short-term and long-term solutions for

the forest sector. It's pretty critical that we move reasonably expeditiously. We've already been told what they face in British Columbia. The member is well aware of what that is.

The one thing we can't do with a committee or otherwise is change an 85-cent dollar or a tariff at the border that we're trying to fix. The reality is that we are facing some situations at the coast. If you look at the Pearse report, he's very specific about what is going to happen with the issues in and around second-growth and old-growth timber and how a certain number of mills will not be processing because of their age, their capacity and their technology. We have to address that. We have to be prepared to do the decisions that will do that, and we are going to do that.

A. Dix: My question is to the Attorney General pursuant to his statutory responsibilities under the Coroners Act. Will the Attorney General initiate a coroner's inquest into the Savannah Hall case to help answer the many serious outstanding questions about her death and the inadequacy of government review mechanisms?

Hon. S. Hagen: All children's deaths in the province are investigated by the coroner's office.

A. Dix: It's a sad fact that under this government, given the elimination of the Children's Commission and the gutting of the coroner's office, the only time we get answers in children's deaths is when some of the parties involved sue each other in civil court.

The Attorney General has the authority under section 23 of the Coroners Act to initiate an inquest. Will he do so to help the parties involved and the people of British Columbia understand the terrible circumstances around the death of Savannah Hall?

Hon. S. Hagen: It's incredibly sad when the death of a child occurs. Thankfully, it doesn't occur very often, but when it does, we want to get to the bottom of why it has occurred. That's exactly what we will do in this case. It's exactly what we do in every case.

C. Wyse: Across Canada, 26 percent of first nations communities with a boil-water advisory are found in British Columbia. Of the 25 of these communities in B.C., nine of them are found in Cariboo North and Cariboo South. My question is to the Deputy Premier. Will the government guarantee the safety of drinking water for the first nations communities of B.C.?

Hon. G. Abbott: We're very concerned that all British Columbians have safe drinking water. It is very important, and I thank the member for raising this important issue.

The information we have is that there are about 358 on-reserve water systems on first nations reserves across B.C. Of those 358, some 24 have boil-water advisories at this point in time. Boil-water advisories, unlike in the balance of the province, are initiated by Health Canada through FNIB and through INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. They are the ones that determine that.

As the member will know, INAC and Health Canada have the constitutional and fiduciary responsibility with respect to on-reserve water systems. But I do want to say that under the Premier's leadership, we are working very hard to try to find ways that we can assist in all areas of first nations health in this province. The outcomes are not as good as they should be, and we want to work to make them better.

What additional cooperation will be developed between the federal and provincial government with regards to, for example, the new regulations that have been introduced here provincially around water and septic fields?

Hon. G. Abbott: I think the cooperation can go on in a number of ways. We have taken some very important steps as a government through the Drinking Water Protection Act and the Drinking Water Protection Plan, through the development of drinking water protection officers and, as the member references, a number of areas where we have renewed water quality infrastructure in the province.

Whether the water systems in question are on reserve or off reserve or whether the constitutional and fiduciary responsibilities rest with the federal or provincial government, it is absolutely critical, I believe, that all levels of government work together to ensure that every British Columbian — whether they're first nations or non–first nations — has the opportunity to enjoy the best drinking water in the world.

S. Fraser: To the Minister of the Environment: as the minister is aware, E&N Railway and RailAmerica have contracted Streamline Consulting to develop a plan for dealing with weeds on the railway from Victoria to Courtenay, including the line off to Port Alberni. Every constituency, regional district government, municipality and individual that I've spoken with, that I'm aware of, stands as one in their opposition to this plan that as proposed includes chemicals for controlling the weeds.

Will the minister assure the House and the residents of Vancouver Island that he will deny the five-

year plan that allows for the use of deleterious substances as a means for weed control?

Hon. P. Bell: Actually, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands has the lead role in dealing with noxious weeds. I'm expecting a report back from my ministry in the coming month to review the activities that have taken place over the last year around noxious weeds in the province. It's a significant issue — one this government takes very, very seriously and is committed to eradicating throughout the province. We're looking forward to that report, and we'll take further action at that point.

S. Fraser: I do, Mr. Speaker. To whichever minister — I'm not sure who's responsible: the plan that was proposed includes the use of Roundup, Garlon 4 and 2,4-D to control weeds over a five-year plan through aquifers, through sensitive watersheds — actually, effectively, through back yards where our children play. If this plan were to be okayed by the ministry, will the minister responsible use section 8 and step forward and ensure that these deleterious substances are not used?

Hon. P. Bell: Our preference is always to look at using different sorts of biological procedures to control noxious weeds, but there are times when those mechanisms don't work. We rely on sound science to ensure that whatever materials are used to control noxious weeds, it is done in a way that protects human safety, and we'll continue to do that.

J. Horgan: Last week was a particularly confusing week for public education in British Columbia. We had the minister's flip-flop with respect to clawing back funds from school boards. At the midweek point we had the curious activity of the deputy minister involving himself in local payroll issues. By the end of the week we had the remarkable revelation that the Liberal government was going to re-purpose school boards.

My question, simply, to the Minister of Education is: why will she not tell the people of British Columbia before they vote in local elections in November what re-purposing is all about?

Hon. S. Bond: Well, in fact, the Ministry of Education has changed dramatically since the last election. I'm now responsible for areas such as early learning, literacy and things that are absolutely essential to creating healthy and wonderful educations for our children. We're actually going to talk to people about how the role of school trustees might look when we consider a brand-new mandate for a ministry.

J. Horgan: It's clear that it's just making it up as you go. I heard the minister last week on the radio say that you don't make public policy on a Friday afternoon. I think they're doing it on the weekends on the back of an envelope — chaos and confusion.

Why won't the minister come clean with the people of British Columbia before the election so that everyone knows what they mean when they're talking about putting more responsibility on the school boards? People are putting their names forward to work in their communities, and they have no idea what they're going to be doing on the 20th of November, because this government won't come clean.

Hon. S. Bond: In essence, it's this side of the House that actually created a place for partners to come and talk about issues. We insisted, in fact, that trustees have a seat at that table.

Let's talk about chaos and confusion, and talking about school trustees, let's listen to a quote from the critic opposite on the CKNW Bill Good show: "I believe what the government needs to do is sit down with teachers, hear what they have to say. They need to bring in other people — parents, other groups and societies. That's fine, but the debate should be with front-line workers; it should be with teachers. They're the ones that have their kids in their hands, not parent advisory councils…

R. Fleming: Clearly, grammar isn't one of the minister's new responsibilities in the ministry. This member also wonders about the meaning of the word "re-purpose." Webster's dictionary was of no help. Between the words "repulsive" and "reputable" there was no "re-purpose."

Will the Minister of Education tell the voters of B.C. exactly what "re-purpose" means for their democratically elected school boards before they vote on November 19 in local elections?

Hon. S. Bond: How hard is it? New ministry. New mandate. Let's talk about it. Let's design a role that fits it.

Hon. M. Coell: I wish to table a petition. The petition is from 1,838 constituents of mine, the Island Residents Against High Voltage Overhead Lines. They wish the House to know their opposition to the Vancouver Island transmission reinforcement project. I table the petition.

M. Polak: I rise to present a petition on behalf of brides seeking the elimination of the $100 marriage licence tax in British Columbia.

Hon. M. de Jong: I rise pursuant to Standing Order 81.1 to make the following statement to members. The tabling of Bill 11 completes the government's anticipated legislative agenda for this fall 2005 session. I want to advise the House that following discussions with the Opposition House Leader, we have come to an agreement regarding the completion of scheduled business for the balance of the current sitting, which ends on November 24 this year. The Opposition House Leader and I have agreed that all of the estimates and attendant supply legislation will be completed on or before November 24, together with the legislation that is presently before the House.

This information is conveyed to the House by agreement in lieu of a formal motion contemplated by Standing Order 81.1. I believe the Opposition House Leader is in a position to acknowledge and approve the information I'm conveying now.

M. Farnworth: I am in a position to confirm that, and I'm happy to do so. I think this is something that's unique in the history of this Legislature, where we've been able to come to an agreement around how legislation shall proceed and in terms of the completion of the estimates process by November 24. I think it has worked to the benefit of both the government and the opposition in allowing this House to get its business completed in a timely fashion. I think that's a positive step forward, and I thank the House Leader for his cooperation.

APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
TO SELECT AN INFORMATION
AND PRIVACY COMMISSIONER

Hon. M. de Jong: A motion that I think the Opposition House Leader knew was coming, but perhaps not today, relates to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act commission. May I, as well, thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for the discussions that we have had leading to the motion or the statement that just reached the floor of the Legislature. It is rather unprecedented in the 12 or 13 years that I have been in this chamber, so thanks to him for that.

It is the usual powers that a special committee would have for selection. With leave, I'll forgo the need for that except to advise the House that the said special committee is to be composed of Messrs. Rustad, as convener, Cantelon and Krog and Mesdames Polak and Thorne.

Hon. M. de Jong: In my earlier comments with respect to Bill 11, I indicated that I'd be tabling the regulation that would be enacted if this Legislature sees fit to pass Bill 11. I do so table that now, with leave.

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber, second reading debate on Bill 14, and in Committee A, for the information of members, estimates of the Ministry of Advanced Education.

Madam Speaker, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, represents the first step in providing British Columbians with the further opportunity to debate the future of our province's electoral system.

As members of the House will recall, earlier this year the government acted on its commitment to hold a provincewide referendum on the electoral system if a new model were proposed by the recommendations of the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. The assembly recommended a form of the single transferable vote model, which is called BCSTV. The question of whether to adopt the model was put to the voters during the May 17 election. The outcome of the referendum, as we all know, was very close to passing. To pass, the proposal needed a yes vote for 60 percent of the overall provincewide vote and a simple majority in at least 60 percent of the province's electoral districts.

The proposed BCSTV easily passed the second test. However, it narrowly missed the first one in that it failed to reach the 60-percent overall popular vote. Following the referendum, there were comments made by many members of the public that the province or the government should simply implement the STV because the result was close, but that would be akin to changing the rules of the game after the game started. The referendum threshold was publicly announced before the election and even before the Citizens' Assembly began meeting. It was a high threshold for a very good reason, because it was a fundamental change to our democratic system.

The referendum results did indicate, however, that there was a widespread appetite in the province to examine electoral reform. During the debate, during the referendum, many voters felt that they did not fully understand the proposal. Members of the House will recall that there was a considerable amount of confusion during the course of the debate that took place prior to and during the election. As members of the House will recall, under the system, the electoral districts would change from single member to multi-member. Districts would have a minimum of two members and a maximum of seven. Generally, more rural areas of the province would have fewer members per district, while urban areas would have more. The average number of people per MLA would be constant.

Given the close result and the apparent wish of the people to have more information about the implications of the decision, the throne speech delivered in September set out a process for this debate to continue, to provide more information to the public and for the people of the province to have a final say in another referendum in 2008.

The bill currently before the House is the first step in that process. The bill directs the Electoral Boundaries Commission that will be appointed this fall to consider and recommend boundaries under both the current single-member-plurality system and a proposed STV system. This will ensure that during the next referendum British Columbia voters will know what their electoral districts would look like under BCSTV.

In order to accommodate the dual mandate, the time line for the 2005 commission has been extended. The extended time line is recommended for a couple of reasons. First, there will be a census taken in 2006. In order to accommodate the results of the census, it is proposed that the date be extended — that the interim report be filed no later than August 15, 2007, and the final report no later than February 15, 2008.

The bill also provides the commission with the authority to recommend boundaries for up to 85 electoral districts under the single-member plurality or up to 85 members under the BCSTV. The potential of adding up to six seats to the assembly will help the commission take account of population shifts in the province — in particular, the growth of urban areas like the lower mainland of Vancouver or southern Vancouver Island — while ensuring that northern representation would not be undermined. The commission will also be required to recommend the same number of members under both systems so that the size of the Legislative Assembly will not differ, regardless of which electoral system is chosen by voters in 2008.

Another change proposed in this bill is that future commissions would be appointed within one calendar year of every second general election. Currently the commissions are appointed during the next legislative session following every second general election. This change will provide some flexibility in the timing of the appointment, which will assist with aligning commissions' timetables to those of the census. It'll also remove the possibility of having to appoint a commission in the event that there is a short legislative session called soon after a general election.

It is also important to note what will not change as a result of the bill. The makeup of the commission will continue to be a judge or retired judge of either the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court, the Chief Electoral Officer and a third person selected by you, the Speaker, after consulting with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. This ensures that the commission will be non-partisan, independent and will have the expertise of the Chief Electoral Officer. As always, British Columbians will have the opportunity to have input into the commission's deliberations through public hearings.

Madam Speaker, British Columbia has led the way in designing a process for discussion about electoral reform to happen with citizen involvement and without partisan self-interest. I am pleased to recommend this bill to the House as the next step in this important debate.

L. Krog: I suppose this all started when the barons ran King John down at Runnymede. We have come a long way since the divine right of kings and the power of the authority of the king to supersede anything except that of God.

We've come a long way since the days when only property owners could vote. We've come a long way since the days when women couldn't vote and when people of colour in this province couldn't vote. The good news, hopefully, is that it's not going to take us another 800 years to arrive where we've arrived today, and in fact, that the process of electoral change will be accomplished much more quickly.

Firstly, I want to pay my respects to the Premier for having constituted the Citizens' Assembly. I want to thank that Citizens' Assembly on the record of this House for the incredible work that they did on behalf of all British Columbians. It was no small task. It was an onerous task, and it was a task that required a great deal of their personal time and commitment — much more so than is often expected of individual citizens in our society. It is that very participation by citizens that should be at the heart of electoral reform.

We're not here today to debate second reading of this bill because there is no problem. We are here to debate second reading of this bill today because the government of British Columbia, the legislators of British Columbia and, indeed, the public have recognized a significant and continuing problem in our electoral system. That is best represented by the numbers of people who, for whatever reason, are choosing not to participate.

We have declining voter participation — not only in municipal elections, in which it's absolutely horrendous. We see declining participation in provincial and federal elections as well. There are parts of this country where the participation rate is much higher, much greater, and that's to be admired. On this side of the House we hope that this continuing debate around electoral reform will inspire British Columbians, if you will, to lead the way in terms of a reinvigorated democracy in British Columbia, to ensure that people take seriously the obligation — and I believe it is an obligation — as well as the right to vote.

I don't think there's a member of this House who cannot be moved by what happened in South Africa in the last 15 years. I remember well — and I think I've mentioned it in this House before — that there was a wonderful Elections Canada poster in a campaign office in the 2000 federal election. It was simply a picture of Nelson Mandela, and the caption beside it read: "This man spent 27 years in prison for the right to vote. What's your excuse?"

I don't think one can help but be moved by the pictures of those South Africans, particularly those of colour, who we've seen in the most recent South African election, lined up in the hot sun in dusty conditions — long, snaking lineups — waiting for hours to vote. Yet in this country, in wonderful polling stations in public facilities, we can't be bothered to vote, and in growing numbers, we can't be bothered to take seriously our franchise.

It is particularly galling to me — I say this, and I'm conscious of the fact that this is in Hansard and that these words may come back to haunt me — as a citizen of this country to see declining voter participation when you consider that this is the 60th anniversary of the conclusion of hostilities in the Second World War, when so many fine young men and women of this country in particular, let alone of the world, lost their lives in the fight against fascism — one of the most horrendous antidemocratic forces in the history of the world. I would hope that coming out of this debate and coming out of this bill — and what all members will have to say in their contribution to this debate — will be a renewed and invigorated interest in democracy in British Columbia.

It's very clear, coming out of the election this spring, that British Columbians want electoral reform. It's extremely clear that they are not happy with the present voting system. Lots of excuses have been offered by the pundits: "Well, it reflected a reaction to the 2001 election, when only two members of the opposition were elected and we had an overwhelming government majority." Others will say that it reflects ignorance on the part of the voters; it reflects just an anxiety about things. I'm convinced that what it reflects is an interest by British Columbians in ensuring that we get the best electoral system possible.

It is clear to me, to members of my party, to my party at convention and to all citizens, I think, that the old ways don't have the kind of relevance they once did. The declining voter participation, I say, clearly shows to all of us that people have somehow lost faith in the process. They have lost faith in politicians.

We all hear the jokes about where politicians rate in terms of trustworthiness. Somewhere down there is, jokingly…. The president of the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. made a joke that "they're slightly below us," he believes, or some remark like that, the other day when he was speaking to the Finance Committee tour.

L. Krog: One of my friends in the House makes some small remark that won't be recorded in Hansard about "still ahead of lawyers." I want to say on behalf of the Attorney General and myself that we highly resent that remark, hon. member — highly resent that remark. I speak for the member for Surrey-Whalley, as well, on this issue.

The fact is that lawyers are absolutely essential to the democratic process. That great line from Shakespeare, "First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers," is the part that gets quoted, but what one doesn't continue with is the long passage that follows. If you want to ensure dictatorship in society, that's what you do. You get rid of those people who defend the legal process which gives us our source of rights, if you will, to participate in democratic society.

Notwithstanding the interesting remarks of the member, I want to go back to what I want to talk about. The opposition is obviously very receptive to the fact that this government hasn't abandoned the concept of electoral reform. We're delighted that it has decided to take this step forward to continue this very important debate in British Columbia. We look forward to a very full and frank discussion around this bill.

One of the things that I think the House has to consider very carefully with respect to electoral reform is this. The Citizens' Assembly represented a broad cross-section of British Columbians, and one cannot fault the work and the time they devoted to their task. But it is also clear from the record that a number of members of the Citizens' Assembly likewise voted for a mixed-member proportional representation system.

At the end of the day, the single transferable vote won out, and that was the only question available to British Columbians to address in the spring election. It was a difficult issue for many of us. I candidly said myself during the campaign that I hadn't made up my mind how I was going to vote, and indeed I made up my mind — for the first time in my life in any election — literally when I put my X on the ballot.

It is a difficult decision for me, because on one hand, although not fully supportive of the concept of a single transferable vote, I too, like that nearly 60 percent of other British Columbians, wanted to give voice to desire for electoral reform. That is the opportunity — and I pay again my compliments to the government and to the Attorney General for introducing this bill — that has been presented to us today.

We have an opportunity to debate electoral reform in a fairly broad sense, I suggest to this House. But the scope of the choice we have now in Bill 14 is restricted, and is restricting the Electoral Boundaries Commission, to the concept of the single transferable vote. Frankly, when the government set up the Citizens' Assembly in terms of a mandate, so that we ended up with only one choice, with the greatest respect, I think that was — pardon the pun — the wrong choice. The fact is that British Columbians should have an opportunity in a larger public debate by way of referenda to discuss other options related to electoral reform.

We are looking at making one of the most sweeping changes to the elections process in the history of British Columbia. Arguably, it's not as significant as giving women the vote — although I don't like the phrase "giving women the vote." They had the right from the start, but it was kept from them. It is as significant as giving people of colour the opportunity to vote in this province.

Therefore, I assert in this place, in this chamber, that we should be considering an alternate as well. During the course of committee stage of this bill I believe it would be appropriate for this House to consider at that time expanding and amending the bill to include that the commission would, in fact, review a mixed-member proportional representation system and provide the same kind of recommendations back to the Legislature as are set out in the bill's general format. It is the opposition's intention to put forward an amendment along those lines.

Obviously, we are excited about being part of this important task, and I am hopeful that many members in this chamber will take full opportunity to voice their views in this House. Hopefully, what will come out of this debate and out of this legislation, in whatever form it passes, is the opportunity for elected officials to do their jobs even better and to ensure, most importantly, that every community in this province has a strong representation in the Legislature.

We have long recognized that if we simply divided up this province on the basis of pure numbers and set up constituencies, if you will, based on that alone, it would not be fair. Geography has been both the curse and the blessing of this province. You cannot expect that some members of this House who represent vast areas of this province and a small population should somehow now see their constituencies disappear into even larger constituencies. Whereas members of this House who happen to represent areas of the lower mainland will represent constituencies that one could walk across comfortably in an afternoon, others represent constituencies you can't comfortably fly across in a single plane in half a day. We have recognized that, and I'm hopeful that the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take that into consideration.

I think every British Columbian has a fundamental sense that representation based on pure numbers is not fair, and the STV concept is to perhaps alleviate part of that problem with the larger regional areas in which to vote. But at least this time, assuming — and I trust the Premier, and I take the Premier at his word…. This time, when British Columbians vote on this, they will have the opportunity to fully consider what it is they're voting for, the commitment to fund both the yes and the no sides will in fact be carried out, and British Columbians will participate fully in a debate that is a fundamental change.

I would trust and hope — because the people are, after all, never wrong and if they are, it's only temporary — that the choice they will make will be the best for all British Columbians and that it will represent a compromise, if you will, between the rights of rural constituencies and the rights of urban constituencies and between the rights of rural voters and urban voters.

A lot of the political commentators in this country have come to realize that amongst the other great divides that exist in our society — whether based on language, ethnicity, religion or economic status — is also that great divide that now is even more apparent, between rural and urban Canada and rural and urban British Columbia.

Having had the privilege of sitting on the Finance Committee during its recent tours with many of the members of this House present here today, it is clear that there are many British Columbians living outside of the great urban area of the lower mainland who feel that their contribution to British Columbia's wealth and

well-being is substantial and that it is not recognized. It is not recognized in terms of the services they receive or services they've seen cut back, and it's not recognized fairly in the voting system as well. They are conscious of the fact that the numbers of members they elect do not, in fact, provide a sufficient counterbalance to the great numbers of members who come from urban areas.

We have this opportunity here in this House with Bill 14 to participate in continuing change — and, hopefully, not just change but electoral progress — and in fact, what will come out of this will be a vast improvement over our existing system, and that we will not see numbers of voters participating in our system continue to decline; we will, in fact, see increases. People will finally and seriously consider what a wonderful opportunity they have in order to elect the people who govern them. We will appreciate that there are literally hundreds and hundreds of millions of people around this planet today who have no opportunity to vote or, if they do, vote in electoral systems that are corrupt or, alternatively, in electoral systems where they face death by simply wishing to exercise their franchise.

Here in B.C. we have an opportunity, I believe, to bring forward electoral reform that can be a model for Canada and, indeed, a model for the world. Let us come up with an electoral system that will fairly represent people, rural and urban, and that will fairly represent the interests of British Columbians.

I can say without any hesitation that Bill 14 will get my support. Bill 14 will get my even more sincere support if this government will listen to the opposition — and, I believe, to a significant portion of British Columbians represented by this opposition — if they will consider, in fact, the amendments that the opposition will bring forward to Bill 14.

Let us make this truly, in this House as it was in the Citizens' Assembly, an ornament to our democracy. Let us make it a consensus-building process. Let us make it a process that British Columbians across this province will look in on and observe and say: "You know what? The politicians are finally doing it the right way. They're listening to each other, and they're considering our interests, and they care." We have come so far down this road of democratic process that I am afraid many British Columbians don't believe we really care anymore in this chamber, that we've become officeholders and officeseekers, that we're not really interested in reflecting their views or their wishes or their concerns — all of those things that are important to them.

I am delighted to speak in favour of Bill 14. I look forward to this debate, and I encourage every member of this House to participate in it.

R. Lee: I would like to voice my strong support for Bill 14. I live in and represent a riding in one of the fastest-growing cities in British Columbia — Burnaby. Currently there are three seats entirely within Burnaby and a fourth, Burquitlam, which is half in Burnaby. With a population of over 200,000, representing 5 percent of the total population in B.C., the city is beginning to see the squeeze — that is, equitable representation right here in Victoria.

During the 2001 election our government campaigned on electoral and democratic reform. Once elected, we got right to work on this commitment. Our government strongly believes elections should never be called as a result of a government creating artificial conditions designed entirely to help them get re-elected, like a former Premier with his infamous fudge-it budget.

As a result of the commitment of our government, British Columbia was the first province to legislate fixed election dates. Our province is a leader to other provinces. Other provinces are looking at what we have done, and one province, Ontario, is following our lead. It's really unusual that Ontario is following B.C.'s lead.

Not only that: our government realized there was a growing voice about the way provincial politicians are elected in our province. This needed to be addressed, and we allowed the people, not the politicians, to have a say. This is why we initiated the Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. This assembly was made up of randomly selected British Columbians and drawn in equal numbers from every electoral district. It was their job to recommend to British Columbia voters a potential new system of how they elect us, their MLAs.

This initiative, the first for any Western democracy, was completely free from political interference. About 50 hearings were done, and they received over 1,600 written submissions. The Citizens' Assembly recommended the single transferable vote, a system of proportional representation. As we are aware, the vote on STV narrowly failed to pass last May. Despite a majority of voters in all but a handful of ridings supporting the initiative, this kind of proportion failed to reach the magic 60 threshold required to pass.

As our province continues to grow, it's important that citizens are represented in a fair manner, with no one region dominating. A system of balance and regional equity is required. Our government, being the most open and democratic in Canada, also realizes there's a strong desire by the electorate to modify our electoral system. This is what the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005 will achieve.

I believe it's vital that we support Bill 14 and allow the proposed commission the flexibility needed to ensure that British Columbia's electoral boundaries reflect accurately our changing population while at the same time making sure no one region dominates the political process. While it's important to make sure seats are distributed in a fair and equitable manner, under no circumstances should a region be, for the lack of a better word, punished for the size of the population. It would be unfair for the lower mainland to benefit and to have the interior or the north's voice diminished. That's not what our province is about. Once passed,

Bill 14 will allow the commission the flexibility to recommend up to 85 electoral districts and MLAs in order to protect B.C.'s smaller population bases.

I'm also very much in favour of affording the electorate another opportunity to vote on the single transferable vote. Once the commission has finalized this report, British Columbians will know beyond a shadow of a doubt how this proposed system will impact them. Bill 14 will represent a lot of people and, also, will present the electorate with a clear choice and critical pieces of information that were missing during this May's referendum. This is very important.

As the commission travels through the province and consults with the people, I urge British Columbians to take advantage of this opportunity and to express their opinions on how we, the MLAs, shall be elected. This is a very pure form of democracy, and we have a moral responsibility to ensure that it truly represents the wishes of the people.

I hope all members of this House join me in supporting Bill 14. This represents an excellent opportunity to ensure all our constituents receive the best possible representation here in Victoria in the future.

N. Macdonald: I, too, join with the previous speakers in speaking in support of this bill in principle. The Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, addresses two things that I think are important.

The first of those is around rural representation. Section 2 of this bill would amend section 10(1) of the previous Electoral Boundaries Commission Act to allow the commission to increase the size of the Legislature to 85 seats from the current 79. Now, as everyone is aware, there's a shift to cities from rural areas that, though long-term, is clearly accelerating. With our system, this concentrates further political power in essentially one large urban centre. If you win there, you win government. Political importance means urban issues top the list. While rural services deteriorate, urban issues are more likely to be dealt with.

The acceleration is that consequently, rural areas become even less attractive to live in, largely through political decisions. What I've seen in the last four years is certainly the quality of health services, education services, women's centres…. You have the social infrastructure being decreased or removed, and there are challenges around physical infrastructure as well. In rural areas there are needs around roads. There are needs around high-speed Internet access, courthouse access, affordable housing. In a rural area, there are fewer people and fewer representatives calling for immediate action, yet the cost is often great.

The increase in the number of seats in the Legislature from 79 to possibly 85 will allow some retention of rural seats. The member from Burnaby is correct in that there are a large number of people that voted for him compared to the number that voted for me. That's something that needs to be addressed. What this does is allow for there to still be a representative from the area that I represent. It is crucial for us in rural areas to have a representative that is able to stay physically connected with the people who vote for him.

I'll just remind members — and I've spoken about it before, but I'll remind the House — of some of the challenges around that. My riding is five hours away from here — excuse me, nine hours away. When I leave here to travel, it will take me nine hours to get home. The weekend is, therefore, taken up with travel, and it leaves very little time for me to move on the weekends around the riding.

My area is not the biggest, but it is five hours from one area to the next. Going from Kimberley through to Revelstoke will take me approximately five hours. On top of that, like many rural representatives, I need to deal with two regional districts. I have two school boards. I have six local municipal councils. I have first nations and four chambers of commerce. All of them have a right to expect to see me.

On top of that, there are four distinct areas in my riding. To know about Kimberley does not help me represent Revelstoke. The industries and culture of these communities are very different. For people to see me in Canal Flats does not mean anything to someone who's living in Field. You need to physically move around. People need to have contact with you. They need to feel that they have seen you, that you understand their issues and that you're taking them forward to government.

I also need to watch my main industries. I have to go to the resorts to make sure that their issues are looked after. I need to make sure that my mills are okay. I need to be familiar with the economic development plans for each of the communities. So I have to travel constantly. There is — no question in my mind — a disconnect between this Legislature and rural areas. In some ways, that's going to be unavoidable, but we do need to be mindful of it.

Some will point to Members of Parliament and the size of the areas that they look after, but the difference with MLAs is this: we are dealing with issues that are much closer to people's day-to-day lives. It is this Legislature that deals with health. It is this Legislature that deals with schooling, local government, forestry, mining, tourism, hydro, highways. Almost all of the things that people would say are most important that government would deal with are dealt with by this Legislature. For the Members of Parliament: important issues, but often more abstract — foreign affairs, defence and so on.

Of the recent MLAs who have represented my area, each one of them, whether it's Duane Crandall or Jim Doyle or Bill King, will all tell you the same thing. They have to get out and physically meet with people. A boundary amendment that would make Columbia River–Revelstoke larger makes proper representation increasingly difficult. With this bill and with the proposal put forward to possibly increase the number of seats, it's the right direction to go, and it's something that I strongly support.

The second issue that I would talk to…. I'll just echo some of the things that previous speakers have said, because I think it's an important thing to say. The single transferable vote…. The process that had the Citizens' Assembly was something that during the election I was very clear about. I thought the Premier had a good idea. Allowing the Citizens' Assembly to meet and put forward ideas was something that I supported at the time and that I continue to support.

During the election I heard a lot of questions about the system that was put forward. I heard a lot of people wanting more information. I'm very pleased that there is going to be an opportunity for people to see boundaries if the single transferable vote system is going to be put forward. In a rural area, how those boundaries look will have a big impact on what people think of the system. That's something that I think is responsible as well.

In closing, then, thank you for the opportunity to speak. I support Bill 14 in principle.

D. Hayer: I rise to speak in favour of Bill 14, because it is a bill that begins the march towards what may become the most significant political change this province has ever experienced in its history. It is a bill that will begin the formation of choices for all British Columbians to decide whether or not to change the way we elect members of the Legislative Assembly.

Bill 14's purpose is to appoint an Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is not necessarily a new thing. However, what is new with this bill is that it asks the commission to look at two different types of electoral boundaries: one form that will be similar to what we have today and a second one that will lay out the electoral boundaries entirely appropriate to a new form of electoral system — the single transferable voting system called STV. This is exciting, because if the people of British Columbia decide in November of 2008 that they want to change the way they elect people in this province, everyone in this House — and everyone aspiring to be a member of this House — will be facing entirely new challenges, a new way of elections.

This bill — I want to remind everyone — is the result of a commitment this government and our Premier made in the throne speech of September 2005, a commitment to the voters of British Columbia, who sent a clear message in the past election that they wanted the government to look at different ways for people to elect their representatives. This bill heralds what may be exciting opportunities for the future of this province.

While some or all of the current riding boundaries may change somewhat under the current system of elections, under the single transferable voting system — STV — the ridings will change dramatically. When recommended, these changes will probably be significant in the areas where there are a number of MLAs elected, such as the community of Surrey, which is the fastest-growing city in Canada — soon to be the largest city in British Columbia and growing in population equivalent to a new constituency every four years. That is remarkable growth.

I am confident the Electoral Boundaries Commission will be looking very closely at Surrey to see if it might need a couple more seats, particularly in the areas of my riding of Surrey-Tynehead and of my colleague for Surrey-Cloverdale, which are among the fastest-growing ridings in British Columbia. In this process, they will also be looking very closely at B.C.'s rural areas to ensure that the residents of less populated regions such as those in the north will retain their proper representation in the Legislature — or at least the same number of MLAs as they have now.

The commission will also look at recommendations that may increase the number of MLAs to 85 from the 79 we have in British Columbia. That last possibility will certainly make things interesting in this House, not the least of which will be accommodating so many new members, especially as the House is almost full in the benches now.

However, we in this House will not be making those choices about STV. It will be the voters of this province who will decide. That is the way it should be in a democracy. The voters spoke very clearly in the last election about our election system. They felt a change was needed. While the ballots cast didn't quite make the established benchmark for the passing of STV, it was strong enough for this government to hear the call. We heard. That is why our Premier made it clear in the throne speech that British Columbians will once again have the opportunity to make a decision on how they want to elect their representatives.

I am proud that our government made this decision. I support its actions. I support this bill, which will provide some of the vital information that voters will need to make a responsible and informed decision in the next election.

C. Trevena: I rise to support this bill in principle. An independent boundary commission is an essential part of parliamentary democracy. Deciding on our boundaries is hugely important. As my colleague from Columbia River–Revelstoke mentioned, we could be looking at constituencies that all have the same population, but this would take out an essential part of representation.

My constituency, North Island, has one main centre, Campbell River, and the rest is scattered in towns and villages across an area of 17,000 square kilometres. Like my other colleagues in rural constituencies, I have a number of regional districts. I have two regional districts, seven municipalities, three school boards, a number of industries and the demands and needs of a very varied population. To best represent them is admittedly very difficult, because everybody wants you in the same place at the same time.

Talking to other colleagues who live in urban constituencies, they are able to walk across their constituency in about 45 minutes. The size is an issue, and it's important that rural areas do maintain representation. It's a very important part of our democratic system that people know who they're represented by.

As I say, my constituency, 17,000 square kilometres, has been larger. For a while it was represented very ably by Karen Sanford, who covered the area from the Comox Valley up to Cape Scott. It's been smaller as well. For a while the boundary was closer to Campbell River. The work of the independent boundary commission is — and what I'm very hopeful about this time — that it is able to reflect a balance so that the urban constituencies and their needs are met like those of rural constituencies. This time around the commission is looking at boundaries under our present system so we have that continued rural representation and the urban representation.

I'm also very pleased that it is going to be looking at boundaries under proposals for BCSTV. I believe that this was sorely lacking in discussions earlier this year. There was an almost 60-percent vote in favour of it, but I heard many concerns from people who weren't sure what it was going to mean to them. They weren't sure what it was going to mean for them in a rural constituency — where those boundaries would be drawn. The very fact that this time, as we head towards another vote on BCSTV, people will have a clearer idea of where the boundaries will be drawn and how many representatives will make up their constituencies is, I believe, vital for a fair move to a different system, if that's what's chosen.

People do want to know that they're going to be represented by somebody who is local. When it comes to the vote — and I hope that it isn't tied to a municipal election — I think people will be looking closely at how the boundaries work as well as at how the system itself works.

I do in principle support this bill. I think that it recognizes changes in our populations, the growth in the urban areas. Hopefully, it will recognize the strength and the need for a good rural voice. It reflects the change in our character in B.C. Most importantly, it maintains a strong balance for our parliamentary system.

J. Rustad: I rise today to speak in favour of Bill 14. I think it's a testament to the brave direction that this government has gone. When you consider the possibility of changing an electoral system, that's a massive undertaking, and it's not something to be done lightly. The appointment of the Citizens' Assembly and the work the Citizens' Assembly has done over the past years in bringing forward the referendum on STV are truly phenomenal. It is showing real leadership in this country, and it shows real leadership in this province.

When you look at the question of boundaries and the whole side…. Populations change, and we need to go through that.

One of the things I found very interesting with STV was the fact that they did a poll shortly before the referendum this May which showed that only about 3 percent of the people felt they were reasonably well informed on just what STV meant. When you consider that and when you consider the fact that this is potentially a monumental change for our province, it's very, very important that we have as much information out to the public as possible and that there's as much opportunity as possible to be able to determine just what the impact and the changes may be. I'm very pleased to see this act coming forward and fulfilling the commitment in the throne speech — to be able to put forward boundaries for STV so that the people will see just what this new voting system will mean.

I also find it interesting that the member for Nanaimo stood and mentioned that there should be another question that is put to the people of this province. I find that interesting, because the Citizens' Assembly went through a very long process. They went through a very thorough process. They examined electoral systems from around the world, including the MMP, mixed-member proportional representation, system as well as STV, and they rejected the one in favour of STV. I find it interesting that the member for Nanaimo, should an amendment come forward in the committee stage…. I find it interesting that they're suggesting we should put another system on the ballot.

I believe strongly in the power of this House. I believe strongly in the power of the elected MLAs to represent the people. However, when you put a citizens' assembly together, when you bring together a group of people from around the province to answer a question and to look in detail…. Essentially, they gave up many, many days of their lives so that they could come forward with this difficult question. To just put another question on the ballot to me seems a little bit presumptuous of what we would do here in the Legislature.

However, having said that, I do look forward to the opportunity to be able to debate this in the Legislature, to be able to bring forward the discussions, because it certainly impacts us and impacts the entire province. For that, I'm glad there will be some discussion around it. However, I do question exactly why that's going to be brought forward.

I want to talk for a moment about STV and what STV may mean. The boundaries are one component, and it's going to be important to have that in place. I'm very pleased with that. It's also very important that both the yes and no sides in this equation get the opportunity to really get out into the public and be able to present their sides.

In the research I've done on STV, one of the questions that comes up frequently for me and for a number of people is voter participation. We looked at the two other places in the world that have the STV model, and that's both Ireland and Malta. Voter participation in Ireland is the same as it is here. As a matter of fact, in many cases it's lower. The trend across the participation of youth is also lower, which is very disturbing because one of the hopes was that if there were a renewed system for democracy in our province, it would generate more interest and more participation in that system of democracy. However, I find that given the Irish model, it doesn't seem to actually make a difference in terms of voter participation.

That seems to be somewhat different in Malta, in the sense that they seem to have 90-percent-plus voter turnout for the most part. However, in Malta it's predominantly a two-party system. When I say "predominantly," I don't think there are any candidates running other than for the two main parties, with the very, very rare occasion that an independent will run. But it's very tight and very hotly contested. Every vote makes a difference.

In looking at the Malta system, they had a number of times where the votes that were counted on the first ballot…. In the STV system there are a number of preferences, and on the first-preference vote, the party that received more than 50 percent of the vote would sometimes not form government in the way that the vote went. What that meant was that even though a majority clearly selected a particular party, with the way the system was set up, because of the divisions, it wasn't necessarily reflected in terms of the members elected.

This became such a problem that in 1987, they actually passed a law that gave a number of bonus seats to the party that received a majority of first-count ballots so that they would form government. I find it odd that a system we are talking about implementing in our province has that kind of a flaw that it had to be jerry-rigged, if you want to call it that, so that the will of the people could be reflected in the voting process.

I find it interesting that the Citizens' Assembly chose the STV system. That's not to belittle the work that the Citizens' Assembly did — I think they've done some fabulous work — but I do think it's very important and very, very critical that we all get out and talk about some of the shortfalls.

The other thing about the STV system I wanted to bring forward was in Ireland. They have had an independent democracy in Ireland for 83 years. Out of those 83 years they've had some 26 or 28 elections. Out of those elections, only five of them formed majority governments for a total of 30 years. That meant, other than having those five rare occasions, the Irish people have been to the polls once every two years or just over once every two years.

The cost of elections — the turmoil that can happen with the change in government — is very significant, and to think that the democratic system could form minority governments…. Minority governments can be very healthy. They can be very good things for democracy, but the idea of having an election once every two years is a pretty big burden to put on the people.

Those are some of the issues I look forward to having out to the public in terms of open debate on the STV, which I'm very glad all of us here in this House will have the opportunity to participate in.

The other thing I wanted to bring forward on STV is, once again, in the Irish system. Despite the fact that they have had STV, despite the fact that they have had a great number of parties and independents running in the system over the past 83 years, there has been one party in Ireland that has formed government, with only a very few exceptions when a consortium of some of the smaller parties came together to form a government.

STV, to me, has its flaws, as does first-past-the-post. All systems seem to have some flaws, and the question is: which is going to provide the best opportunity for the people of B.C.? I believe that first-past-the-post certainly has its issues, but when you consider history, it has been in place for a very long time, and despite a few variances in the election pattern in this province, for the most part, has served this province very, very well.

One thing I'm certainly very, very pleased about, though, is the fact that this will be going to the people. It will be the people making the decision, not so much us here in the House. It's not that I don't respect decision-making in this House, because I certainly do. The decisions made in this House are important. They are critical decisions for this province. I give it my full respect. However, when you're talking about something that is as broad-based as a fundamental change in democracy, it's very, very important that that goes to the people, that they have the opportunity to be informed and to have their say.

Several of the other speakers have brought this forward, and I'd like to add my voice to it. That is the concern with northern and rural ridings. The new Bill 14 is going to provide for that opportunity to see what those boundaries are going to look like. But, quite frankly, any sort of boundary system, particularly in my riding when you're looking at Prince George–Omineca…. When you look at my neighbouring ridings and consider what would happen if one or more of those ridings were combined with my riding, the opportunity to be present in your community, to go out and to listen to individual concerns and to really have a presence as an MLA would be extremely difficult.

During this past election I put on some 4,500 kilometres in my riding just going back and forth meeting with the people, going out to forums, going through the whole election process knocking on thousands of doors. To imagine trying to do that over an area that would be twice or three times that size is difficult. I mean, I believe that if the voice of the people says that STV is the choice to go forward, I'd be very pleased to go and run under that system and do my best. I recognize that it would be a very difficult and very significant challenge to be able to truly represent such a very wide area.

I mean that not just from the work that I'd be doing, but also from that of my constituent assistants. Being able to have offices that people can come into and contact, being able to have that presence in all communities across such a wide area is a very difficult thing to consider, unless, of course, we're planning on significantly increasing the budget and being able to have the various offices.

I think the continuity and the representation needed in a riding, under the much larger ridings that may end up happening associated with any change to

some sort of more proportional type of representation, would certainly be a challenge, particularly for the rural and remote communities.

Having said all that, of course, I am in full support of Bill 14. Once again, I just want to stress and repeat that it is so important to make sure the information is out there, to make sure people are informed on this, to make sure they have those opportunities to be able to make that decision. At the end of the day, we in this House reflect the will of the people, and I believe it's important that the will of the people be heard. I believe it's also very important that we encourage as many people as possible to participate in this democracy.

We've had a number of very serious, significant wars in our recent history, not on our soil but overseas. Many people gave their lives. Many people gave up a significant portion of their lives, and some gave all they had so that we might have the freedom of a democracy, so that we would have the freedom of choice.

I think it is so critical that all of us do everything we can so that people understand their civic duties, so that people understand that democracy is not something to be taken for granted. Democracy is something that has been given to us and that we need to protect and need to participate in.

Any act, anything we do that encourages those kind of participations, I think, is a step in the right direction, and I think Bill 14 is a good step in that direction. It's going to give the public some choices. It's going to help provide some information that's very, very critical. I think Bill 14 is certainly a step in the right direction, as it is in its entirety. I would like to thank the minister for bringing this forward.

H. Bloy: I thank the members for allowing me to speak for just two moments so that I may sit in the chair.

I just wanted to stand up and speak today to say how much I support the Attorney General in introducing this bill. I've been proud to be part of a government that said we were going to do certain things in reform of the House and has actually done them — where we have the set election date and a set calendar in the House. We've been making changes cooperatively within the House.

In the last election the public showed that there's some desire for change in how we elect our officials. Many people still like it to be first-past-the-post because it's the only system that we've known and that we've won by, but in fact, there is a desire and an appetite placed on the vote.

Our government and the Premier and the Attorney General looked at this, and they've come up with an opportunity so that in the next municipal election in 2008, they will be able to do that. We have to give permission to the electoral reform commission to look at how we presently do it, to increase the size of the House and then to see how we would do it under STV.

I just wanted to give my support to this because it's very fundamental to how elections work. I believe that we're a leader in Canada and North America. I want to see that continue, and I'll be supporting this bill.

R. Austin: I, too, would like to have the opportunity to speak to the Electoral Boundaries Commission bill and to say that, in large part, I am very thankful that the government has brought this bill forward. I think it's important to note, as I think most speakers on both sides of the House recognize, the great work that has been done by the commission into electoral reform, and I think there will be another very vigorous debate as we approach that — both on the no side and on the yes side, looking at STV.

I would like to make a few comments, though, specifically about boundaries. This bill enables the government to increase the number of constituencies from 79 to 85. I fear that with the way the population is moving, we will end up with six more constituencies in the lower mainland, thus creating very, very big problems for those of us who live in the north and in rural British Columbia.

Now, the size of boundaries obviously makes a big difference as to how politics is conducted and what the outcomes are for those of us who live in rural British Columbia. When I first came down here, I was sitting next to a colleague who informed me that he could walk across his constituency in an hour and a half or he could cycle across it in minutes. He said that his problem was trying to meet the many thousands of people and speak for those he's responsible for.

My problem and the problem of those of us who reside in the north and in rural British Columbia is that we can't get to meet our constituents in the first place, the reason being that it takes just too long to get to all of their communities. It's very hard for them to ever come and meet us. Technology is not enough for those who want to have access to us. Many people do not have access to that technology, or they don't own cars, or they can't afford the gas to run those cars — or with winter approaching, it is too difficult to be making those journeys to come and meet a lot of rural British Columbian MLAs.

I think it's important that we not just recognize the population when we look at the boundaries but also recognize that if we create constituencies that are too large, it becomes very, very difficult for us. I would argue that population has become the dominant factor, and who can argue with that? After all, "One person, one vote" is the only way to go. But we need to recognize that there are other people who fought long and hard to be able to vote in the first place.

Let's look at this province. Over 80 percent of the people in this province live in the lower mainland, in just two large urbanizations: the Greater Vancouver area and the capital region. Not surprisingly, they and their needs dominate the political debate, and in many ways, that is as it should be. However, there's a large divide that has been created between the lower

mainland and rural and interior British Columbia. If we continue to base our boundaries on population only, then we will end up, as I have spoken before, with ridings that make it very difficult for representative democracy to work at all.

Let me give you an example, hon. Speaker. In northern British Columbia, if one goes to visit a doctor and you get a diagnosis that is a difficult one, aside from having to deal with the fact that you've got a diagnosis that makes you very worried, the first thing that you have to think about is: how can you afford the airfare to get to Vancouver? You then have to worry about how you can afford to go down to Vancouver, stay in a hotel, pay the bills in the hotel and pay for your meals. We all decry the idea of credit-card medicine, but that is a reality for those of us who live in northern British Columbia. It's something that we can only bring about, and make people from the lower mainland understand it, if there are enough rural ridings to be able to speak up and speak about those problems.

I understand recently that the government has brought in a small amount of money to help people to be able to travel, but it's just one of those issues, and it's a huge one. I'm sitting here looking at the hon. member for North Coast here. To give you some idea of how our ridings work, hon. Speaker, the member for North Coast has to spend about two and a half hours driving through my riding to get to a portion of his riding. Now, I do give him permission to do that when he asks nicely, but it just lets us know that these ridings are becoming so large, it's very difficult for us to actually go out and do what it is we are supposed to do.

I would like for people to recognize, as they set about this important task of deciding new boundaries, that we have to look not just at population but also at the size of those boundaries and at the practicalities of what it is like to work in a rural area. As one of the hon. members said earlier, it takes him nine hours to get home after finishing the work in this House every week. I am fortunate that it doesn't take me that long, but once I am home, I cannot get around my riding in one day very easily. I would hope that this House and the Electoral Boundaries Commission will take that into consideration and recognize that if we want to have equitable parliamentary democracy, we have to look at the size of these constituencies as well as at the numbers that we represent.

C. Evans: I rise to speak on Bill 14, and for the benefit of people who are just watching us, Bill 14 speaks of a couple of initiatives. One is the notion of having another vote on the STV question at the time of the next municipal elections, and the other major part of the bill speaks about increasing the number of members of the Legislative Assembly by a maximum of six in order to create some greater fairness, or at least to somewhat protect the rural constituencies against demographic shift.

Now, on the former part, the STV part, I have already, in my comments earlier, congratulated the government for its reconsideration of this question so that citizens can vote. I have no inclination to enter that debate at this stage. I want to talk today about the notion that we could protect rural constituencies and rural voters and their right to representation by an increase of six people here.

Hon. Speaker, it's probably not a surprise to you; you probably heard me say it before. I don't actually think this building was built on the democratic model. I don't think that we are sent here in a particularly democratic system. I think this building was built on a colonial model. It even reminds me in design of some kind of London-based castle from which to rule the colonial peoples. It's a beautiful building. I wouldn't want to work anywhere else, but it has the feeling, being parked in the lower left-hand corner out on an island, of a form of government inaccessible to regular citizens.

Those members who have travelled the rest of Canada will note that most provinces have chosen to put their Legislature somewhat in the middle, or at least not across a ferry boat from the rest of the people. This is probably the most elegant Legislature in Canada, and I think that folks, standing out on the street and seeing it all lit up at night, think that their government is distant from them, as opposed to receptive to them.

How this is relevant to this bill is thus: we have experienced demographic change in British Columbia since the times of old Social Credit to the place where it is now possible — in fact, it is common — to govern without need for a single rural vote. You can come in here and vote based on the votes in Victoria and the Greater Vancouver regional district, and you don't need the farmers, the orchardists, the fishermen, the miners, the prospectors, the loggers, the truck drivers, the sawmillers, the farmers, the grain producers, the ranchers. All of those folks who used to send people here to speak for their industries are no longer necessary to govern.

Similarly, we've seen economic shift. This used to be a province of entrepreneur, pioneer-style small businesses. In every single town — in Creston and Kelowna and on up through Williams Lake and up to Prince George and beyond to Fort Nelson — we used to mine and log and fish and farm with individual or family-based capital putting forward some kind of a business and assisting their community to employ people.

With centralization and capital-gathering-together — essentially, corporatization — we are now mining, logging, sawmilling and fishing with head offices all in Vancouver. We have seen a replication of economic power exactly like democratic power, to give Howe Street the same relationship to business in British Columbia that this building has to democracy. I would say that both of them mirror Ottawa's relationship to western Canada and British Columbia in the national

politic. Essentially, Vancouver has become to rural B.C. what Ottawa is to the west, generally.

I'm supposed to stand in my seat and say how thankful I am that somebody might add six seats. Whoopee. I'm going to vote for it, because it would be unwise to vote against the idea that we might get six more seats to defend the kind of democracy that we have right now. But I'm not thankful for it, because all it does is replicate the illusion of democratic function in a province where the city is now calling the tune for rural people everywhere.

If you're looking for an example, I would give you the debate that we had in this building at 11:30 this morning. I rose in my seat to ask the House, both sides — government Liberals and opposition New Democrats — to discuss the countervail, which, of course, is irrelevant in North Vancouver. I get it. It doesn't matter. It matters to seven sawmills in my constituency, and it matters to 40,000 woods-working people all over rural B.C.

I have said before, in the '90s, that sometimes there are issues that come before this House where the policy question is more divided urban and rural than it is left and right. When I brought that issue to the House this morning at 11:30, I thought rural people on both sides of the House would support it, because the countervail is killing us where we live.

I spoke to quite a few rural people in the government side. I gave them a copy of my comments ahead of time, and I said: "Will you support me?" It looked to me like we were going to build the kind of consensus that the people at home want us to build in order to put forward public policy to make life work in British Columbia.

I stood up, I said what I was going to say, and then, lo and behold, the people who I thought were going to stand up and attempt to build a consensus in the Legislature for government were pre-empted by the hon. member from North Vancouver who got up and spoke for the condo-dwelling, cappuccino-sucking, urban population, who couldn't care less what happens in terms of the countervail, and denigrated the idea, denigrated the Speaker and denigrated the House's ability to ever come together on any issue. I was stunned. But it's not unique, is it? It's kind of funny, but it's not unique. It is the norm in this colonial system here, where the city will tell us how to live.

You don't have to believe me. I'm a bulldozer driver from Winlaw. But UBC has built this institute they now call the Urban Futures Institute, run by Dr. David Baxter, and he did a study. He decided to try and see where the money comes from that hon. members on both sides are dispensing here, this largesse — the $20 billion that constitutes the provincial budget — and he tracked it — ore, timber, fish, transportation, retail sales and tourism.

You know what he found? He found that although the people in the Ministry of Finance believe and the civil service has charted that those moneys are earned in the golden triangle — Whistler to Victoria to Vancouver — in fact, they're only reported there. Corporatization has put the corporate head offices in the city of Vancouver, and money is actually earned in Prince George and Williams Lake and up in Duncan and off in Castlegar and Trail. It's smelted and mined and moved around on the railroad by the rural people who are no longer represented in this building.

It used to be that the gentleman who sat there as Premier used to be elected from the Okanagan. How long has it been since there was one elected anywhere except out of Vancouver? It seems to me that the way to get to work here is first become the mayor of Vancouver, and then you run to be the Premier.

It used to be that rural people represented enough of a body of voice here that there was actually an agricultural caucus in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party, the Social Credit Party and the CCF-NDP. There's none in any of those parties left. The year that they brought in the agricultural land reserve, every single political party in this building had an agricultural policy. I don't see any anymore.

It's not the government's fault. It's not your fault. It's nobody's fault. Demographic shift has moved my children to cities too. The microchip has eliminated every single job that most of us ever did when we first went to work in rural B.C. I understand that it is not the fault of the government, or anybody, that we see all over the world the growth of megacities, world-class cities, drivers-of-the-economy cities…. Corporatization in head offices in the city of…. It's nobody's fault, but democrats — people wearing poppies who are celebrating the efforts of Canadians to try to have democracy — have a job to do something about it when democracy begins to fall apart.

What is happening in rural British Columbia is that representation is no longer functioning. I don't intend to stand here and whine about it. My life is my life; I choose it. I love my job, but it is dishonest to suggest that I can do my job with mountain ranges and ferry boats and lakes and rivers in between the towns that I represent — and it's getting ever bigger — while other people here walk across their constituency.

Every citizen that I represent, every single thing they do in their day, is a contract with the province. Plow the roads so the school bus can come. Turn on the tap with your surficial water licence with the province. Run your sewage system with a licence from the province. Go get a cutting permit with a licence from the province. Haul it because you have a licence from the transportation folks. All day long your relationship is with the province, with all due respect to urban members here who have the GVRD between their citizens and this province.

We are essentially negotiating all the aspects of life with 20,000 citizens all the time. They live in towns that we don't even have offices in, and you're not going to make it better by adding six seats. I'll vote for it, but don't let anybody here gloat that it's going to work.

We need to change the way we manage this province in terms of democracy. I would argue that we ought to rise for a week and put the Legislature in Prince George, where I would bet most of the people that work here have never been. We'll go sit in a high

We need to find ways to structurally change democracy in this room. Maybe you need to add 20 people. I've heard a rumour in this building that there are those who think: "Oh, no, we can't add a whole bunch of new members because, after all, these pretty desks wouldn't fit everybody." Well, in other countries the MLAs don't have such comfortable seats. They sit on benches, and they pile them up so everybody can be represented. I don't care what you have to do, but, hon. Speaker, you or the gentleman over there or…. Maybe we could even all get together and keep the gentleman from North Vancouver out of the way and have a real conversation and talk about how to make democracy work.

Yeah, I'm going to vote for it, but don't anybody here think it will invoke democracy for rural people.

J. Yap: Contrary to the so eloquently placed views of the member for Nelson-Creston, I believe that this discussion on Bill 14 will contribute to improving democracy in our province, here in this chamber.

I suppose it really is one of the reasons why we are here, why we worked — all 79 members of this House — worked so hard to earn the support of each of our constituents, to have the right to be in this chamber, and that is to engage in this debate and discussion, to have the opportunity to exchange and present ideas, all towards the cause of improving this cherished institution that we call democracy.

Through the magic of the Hansard webcast, I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo and was intrigued by a number of things he said, many of which I agree with. For example, he talked about how he was very concerned with voter participation rates and how they're declining. I, too, am concerned with this issue — the fact that we're seeing a negative trend and one that's persisted over the years. There are many reasons for this decline in interest. I suspect the degree of respect or lack of it that some in our population have for our profession may have something to do with it, as well as other social and economic factors that may come into play. But that's for another discussion.

I was impressed with the member for Nanaimo in how he expressed himself. I share the sentiment that he found it galling that we are here, in this Year of the Veteran, celebrating the fact that many thousands of valiant Canadians made the ultimate sacrifice to earn the right for our society to maintain its freedom and democratic principles and that this institution we call democracy is not being supported and embraced to the extent that we all believe it should be.

It reminds me of a time this past summer when I had the opportunity to stand in line with several hundred other people, ordinary citizens and members of the military, who were there to pay their respects to Ernest "Smoky" Smith. He was lying in state, and I felt the real need to go myself, as many citizens felt, and pay my respects to this great Canadian. As I was lining up to enter the building to pay my respects, I was approached by a member of the media who asked: "Here you are standing in line to go and pay your respects to Ernest 'Smoky' Smith. Why are you doing this?"

I thought about it, because I never knew Sergeant Smith. I had heard of him and certainly became very aware during the time of his passing of the heroic deeds that led to his being awarded the Victoria Cross. At that moment in time I could only think of a very simple explanation, and that was gratitude. I felt a sense of gratitude to this great man and the many men and women who, alongside him, sacrificed on behalf of our institutions which today too many of us take for granted.

I believe that, in spite of all of the challenges we've had over the years, we actually have a very viable democratic society here in Canada and certainly in British Columbia. Is the system perfect? No, it's not perfect, as we've seen over the years with the anomalies that have happened. Does this contribute to a sense of alienation and disconnect among members of the population? It probably has.

I believe that this process we started in the last mandate under the leadership of the Premier — to have a conversation with British Columbians about how we could do better in ensuring that democracy means something, means more to British Columbians…. So we had the citizens' assembly and all the great work that came out of that.

I know that many people were disappointed that in the referendum in the spring, the referendum did not go as some had hoped, but the threshold was set. I think it was the right decision not to ignore the fact that we had set a threshold.

Yes, there was a sizable percentage of the population that wanted to move forward in the direction of change. Even in my constituency, which voted on the yes side — the majority voted that way — I encountered many people during the campaign and after the campaign who said: "I voted for change." One of the interesting things that also happened when I engaged in a discussion of "Why did you vote for change?" was that it was more at an emotional level — the explanations of why this or that citizen voted as they did for change.

I believe that the intent of this bill, the Electoral Boundaries Commission Amendment Act, 2005, really hits the mark that we want to go back to British Columbians and have this conversation and have a healthy debate on both sides of the issue. We want to be able to lay it out as clearly as we can, because while it's a simple concept, there are also some complexities to the way that the proposed single transferable vote would work.

I want to ensure that British Columbians, as we move to the referendum in 2009, will have all the information they need and will be able to make a considered decision that they believe would be in the best interests of British Columbia. We will live by that decision.

Obviously, I'm speaking in support of this bill. I think it speaks to the fact that we need to continue on this path of ensuring that we have a democratic system that works for all British Columbians, re-engages British Columbians in the democratic process and addresses some of the concerns which have been raised. I believe that the proposal, for example, to add up to six additional seats to try and address the perceived imbalance between rural and urban ridings is a step in the right direction.

Democracy in British Columbia is a work in progress. While there may be some who may feel a level of anxiety — and I have to admit that I felt some of that anxiety when we were considering the referendum in May — the thing we should keep in mind is that throughout our history, we have engaged in change. When British Columbia first entered Confederation in 1871, we didn't have the voting system that we have today. There have been changes along the way.

We used to have multiple-member ridings. Members of this House, I'm sure, remember the days when we had two-member ridings, which changed in 1991. In the 1950s in British Columbia we tried the alternative ballot, which was similar to the STV that's proposed, where the bottom choice was eliminated each round and the votes given to the second choice at each ballot. That system didn't work, so we went back to first-past-the-post.

Some would argue that in the fullness of time, the first-past-the-post system actually does work. In this most recent election, most British Columbians would agree that the results of the election more or less reflected the will of the people, if I could put it that way, compared to the results in the previous election, where there was, of course, a very historic difference in the number of seats on one side compared to the other.

That's how I felt when I was considering how I would approach this proposed bill. The fact that as we have seen over time, we have seen that in the fullness of time, we would see that democracy would more or less happen for British Columbians….

Yes, there would be the anomalies along the way. But ultimately, it would work for British Columbians.

I come back to my opening comments, where yes, there's a significant percentage of the population of British Columbians who feel disengaged, who don't feel enfranchised, who for various reasons are not participating in the democratic process. I believe this bill will go a ways toward addressing the malaise that's out there. Is it a silver bullet that's going to come up with a perfect democratic system? Probably not, but it is a step, I believe, in the right direction.

I'm looking forward to the debate that will ensue over the next several months and years leading up to the referendum in 2008. I hope that all British Columbians, certainly in my riding and all across our province, will participate fully and will take an interest. I applaud the Attorney General for including in this bill the fact that there's a commitment to ensure we will resource both sides of the question — those who are in favour, and those who are opposed — to be able to bring out their points, to engage in that discussion with British Columbians so that in 2008 British Columbians will be fully informed and will make the right decision on whether we will move forward with this radical change.

We talked about the anxiety that some might feel that we're going to move away from a system that over time has worked for British Columbia so well. But I for one will look at the fact that we have had change. We've had incremental change along the way. We've had evolution of our system along the way. We should take courage and comfort from the fact that if the vote goes one way or another and we affirm our current system or move to a new system, ultimately we will continue to make the necessary adjustments to the democratic process here in British Columbia.

Are there challenges along the way? Yes, there will be. There's no doubt that there will be challenges along the way as we engage in this conversation and discussion. But at the end of the day, I believe this is the right thing to do. I appreciate and applaud the Attorney General for taking the step to introduce this bill, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill, which I will support for the reasons I mentioned.

This is a historic opportunity for all of us to engage in this discussion, including all British Columbians, through the work of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. I look forward to engaging in those discussions in the coming months and years.

S. Simpson: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 14. This is a unique iteration of this act, which of course comes forward on a fairly regular and routine basis to look at boundaries. But as many of the previous members have said, this time it's unique, because this time it will look at the question of the single transferable vote, and it will attempt to scope out and frame what that vote might look like if the people of British Columbia make the decision in 2008 to move to that place electorally.

What we know, of course, about the challenges of the work we do and how we structure the boundaries and the places that we are…. Many have talked about it before. The work of this commission, really, is to look at those boundaries and measure how you find balance in terms of numbers while respecting rural considerations, as the member for Nelson-Creston earlier so eloquently put it — and his frustrations.

I know that those are frustrations felt, I think, by many of the rural members on both sides, who feel that they struggle to have the voices of their constituents heard in this place and in the decisions of British Columbia. What we need to do is make sure that we do reflect those rural considerations in the boundaries and in how we make up those seats.

Also, as other members have said, coming from one of those Vancouver ridings, one of those ridings that the member talked about where I can pretty much walk or bike across my riding in an hour or so — not very hard, if I can get through traffic — it's a much different dynamic in terms of the issues and challenges that I face. So boundaries are a big part of this; rural considerations are a big part of this.

Of course, as the previous member said, the whole question of participation…. Are there things we can do with the boundary commission that will, in fact, encourage greater participation from people in all communities and at all levels and the whole variety of our demographic in this province? The more people who engage, who participate, the better it is for all of us. But as I've said, the reality is that we have a very unique situation this particular time. This commission is going to do its work, and the uniqueness of that is around the work that will be done related to STV.

When I think back to the efforts that were made initially by the citizens' assembly…. I think the Premier is to be congratulated for the innovation in putting the citizens' assembly in place.

I appreciate that. It was an innovative thing to do. I think in large part those efforts were constructive and sincere, and the work that those people did was quite remarkable.

I had the opportunity over the period of time that they were working, and certainly leading up to the election, to speak to many members of the citizens' assembly, both those who were there from Vancouver-Hastings and from other parts of the province as well, and to talk about their efforts and the work they did. I paid pretty close attention to watching their effort. As both sides have said many times, the people who made that commitment on behalf of British Columbians to sit on the citizens' assembly, to commit literally hundreds or thousands of hours of time and to be dedicated to trying to find alternatives and solutions…. It was a remarkable effort on their part, and everybody in British Columbia should be grateful for those efforts.

I just want to point out a couple of challenges that I think the citizens' assembly had in the work they did leading up to STV. One of the first challenges was that they felt some limitation. The limitation was their ability to look at an expansion of the number of seats in British Columbia. I know in speaking to them, when they looked at STV or they looked at mixed member systems or proportional representation, in those instances they always came back to the challenge of rural representation. It was always a big challenge for them, and I know that they struggled with that under both those systems when they were looking at the models without having some ability to compensate for that in the makeup of numbers of seats. So I know they had a challenge, and they felt some frustration around that.

As the recommendations of the citizens' assembly came forward leading up to the last election…. I know this is something that the Premier commented on in remarks that he made after the election, and I believe it's part of what has led to the decision to have resources made available for Yes and No committees leading up to the 2008 referendum. I think it was a bit of an oversight not to provide resources for that to have occurred heading into May 17 so that there could have been a more engaged discussion that was properly communicated across the province by those people who believed in the merit or had concerns about the STV.

As I've said and as the government has decided — and I think it's a good decision — those questions will largely be addressed leading up to 2008. The boundaries commission will have at least six seats that it can use to try to deal with some of these adjustments and these questions, and as was noted by the government in the throne speech, there will be resources to allow the Yes and No sides to engage, hopefully, in a full and complete and informed debate for the people of British Columbia.

I know when the STV discussion was being had in the province — and I certainly know in my constituency of Vancouver-Hastings and across B.C., as members have said — there was a very, very strong vote in favour of STV, a vote that was almost great enough to have created the change at this time.

The debate that has followed that really is the debate about what that vote was for. There were certainly many, many people who voted for STV, and they were voting for that specific system. There were a lot of people, though, who were also voting for change. They were looking for a change. This was the change that was afforded to them, so they took the one that was in front of them.

I know that a number of those people also…. There were people who said that they would have liked to have had the opportunity of mixed-member proportional representation — that that's a system they think would have been their first choice rather than STV. There are pros and cons to both of those systems. I think, as the member for Richmond-Steveston said, we'll probably have an opportunity here and certainly across the province to discuss some of that in greater detail over the coming years.

What we do know as well — and I think that a couple of the members from the other side have made this comment, and I think it is a fair comment — is that some people voted, I think, out of a frustration in the last election. That frustration does go back to what occurred in the previous election in 2001. I don't remember the number, but I think about 45 percent of the people in the province felt that they were being asked to be represented in this House by two individuals. There was no question about where the majority was in terms of what they wanted in terms of a makeup of this House and who they wanted to be the governing party, but I think that a lot of people felt the frustration that such a large number of British Columbians didn't have the voices that they wanted in this House.

Clearly, this most recent election has corrected that in terms of the House looking much more like the

wishes of the people of British Columbia and how the votes reflect that. I think that that has probably answered the question for some people. Time will tell around that.

We know that one of the things…. I guess it comes back to the question about what we should be dealing with and what should the Boundaries Commission be dealing with over this period of time. I do have one concern. The concern is the decision that's been made to ask the Boundaries Commission to look at two models: the status quo and the potential of adding a half a dozen seats to that, but looking at what the boundaries should be. The second question is looking at STV and the boundaries for that.

I'm very pleased that that's going to occur if we're going to have a second vote in 2008, because certainly, the question of boundaries was a huge question for people in May. When they were voting in May, I know people who just were unsure because they had no sense of saying: "What will this do for where I live in terms of who represents me? Am I going to have five MLAs in half the city of Vancouver, or are there going to be two MLAs in another part of the province? How big are the boundaries of that going to be?" I think it's a good thing that some of those questions will be answered for people when they make a decision in 2008.

As I mentioned earlier, I know that there were significant numbers of people who were looking at what some people would suggest is a more pure form of proportional representation, which is the mixed-member system that balances more conventional proportional representation with members who sit in constituencies. I would hope — and we'll have more discussion about this in committee stage — that the government would consider an amendment that would look at that question and ask the Electoral Boundaries Commission to look at that matter as well. They don't need to make judgments about that, but as the discussion unfolds, I think it's important that people see what their choices might look like.

We know what the conventional status quo looks like. We're going to know what STV might look like. I think we need to afford people as many choices in British Columbia or as much information as we can. The question of what mixed-member might look like with the same number of seats, I think, would be a good thing to do. I would hope that maybe we can have that discussion in committee stage.

When we have these discussions, of course, as I'd said before, much of it will revolve around boundaries and around representation. Maybe what we need to do is ensure that the questions are put on the table for the yes and no committees to deal with.

I know that people raised questions to me about STV. When we were talking about it in the context of Vancouver and looking at what might be, oh, cutting Vancouver in half and having two seats with five members in each seat under STV, people were saying things to me like: "Well, how many constituency offices will you have, and how many people will work for you in Vancouver?" Those were questions I had no clue about, of course, because they are issues that are far from being discussed, let alone being resolved.

Maybe those discussions have to occur in some fashion. We need to talk about the tradeoffs of proportional representation and of having that accountability that reflects how people get votes versus the question: how does that all get resourced, and what does it look like in terms of practical application?

I am pleased that this is coming forward. I am pleased that the government has made the decision that…. To be fair, I think that the government and the Premier had a number of options as to how they were going to deal with the results of May 17. This approach, in large part…. With the caveat that I would put on about looking at mixed-member, I think it is not an unreasonable way to go to say that we're going to create a more informed public and then we're going to let the public talk about this again in 2008. I'm generally pleased that this is coming forward and occurring the way it is.

I do look forward to discussing the question of mixed-member, maybe in the context of committee stage, but I will be voting for this. I think that what we all want to do is really look very carefully at what choices we need to make, what things we need to do, both to increase the comfort of people in the democratic process that we have and to encourage more people to engage in the democratic process.

Maybe that's another part of the discussion that we need to have here in this place at some time. How do we engage more young people in this process? How do we make this a more appealing process? How do we make people feel that they're being heard — those people who aren't confident that they're being heard today? But that's for another piece of legislation or another discussion at some other time here.

At this point, I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak briefly to this. I do look forward to committee stage. I do look forward to the minister, at some time in the future of this debate, talking a little bit about those questions around mixed-member and about creating additional choices so that we do inform people as much as possible in the important decision they'll have to make in 2008.

G. Coons: I rise to speak in support of Bill 14. I am pleased that it provides an opportunity for the appointment of a commission and very pleased with the Attorney General's comment on ensuring that northern representation is not undermined.

I'd like to go a step further and not only ensure that it's not undermined but that it's strengthened. I hope that the feeling we're getting today during this debate is that rural communities and northern communities feel that there is an underrepresentation throughout the province. I look forward to the six extra electoral districts perhaps being spread out through the rural and northern districts.

This bill echoes concerns, as I mentioned, for rural and northern communities. There is a definite need for

rural representatives from rural communities. A major concern that arose during the citizens' assembly, through the debate and through the discussions, was: what was going to happen to rural communities? Basically, we saw perhaps having larger ridings, perhaps having two or three MLAs looking after a huge district. There was a definite need for the protection and preservation of northern communities with representation.

Our present system, as has been mentioned, seemingly does not present an equal or a fair representation to the people of rural or sparsely populated constituencies. Rural B.C. contributes up to, if not over, 70 percent of the wealth to the province, and that wealth is contributed to the urban areas with goodwill that rural and sparsely populated communities will reap a benefit. That's a key, I think, to this bill.

If I look at the trials and tribulations of being a rookie MLA in what I think is one of the most challenging ridings in the province…. I'm not going to say it is the most challenging, but geographically it's so diverse. It's so spread out that the challenge I'm having is meeting the constituents and getting to their communities at this point in time. As some of the hon. members have talked about, in an hour or two somebody could walk around their riding or get around their riding. As my hon. colleague from Skeena mentioned, I travel through his riding for two and a half hours to get to one part of my constituency. But there's another part of my constituency in Stewart. To get to Stewart, which is a six-hour drive, I've got to drive up to five hours in other hon. members' ridings to get to Stewart and then five hours back on that six-hour trip. Stewart is a wonderful, wonderful place, and I advise everybody to visit. But there's a real challenge of getting there.

I look at the challenge of getting out to Haida Gwaii with the communities out there or the four first nations villages just outside of Prince Rupert, where a floatplane is necessary to get to them — and down to Bella Bella or Bella Coola, where at this point in time my mode of transportation is to go to Vancouver first and then up to Bella Coola. It's very challenging, as I hope a lot of members in the House realize.

We look at comparing it to other constituencies, and we've had that comparison. I hope this bill takes that into account and looks at the rural representation, as it must, throughout the province.

When we look at the challenge for rural candidates as far as boards and councils…. We've heard some members talk about that. As far as my constituency, there are four school districts spread throughout the riding. There are three regional districts, two health boards, 13 first nations villages, six municipal councils and numerous labour councils and union locals. Along with that, the attempt to be well-informed in all of the areas that we've talked about — whether it's forestry, mining, agriculture, aquaculture, fishing, tourism as well as all the environmental concerns that accompany these resources and these resource industries….

I'm very optimistic with this boundaries realignment and the opportunity for the number of electoral districts to increase from 79 to 85. I'm optimistic because I hope most of those electoral districts are spread out among the rural communities. I look forward to a fair rural northern representation as boundaries are changed and give rural communities a significant representation throughout the province.

I hope the commission looks at the concern we have as far as the rural and northern districts and perhaps a reduction in the size of the rural constituencies. I hope we look at the distance from the capital as one of the factors that is one of the determining instances or the geographical spread of rural constituencies along with the number of communities in each.

Once again, I would like to thank the Attorney General for bringing this forth so that we can have this discussion. I see this bill not only recognizing the growth in urban areas, but it also recognizes the strength of rural and northern constituencies. I hope to see that strength increase with the passing of this bill. In closing, in support of Bill 14, I look forward to discussing this in committee stage.

M. Farnworth: I want to rise to offer a few comments and thoughts on this bill from a different perspective than some of my colleagues who have spoken on it. They've spoken on it from the perspective of the need to protect rural ridings, and I think that's extremely important. I also come at it from the other perspective, which is urban representation. In this province we have a colourful history around the issue of electoral boundaries, dating back decades. Some of the most notable incidents involve rejigging of boundaries, double-member ridings, possible three-member ridings. All those things have taken place in British Columbia. In '86 a bill was brought in that gave us single-member boundaries and true independent commissioners in terms of determining those boundaries.

Just to highlight the importance in terms of representation. Rural members have commented about the need to service rural communities, which are often vast distances and, in many cases, sometimes suffer from declines of population, and when new seats are added, the pressure is on to take from those areas. In my own constituency of Port Coquitlam, when I was first elected in '91, there were 52,000 people in that riding. In 1996 there were 84,000 people. In the space of four and a half years there was more than a 60-percent increase in population growth from the construction of new homes.

The ethnic makeup of the riding went from being 2 percent Asian to 16 percent Asian. That's a remarkable increase and puts a great deal of pressure not just on the resources, but on your ability to service your constituents. Had regular boundary changes not taken place, the riding would have continued to grow at that exponential rate, and it would be larger than most federal ridings at a time when many rural ridings stayed

static. The way to get around this or the way we have to deal with this is to add additional seats. It's a balancing act to deal with growth, to accommodate growth that takes place within the fast-growing areas of British Columbia — such as the lower mainland, the interior around the Okanagan — and to protect the needs of rural constituents and the representation that rural constituents should expect — and to be able to access their MLA. I think this bill does that, which is why I'm very pleased to support it.

The other aspect of the bill is around the STV. Issues around that have been raised by my colleague from Vancouver-Hastings, and I expect that a lot of those issues will be canvassed at committee stage. I also think that this is a good approach in order to put to British Columbians an issue that was debated at some length during the recent provincial election. At that time, one of the concerns for many people was what the boundaries would look like. You had discussions around ridings varying from two members in rural areas to as many as seven members in urban areas, and that caused a lot of concern for people because many people wanted to make sure they fully understood the issue before they voted on it, in casting an informed vote.

It's crucial that we recognize that, because whatever we may think, our system of how we elect representatives is a fundamental one that has served this province well since confederation and will no doubt serve us well into the future. It's a fundamental basis of our province's democracy and is not one that should be tinkered with lightly or changed lightly, and the public should be as informed as possible when they make that decision. I think this bill addresses that key concern that many people had: what exactly would this look like? How would it work in terms of boundaries? How would it work in terms of my accessing my local MLA and in terms of local representation?

I think the issue of having the two sets of boundaries that are ready to go is a good one. We've made some comments around other systems. That'll be explored further in committee stage, and I look forward to that. On the whole, I think that what this bill does is achieve that balance of representation between rural British Columbia and urban British Columbia — and, from my own perspective, in terms of how we handle growth on the lower mainland, which is crucial, because that is not going to change. That is going to continue, and it's something we have to make sure we address, because in the same way that we don't want rural seats to disappear in redistribution, we also don't want to see the opposite, where you have urban seats which become so large that they become very difficult to service.

With that, I will close my remarks and say that I look forward to committee stage on this bill, and that at the end of it we will be supporting the bill.

H. Lali: I rise, also, to support the bill in terms of the redistribution of constituencies that is to be taking place as a result of this bill becoming an act. I would also, actually, like to put a few things on the table on behalf of my constituents in particular but, on a general level, rural British Columbia and the representation thereof.

Hon. Speaker, as you know…. You're quite well aware that, depending on who's done the study, between two-thirds and three-quarters of the wealth of this province is generated in rural British Columbia in the areas considered the north half of the Island and north and east of Hope. A lot of the folks who are living there…. I guess that at one time the population imbalance wasn't as great as it is becoming now with all of the urbanization that is taking place. It's a phenomenon that is not just happening here in British Columbia but across Canada, North America and the rest of the world as well.

What you're finding is that rural parts of British Columbia, obviously, feel that they're losing representation, and how they feel that is in relation to the total number of people who represent British Columbia in this House. Rural British Columbians feel that their portion is actually shrinking, even though there are protections that have been put in place in the past so that constituencies can have a deviation in population of plus or minus 25 percent. In special circumstances it's 40 percent, but by and large, you will find that whether it was under the Social Credit when redistribution took place or the New Democrats in the 1990s or this distribution that's going to take place, the ratio of rural versus urban is continuing to decline.

People in rural British Columbia are obviously concerned about that, so I wanted to put a few things on the table for this House to consider and, also, as it goes forward to committee stage. It is to make sure that when you're looking at smaller communities in rural British Columbia…. I see the member for Nelson-Creston is here. He must have about 20, 25 communities, big and small, spread throughout his constituency. I have 56. There are 27 aboriginal first nation bands and seven municipalities in my constituency.

A lot of these municipalities feel that when they're competing within a constituency with communities their own size, then there is good enough representation and balance and fairness that takes place. But if small communities, for example, like Keremeos, Lillooet, Logan Lake, Hope or Merritt — all of these small communities, and like I said, there are 56 of them in my constituency — are lumped into a bigger centre like Kelowna, Kamloops, Penticton or Chilliwack on the west, then obviously they feel their interests are going to be dominated by those small urban centres in rural British Columbia.

Folks in my constituency are telling me that they would like to have, basically, an MLA who is from rural British Columbia as opposed to somebody, perhaps, from Chilliwack or Kelowna or Kamloops. They don't want to be lumped in with those larger communities.

It's tough enough, as you know, hon. Speaker. I know we've had private conversations. It doesn't mat-

ter what party is in office in the Legislature — whether it's Social Credit, NDP or Liberal — the fact of the matter remains that that discussion still takes place between rural and urban. It's tough for rural MLAs to try to get their say in and also to make sure that the views and issues of rural British Columbians are put on the table for consideration so that when that economic pie is being divvied out, it is done in a fair manner.

That's why it's really, really important to protect representation from rural British Columbia. As more and more people gravitate towards urban centres, as more immigration that comes into British Columbia goes to these urban centres, it starts, in essence, to water down the representation for rural British Columbians.

I see that there is a plus or minus of 25 percent. Perhaps that's one area that the committee, when it goes around the province to get input from British Columbians, takes into consideration. Perhaps that number should be increased so that rural British Columbia does not feel that its representation is being eroded with each successive redistribution that takes place every four years.

Also, constituencies have to reflect, especially in rural British Columbia, the kind of — for lack of a better word — commonalities they have with neighbouring communities. For instance, federal ridings, when they're redistributed, are often done with no rhyme or reason.

You have the former riding of Okanagan-Coquihalla — before that, in the federal sense it used to be called Okanagan-Similkameen at one time — which was fairly tight. Merritt was probably the extent of it, with Penticton being the largest centre, all the way down to Osoyoos. Grand Forks is the other community. It was fairly well-consolidated, and there was commonality within that federal riding — even though Merrittonians felt at one time that when they were part of Kamloops, they were well-served because Kamloops was just a hop, skip and a jump away — whereas then, in the Okanagan-Similkameen, they were lumped into Penticton, which was on the other side of the mountains. Then the next federal redistribution, when it took place, lumped into it all the way to Hope and the Fraser Canyon and up to Chilliwack as well.

There was no rhyme or reason when it was done on the federal scale, so provincially my constituents are afraid that these rural communities, these rural constituencies…. Whether it's Yale-Lillooet, Cariboo South, Cariboo North or some of the others like Kamloops–North Thompson, some of the others up in the Peace River, the rural constituents are concerned that the redistribution is not done in a haphazard way. We have those concerns. I wanted to put those on the table to make sure that the representation for rural British Columbia does not get eroded and that the redistribution is done in a way in which it's not haphazard and lines are not just drawn across rivers and mountains for the convenience of the folks that are doing it.

Having said that, I will take my seat, and we'll wait for the committee stage to be here so that we can have some more deliberation.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the Attorney General closes debate.

Hon. W. Oppal: I'm most buoyed and encouraged by the enthusiasm and the passion that's been exhibited in this House. At the outset, I want to say with considerable regret that there are no immediate plans to move the capital to Nelson. I just want to…. At some future commission, that issue may come up.

The other thing I want to say is that this is the first bill I've introduced in a House. I expect that any future bills I may introduce here will be received with the same degree of unanimity and the same degree of enthusiasm from the opposition.

Seriously, this is an important bill, for it really is a discussion of the very basis of the system in which we all work. It re-examines the system by which we are elected and how best we are to represent our constituents. It really is the essence of our democracy, the democratic system, and it questions and it discusses the issues as to how we can best perform our duties in a democratic system.

I do want to emphasize that the question of rural ridings in general and northern ridings in particular are matters of considerable concern to the government, and I would expect that the commission will give us advice on those two relevant issues. I also want to point out that we must remember that this was a bill advanced by a government in power, led by a progressive and creative Premier, who provided the necessary leadership to determine whether or not we can improve our democracy. Historically, governments in power are not wont to make changes. Why make changes, because the system has to be pretty good if it got us here?

In any event, I just want to point out that credit must be given to the Premier and to the government for what they've done here. Again, I'm thankful and grateful to the members who engaged in debate and provided much-needed advice to the commission.

Hon. W. Oppal: 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 14, Electoral Boundaries Commission 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.

Bill 16 amends various statutes, including correcting inadvertent errors and making a number of minor housekeeping amendments.

First, an amendment to the Business Number Act will allow the province to verify the identity of a business prior to issuing the business an electronic identifier. This will allow a business to use one electronic identifier to access services provided by a public body.

Second, the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act is amended to give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to make regulations to require industry, business, trade, profession or occupation to have a licence. This change will streamline the process by which the licensing requirement can be extended to new industries. There currently are proposals for several industries to be included in the act, such as manufactured home dealers and cosmetologists, and the amendment will enable these to be included in the regulation. The Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council will be limited in the new industries, trades, professions, businesses or occupations that can be required to have a licence, as the new power will not extend to those that are already regulated in this way.

The bill also amends the Credit Union Incorporation Act to allow Credit Union Central of British Columbia to adopt a double-majority voting rule for special resolutions. This will ensure that both large credit unions and the more numerous, smaller credit unions have a voice in important decisions made by the credit union system.

As well, the bill addresses amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, clarifying the information that can be disclosed, stored or accessed from outside Canada, as is historically and currently the practice for the purposes of making payments to and from government. These amendments allow the government to continue providing these customer service options while maintaining strong privacy protection for the information that citizens share with government.

Other changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act reflect the increasingly complex electronic and international finance and debt collection environment, while maintaining a strong privacy protection component.

Bill 16 also makes amendments to both the Land Act and the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing Act. Under these acts, the Minister of Agriculture and Lands would have the authority to dispose of Crown land. Bill 16 authorizes the minister to delegate these powers to other ministers as required.

The amendments to the Land Title Act strengthen British Columbia's land title system by providing the legal basis for fairly compensating innocent victims of fraud or forgery and by extending compensation in the very rare situations where a system or administrative error of the registrar may have occurred that resulted in a loss to an innocent person. This brings British Columbia's land title system in line with systems in other provinces.

Amendments to the Oil and Gas Commission Act establish a new fund similar to one that presently exists in Alberta, which will be collected from industry through tax on production and used for reclamation of orphaned oil and gas sites.

The bill also amends the Partnership Act and the Legal Profession Actto correct minor technical oversights to ensure that the limited liability of the partnership regime in British Columbia continues to work in an effective and efficient manner.

The bill also amends the definition of "institution" in the Private Career Training Institutions Act to confirm the original policy intent of that legislation, which is that the registered institutions providing non-career training programs are required to make ongoing contributions to the student training completion fund. This ensures that students enrolled in these institutions have recourse to the fund, should the institution close prematurely. The amendment will be retroactive to November 22, 2004, the date that that act came into effect.

Bill 16 also makes amendments to each of the schedules of the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act to add lands to an ecological reserve and park, to transfer two parks to local government for park purposes and modify or update boundary descriptions for a number of parks. At the end of the day, the bill proposes to add a net total of 143 hectares to B.C.'s parks and protected areas.

Finally, the amendments to the Public Service Act will separate the role of the Merit Commissioner from the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency. These changes will retain the Legislature's role in appointing a Merit Commissioner and align the appointment process for the head of the B.C. Public Service Agency with that of other senior public service employees.

L. Krog: One hesitates to use the term in the House when you're addressing the Attorney General, a former member of the judiciary, but I confess that a bill of this terribly technical nature will require the opposition to canvass it very thoroughly during committee stage. But there are some concerns that do leap to mind immediately.

The changes to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act would seem to vest power through order-in-council as opposed to requiring legislative change. That is a damaging trend — I would suggest, in legislation generally — that we are passing off more and more to cabinet, to orders-in-council, as opposed to having a full and proper debate in the Legislature.

Now, that may be terribly convenient from a public and administrative perspective from time to time, but in fact, it may not be in the broader public interest to

not have a full and open debate. Surely the experience of this government in the last four years prior to the last election, when despite the herculean efforts of the two members of the opposition, aided by a third towards the end of that government's term…. This Legislature was simply not, I think, in the public's view, able to provide the canvas of legislative change that would be appropriate in the circumstances.

Moreover, it would seem to me that the proposals with respect to the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act also codify a movement towards self-regulation with respect to businesses and trades. Coming from a profession that is self-governing and appreciating the enormous burden that that is, and also the incredible opportunity, I'm not entirely convinced that this may be a wise thing to do in the ordinary course of businesses operating in the province.

With respect to the changes to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, it appears that this may in fact open up for scrutiny information that might not otherwise be readily available under the existing provisions. I can't say, on the face of it, that that is something the public or the opposition may wish to support, subject to the explanations which will no doubt be provided by the able staff to the Attorney General during debate.

With respect to the change to the Land Act, this may appear, on the face of it, to be merely an administrative matter. But to provide that other ministers will be able to make the decisions once delegated by the minister himself may not in fact be, again, in the public interest. There is a purpose to having a Minister of Agriculture in this province. The member for Nelson-Creston often waxes very eloquently on behalf of the farmers of British Columbia, as does my friend the member for Surrey-Whalley. We must not forget the importance of agriculture in British Columbia. It seems to me that if those functions are to be delegated, one has to ask: for what good public purpose are they going to be delegated?

The Attorney General suggests in his opening remarks that the specific provisions around the Land Title Act are of some benefit to the public, but it appears to me that they may in fact achieve the opposite effect in terms of public protection, based on the current language.

Apart from that, hon. Speaker, no further comments on this bill. I look forward to committee stage and an opportunity to debate the proposals very carefully, because they do represent a rather broad range of changes to statutes.

Hon. W. Oppal: 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 16, Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 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.

This bill does establish the World Trade University with its world head office in Chilliwack, British Columbia. When the university concept was first launched, on the occasion of the third UN conference on less-developed countries, it was launched based on the fact that there's a tremendous need for capacity-building within the field of trade and trade-related areas around the world. There are ten proposed campuses around the world for the World Trade University, and as I said, Chilliwack, British Columbia, is going to be the world headquarters.

This did go to committee earlier for some discussion, and at the committee stage, questions were asked and answered such as: where in Canada, when the university first looked, did they look? The answer was that they actually looked in a number of provinces and had offers from a number of provinces but selected British Columbia because it is the gateway to Asia and to trade with the eastern world. The Asia-Pacific trade route…. The door is open in British Columbia to trade with Asia.

Chilliwack was selected. I'd like to congratulate the member for Chilliwack-Sumas for his role, which was very extensive in promoting not only his community but his entire riding. The mayor of Chilliwack, Clint Hames, was a very important part of attracting the world headquarters to Chilliwack. Both of them need to be congratulated for ensuring that this great innovation did establish in British Columbia.

There are, as I said, ten campuses proposed. They're now establishing a campus in China. There will be campuses in Africa, India, Malta, South America and a number of other places around the world.

During our discussions with the proponents, they did talk about building the capacity for less developed countries to engage in trading opportunities. I'll just quote here what Mr. Chowdhury, the president of the university, said:

The object is to promote democratic development and enhance the civil society development through trade. The primary goal of the university will be a vehicle for that development.

I want to commend this bill to all members of this House. The development of this university will not only enhance our stature with our trading partners but will enhance trade throughout the world. I know that the building of a civil society in less developed countries is an important part of this initiative. I know that the member for Surrey–White Rock, for example, will speak on this in a moment, and I don't want to take away his time or his wish to speak to that.

With that, I just want to say that this university is a great innovation and needs to be supported by all members of the House. I'm urging them all to support it.

G. Robertson: Speaking for the official opposition tonight, I want to start by saying that we support the United Nations and its mandate for the World Trade University. We will support this bill. However, we do have a number of concerns with the specifics of it that I want to address here briefly.

The primary concern is that there appears to be a bit of a mandate clash in the bill itself. The United Nations established the World Trade University to help alleviate the global inequalities that are inherent in globalization, stemming from a WTO meeting in 1999. It is supposed to train people from underdeveloped countries in contemporary business practices and enhance global communications.

The WTU Canada project, as expressed in this bill, does not advance this mandate specifically. I just want to quote from Kofi Annan in the WTU's mandate from the United Nations website on the World Trade University: "The WTU will provide valuable support for developing and emerging economies in researching and formulating new ways to expand their trade opportunities and become more integrated into the global economy."

Following up on that, from their website, the WTU's mandate is to "…create a bridge between the increasingly disparate groups which had a major stake in globalization and the way it was being managed." The WTU is "a bridge-building mechanism that could help foster a broader understanding of the multilateral trade system among emerging and senior professionals throughout the world."

The mechanism named the World Trade University would become an applied learning agency focused on providing, firstly, affordable and, secondly, accessible global trade capacity-building for entrepreneurs and policy-makers from least developed countries, developing countries, countries in transition and emerging economies. The World Trade University will deliver two types of programs: MBAs and executive development programs.

The concern that we have is that the WTU, as it's proposed here in this bill, will facilitate the strengthening of B.C. and other Western interests' contacts in the developing world, which will ultimately exacerbate the problem of global inequality. The stated purpose of the university in Bill Pr401 says nowhere anything about the least developed countries, the countries in transition and emerging economies. They are not mentioned in this bill.

The committee discussion that preceded the bill coming before the House here revealed the vision for an "elite" campus. The World Trade University representative Sujit Chowdhury described it as follows: "It will be an elite campus of a thousand students." So we have a concern that there is elitism at work here, which has exacerbated the problem of globalization and that, in fact, perhaps the mandate here is topsy-turvy, is being turned around.

The university's funding will be raised through tuition and other fundraising, which makes the prospect of affordability dubious as well. This university is expected to be non-profit and run on its own steam. Its ability to do that on an affordable tuition basis is questionable. These are very real concerns that are related to the World Trade University's purpose, and the way that this bill has been put forward does not address these concerns directly nor does it sync up exactly with the United Nations' purpose in creating the World Trade University.

We have a number of questions that we will pursue in committee stage of this bill — questions around the petitioners and how they are attached to the United Nations. We have questions around land claims issues on the parcel of land that was CFB in Chilliwack that now will be the campus for the World Trade University. We have questions about this being a private university and why this government could not find a way to directly support the work of the United Nations and work with the United Nations on building these bridges with the developing world using the University Act to do that if this is, indeed, part of the mandate of this government.

We also have a few concerns related to the government in the throne speech mentioning technical support that will be provided for the WTU and what specifically that means in terms of costs to the taxpayers of B.C. As well for the taxpayers, we have concerns regarding the P3 nature of this project. If there are public dollars ascribed at some point to the World Trade University, the transparency that is lacking in the public-private partnership models is a big question for us.

I'll end my comments there. Those concerns we put forward, and we will pursue detailed answers to these concerns in committee stage. But for the moment, we will support the United Nations, its mandate for the World Trade University and passage of this bill through to committee stage.

R. Lee: I would like to add my support to this bill and the World Trade University. The WTU represents a great opportunity for our province, and it would be unwise to turn our back on this. The establishment of the World Trade University fits quite well with our Asia-Pacific gateway strategy.

Once opened, the World Trade University, in addition to offering academic courses, will also host inter-

national trade conferences and events, including potential World Trade Forum events. The new WTU will draw both students and academics to Chilliwack and the Fraser Valley. The financial benefits will be sizable, pumping millions into our economy and providing jobs for hundreds, not only during its construction, but also upon its completion, with its doors open to students from around the world.

There are other worthy reasons to support this bill. As mentioned, the World Trade University is a global partnership, launched in May 2001 at the eighth World Summit of Young Entrepreneurs, as part of the third United Nations Conference on the Least Developed Countries. The World Trade University was a key outcome of that conference and was launched with the stated purpose of defining, shaping and influencing the most timely issues of trade. Along with this, it will bring a number of benefits to this province, including the ability to showcase British Columbia's advantages and opportunities in international trade. The WTU plans to help future trade leaders learn to better manage the challenges of multilateral trade systems so that prosperity is shared globally.

The WTU will be a bargain to the taxpayer. As a private university, WTU will not receive funding from the government. That being said, our government and our colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission believe so much in this project, the bill will entitle the university to a tax exemption for lands owned by the university and used for university purposes.

Prior to offering degrees, WTU will be required to go through the degree quality assessment process and receive consent from the Minister of Advanced Education under the Degree Authorization Act. By going through the degree quality assessment process, we will make certain that students will be provided with confidence in the quality of the degree programs.

The WTU will firmly establish British Columbia's role as Canada's gateway to Asia-Pacific and as a true global leader in trade relations. I hope all members of this Legislature support this bill put forth by our colleague from Maple Ridge–Mission. The World University will help increase our ties to the world, especially Asia.

G. Hogg: It was interesting to hear the conversation coming to date and, certainly, as the Attorney General was talking about Bill 14 earlier and looking at how we might manage in a democratic society and looking at how we can more effectively deal with issues in a democratic society and then seeing this bill come shortly thereafter. I'm interested in the works of Paulo Freire, who talked about evolving democracies and how you work at those democracies and how, in fact, you build those democracies through a foundation of trade and how there has to be a level of education before a democracy can function and how the level of education comes as a result of having trade to the point where you can develop the businesses necessary to support those taking place.

I had the privilege of meeting with the president and some of the other members of the World Trade University. They see trade as being a vehicle by which we can look at and understand the development of a civil society in the evolving countries of this world. I think civil societies, as they talked about, are characterized by civil engagements, civic engagement, by political equality; by solidarity, trust and tolerance; and by strong associational lives. Democracies work better when there exists an independent and longstanding tradition of civil engagement.

The World Trade University is giving us that opportunity. I think we should be honoured as Canadians that they're choosing to come to Canada and as British Columbians that they're choosing to come to British Columbia and to give us an opportunity to build on the things we want to build on and the traditions we have.

Noting the time, Mr. Speaker — and I assume that's why you're pointing at me and to the clock — I will take the opportunity to continue debate tomorrow and move that we do now adjourn debate.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
ADVANCED EDUCATION
AND MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
(continued)

G. Robertson: Welcome back, everyone. I want to start with some questions related to the federal budget. As all of you present will probably be aware, the federal NDP and federal Liberal government added an amendment in their budget of $1.5 billion that was targeted for increasing access and affordability for students in Canada — money that will be transferred to the provinces to be used for that purpose.

Can the minister give us some clarity as to when that transfer from the federal government is due?

Hon. M. Coell: The federal government has told us that it is one-time funding, and it's contingent on their surplus. There's a good chance we won't know until the spring what dollar figure that money will have. We will also wait to see how they would like to see it distributed. They may have it so that there is no choice for the provincial government — that it's: "Here's the money. Here's what you should spend it on." And we would be happy to do that.

G. Robertson: So at this point, just for clarity's sake, the federal government has not communicated when the funds are on their way and what the specific objectives or label for the money is.

G. Robertson: Well, it's safe to assume, if indeed this money has been provided for in the federal budget, that there will be funding coming. Is the ministry doing anything in terms of planning or preparation, in terms of blue-skying where this funding will go to improve access and affordability for B.C. students?

Hon. M. Coell: In that it's not in the federal budget but in their proposed surplus, we will need to wait and see what their surplus is before we know the level of funding that could come to the provinces.

G. Robertson: I would like to move on. According to the ministry's figures on full-time-equivalent funding, the operational grants to institutions are not keeping pace with inflation or government-mandated enrolment increases. The universities, colleges and institutes have therefore been making up for that shortfall with the tuition increases that they've done. Does the ministry have plans to increase the operating grants for core funding to the institutions to keep pace with inflation?

Hon. M. Coell: I just wanted to back up, if I could, because I didn't answer the member's question fully. I guess there are a number of things we've thought about. We haven't anything in concrete terms at this point, but increases to loan reduction, increased lending limits, possibly some deferred maintenance in the post-secondary institutions — those are the sorts of things that we could use one-time funding for.

As far as funding for the institutions while holding the cap down, we did discuss a bit of that on Tuesday night, but I can go back. If we hold the tuition to 2 percent or the rate of inflation, if it's 1 percent or 1½ percent, there needs to be some backfill of dollars into the institutions. We have put $15 million out of contingency this year, and it's expected that we would fill that in next year's budget in dealing with the institutions as to what that number would be.

We also have an ongoing study with the colleges. We've now completed a study looking at the needs of the universities and BCIT, and then we would move to the colleges to find out what that hole is in their budgets so we can actually backfill for them.

G. Robertson: My understanding is that the minister is referring to the additional $15 million that was allocated into the budget for this grey area here in terms of funding, and at the same time, the ministry's announcements around that $15 million were that that $15 million was targeted for access and seat expansion.

Stepping back to the ministry service plans and the operating grants planned out for the next few years. They are not increasing by the rate of inflation, so I'm curious as to whether…. If these institutions require core funding to keep up with the rate of inflation — they are not provided for in the operating grants; the $15 million is actually targeted for access and seat expansion — where will that core funding to keep up with inflation come from?

Hon. M. Coell: For clarification, the $15 million is just the first step. There needs to be an agreement with the institutions on what that gap is and by how much money we will need to increase the budget next year. There is more than $120 million in the base operating grants over the next three years, on top of the $15 million as the first step. There's also $43 million in the institutional operating grants in next year's budgeted increase — 2005-2006. So the $192 million over the three years is broken up into a number of different areas that will fund those seats plus fund the distance between the 2-percent cap and the cost to institutions.

G. Robertson: Maybe we can spend a little time just getting a little more specific about the $15 million that was announced and added to the budget for 2005-2006. Specifically for access and seat expansion — as far as the announcements were concerned: how much money was spent on these priorities in 2004 and 2005?

Hon. M. Coell: Just for clarification, the $15 million that was announced is a first step at plugging the gap or breach between the 2-percent inflation and what it costs, so that's not for access or seat expansion. The strategic investment plan is on top of that, which is the $192 million over the next three years.

G. Robertson: So the $15 million is not targeted for access and seat expansion. It's purely for making up

Hon. M. Coell: Yes. That's the first step, and we realize that there will be more funds needed to do that.

G. Robertson: And why was it decided to spend an extra $15 million? Can you give us a little more detail on why $15 million and whether that was calculated precisely based on the gap that the rate of inflation is based on?

Hon. M. Coell: When government decided they would cap tuition fees at 2 percent, we realized in talking to the post-secondary education partners that there would be a cost to them in doing that, as there was a cost in having it capped at zero as well. So we acknowledged that by putting $15 million in contingency. We then sat down with them to do a study as to what the gap was. We're still talking with them as to how that can be dealt with in the future, but it was just a preliminary estimate at that point.

G. Robertson: So turning to the $192 million in additional funding and the strategic investment plan for access and seat expansion, how much of that is for funding additional seats?

Hon. M. Coell: As the member said, the increase to our budget over three years is $196 million. Some $120 million will be added to the base operating grants over the next three years, and what's left there is for amortization of debt service, student financial assistance…. That will probably be the bulk of it.

G. Robertson: Can the minister give us some detail on how much was invested in these strategic investment plan targets in '04-'05?

Hon. M. Coell: That would have been the first year of the program. The total budget was $1,311,769,000, approximately, and of that, $13.7 million would have been the start of the project. This year it goes to $43 million, next year to $37 million and in 2007-2008, to $39 million.

G. Robertson: With this $192 million, will the minister give us a breakdown of the funding allocation by the regions?

Hon. M. Coell: That's not information we have readily here, but it's something that staff could work on and do by region and by institution as well.

Can there be more specifics from the minister around what types of programs the strategic investment plan is aimed at, and the additional funding here if there's an overview of the programs that are being targeted?

Hon. M. Coell: The strategic investment plan is really the creation of 25,000 new student spaces by 2009-2010 and 28,000 by 2010-2011. This level of investment is critical to meet the high demand we've got for post-secondary education, and it really comes as a result of demographic demands and labour market requirements.

Over the next three years, as we spoke about earlier, we'll see an investment of about $120 million to support the addition of almost 13,000 new seats, and the remaining 11,700 seats will roll out from 2008 through 2011. In this year, 2005-2006, we have 4,200 new student spaces added or funded, and then 40 percent of those spaces are what were called the new-era commitments, which were nursing, allied science, computer science, medicine, social work and on-line learning. To support these seats this year, there was an increase in funding of $43.5 million to the institutional operating grants.

G. Robertson: In terms of these seats and the programs, can the minister please give us some detail on how the funding allocations were determined, what the process was for determining?

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and not simplify it but make it strategic. We wanted to increase opportunities throughout the province. There were some parts of the province that were relatively underserved, and they're forecast to experience sustained 18-to-29-year-old population growths. We wanted to make sure that there were spaces in those areas. The other one was targeting investment to the areas where I touched on, which was the government's commitment to doubling the number of medical seats and nursing seats, the applied nursing and applied science and then computer science, social work, on-line learning. Those were areas that were identified early on for areas that needed increases.

We also wanted to make connections — on-line learning, literacy, increasing the post-secondary participation of aboriginal British Columbians and also new Canadians. We also wanted to support the transfer and the credit recognition that had been built up over a number of years. That sort of gives you a background as to where those decisions were made as to what we would put forward in the allowance for the seats in different regions of the province.

G. Robertson: I'm curious more specifically what the process was for determining what programs, what seats and regions. Were there advisory boards? I understand there were consortia involved in some of these decisions, recommendations. Can you elaborate on that, please.

Hon. M. Coell: That's actually, I think, a very pertinent question. There are two ways. The government

had identified some of the provincial priorities, being the examples of nursing and medical schools and pharmacists and those ones. We also rely heavily on our partners, the individual institutions, to look at the local labour market needs and to make recommendations and to actually develop programs and fill those seats. We looked at the high level of potential growth and regional structures, and then the individual institutions actually built into the plan what they would do with the seats that they were given.

G. Robertson: So the institutions were involved in this process. Were faculty involved? Were students involved as well?

Hon. M. Coell: The province allocates their funds to the individual institutions. Now, my understanding is that there are students and faculty on their boards, and they have advisory committees that are dealt with. So in planning their seats and how those seats would be developed, I think there was broad consultation within the academic community on campuses. Also, as I said, with students being on the board, those discussions would take place at the board level as well.

G. Robertson: Quickly, the concept of using consortia. I think they were primarily to allow industry to channel input into this process of adding seats and capacity in our post-secondary education system. Can you explain these consortia and where they played a role in this process?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of comments. The aerospace industry, the oil and gas industry and the tourism industry are part of those consortiums, where they sit down at the staff level and give input to the institutions as well as to my staff. They also have some advisory councils that individual faculties have in some of the institutions.

The other one, when you mention consortia…. The universities and the university colleges and the colleges all have a way of kind of pooling their input through presidents' councils. They meet with them on a regular basis to get sort of a global perspective of what the institutions are looking at. You've got a number of ways that the industry consortiums can have that input right at the faculty level, at the staff level with the ministry and institutions and then the institutions through their consortium as well.

G. Robertson: Is there a mechanism for business — be it small business or medium or large business or labour — to have input, whether it's via consortia, whether it's through the institutions? Or is it directly into the ministry to have influence, to have some guidance presented to the powers that be around where new seats are allocated and for which programs?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of avenues that I think work quite well. Each institution has advisory committees that have a broad range of students to faculty people on them to get that input, and I think each individual one does that separately. I will have a minister's council that I'll be asking faculty associations and students to sit on, as well, which will meet a number of times a year. I think probably the beauty of it is that we have such a diverse province that each individual institution can bring the local businesses in that are important in their area to have those discussions with their faculty to see what's needed in the labour market and how they can best position themselves to supply the labour market in their distinct area or region of the province.

G. Robertson: I want to turn to some questions related more specifically to affordability. In regard to the $192 million in the strategic investment plan, how is this money keeping tuition affordable?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess it's a number of things. We made a decision a number of years ago that we would allow tuition fees to float to the national average, which is where they are now, and then we had a desire to cap them at the rate of inflation for the foreseeable future. It will be the mandate of this government, for one.

One of the differences or changes we've made was to say that the grant system was removed and a debt reduction system was put in place. We have about $450 million worth of potential money to be lent to students, but as they finish their degrees and move into their careers, we would deduct or roll back some of those funds that were borrowed. I can give you an example. An average student with a $22,000 loan at the end of four years would have approximately $2,215 deducted for each of those years, starting this year.

We also, through suggestions from quite a significant number of British Columbians…. There are areas of the province where we can't get doctors, nurses or nurse technicians to move to. What we've done is to say: "We will deduct your entire student loan if you move to and work in those areas of the province for three years." So a number of innovative changes. I think they'll work. I think there is a number of occupations where we're going to see the need — I believe it's doctors, nurses and pharmacists; I can get a list for the member, if he wishes, of the number — to have their student loans deducted completely for working in areas of the province that we need them in.

G. Robertson: It would be very helpful to see that detail. Thank you for that. A question: specifically, how much of the $192 million, for starters, and then the $15 million in extra money went to student financial aid? We'll just start with that.

Hon. M. Coell: The member and I may want to spend a little bit of time on this, because there are some quite interesting numbers there. During the three-year plan of the $196 million lift to the budget, there would

be an additional lift of approximately $29 million for increases for student financial assistance.

G. Robertson: Is any of the additional $15 million targeted to student financial assistance?

Hon. M. Coell: The student financial assistance budgeted in 2005-2006 is $135.492 million. In 2006-2007 it's $157.535 million and in 2007-2008 is $163.536 million, so it's going up steadily during that time.

G. Robertson: I'm a little confused. Again, coming back to the intention of the $15 million, I'm reading a letter from the minister that was in the Prince George Citizen on September 24, 2005 that the budget update provides another $15 million in 2005 and 2006 "to expand the number of post-secondary seats and help keep tuition fees affordable." When I hear "keep tuition fees affordable," I keep hearing that with "student financial aid" as the mechanism right now by which the ministry is doing that. I'm curious what chunk of that $15 million is actually targeted.

Hon. M. Coell: It's essentially compensating the institutions for the difference between what the rate of inflation is and the rate of inflation that they may find with some of their programs. What we did is say, when we were talking about capping tuition fees: "What's it going to cost you over and above that?" It may vary by region and by institutions, as well, so we went ahead to develop a study with the universities and BCIT first. That number will be reflected over and above the $15 million in next year's budget. That will be basically just to compensate them for keeping the rate of inflation at 2 percent for tuition fees.

G. Robertson: I think I'm clear on this $15 million now. It's becoming clear.

Back to the $192 million that is labelled for strategic investment program, what proportion of this money went to the two big seat expansions at UBC Okanagan and SFU Surrey?

Hon. M. Coell: UBC Okanagan would be $23 million in '05-06, going to $37.5 million and then $46.6 million in '07-08. I'll get the Surrey numbers for you shortly.

The funding stemming from this $192 million that's targeted to colleges and institutes — I'm curious if there is a formula here between them all or if we're heavily weighted towards the universities specifically. I'd be interested to hear if you can break out the colleges and institutes' share of that.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, I have those numbers, but there's probably an easier way for the member to get that. It's on our website. We've got the strategic investment plan and the spaces per institution right up on the website now. It's about 50-50 for colleges and 50 percent for the universities.

G. Robertson: I have a series of questions on specific targets related to this money, and I can run down the list. Maybe the minister will suggest an easier way to exchange the information. I'm specifically looking for what proportion of these dollars is targeted toward aboriginal students — and not federal money but specific provincial money — for students with disabilities, for students with dependents, for merit- or need-based scholarships. Let's start with those.

Hon. M. Coell: A number of comments. Some of the Surrey numbers I'm not able to supply to you, but I will get them to you in the next day or so. We just don't have them with us this evening.

The ministry has a $1.8 million aboriginal special projects fund that we've increased by a couple of hundred thousand dollars this year. What we'd do with the individual institutions is…. They're supposed to supply programs for all British Columbians, so some of them have specific courses for aboriginal peoples. Some don't, being that in different parts of the province there are different needs. They target special groups from the individual institutions, as are the needs in their individual communities.

G. Robertson: Does that go for students with disabilities or with dependents as well?

G. Robertson: Can you give me a little detail on merit- or need-based scholarships and whether any of this strategic investment money is going into that?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the easy way of explaining that would be that out of the 25,000 new spaces, we expect that about 12,500 of those will not borrow or require assistance. That means about 12,500 will need assistance, and that's in the increases you see in the student financial assistance over the next three years. Those figures are there and targeted for increased loans for students. Then at the end of the day the new debt reduction or loan reduction program will kick in as people go through that, and those numbers will be reduced by a certain amount every year. I believe it was $33 million this year in loan reductions, where the loans were forgiven for people who had completed their programming.

G. Robertson: I'd just wanted to ask a question differentiating financial assistance and loans from scholarships. My question was more specifically around scholarships and whether any of this funding

will be added onto the funding available for scholarships for merit- or needs-based students.

Hon. M. Coell: Just a correction. I kind of shortchanged us. It actually was $67 million in the loan reduction program — $30 million from the province and $37 million from the federal government, who are our partners in that program.

I can just outline a number of the different scholarship programs that the province has. There is the World scholarship that has $340,000; the Premier's scholarship, $100,000; the passport program, which is $12 million; the provincial scholarship, which is $5.63 million; the Queen Elizabeth II Scholarship, which is $40,000; and a health care scholarship of 950,000 scholarships. What I will do — and I don't have them right at my fingertips — is give you the lift on each one of those scholarships this year.

The other thing that is important to note is that each one of the institutions has their own scholarship programs, and they use some of the tuition fees and some of the grant they get from government to fund those scholarships. There are also quite a number of scholarships…. I know UVic received about $3.6 million this year for engineering scholarships as well. There is a whole range of different scholarships that can be available to students at either postgrad- or graduate-level programming.

G. Robertson: A question stemming from the throne speech of February 2005. I'll just quote one section here: "The new student financial assistance program will allow eligible students to earn more than three times more money without penalty than they could have before." Can the minister please explain what the government means by "three times more money"? What program exists there?

Hon. M. Coell: Basically, the earnings exemption is for in-study earnings, so that would be how much a student was earning during the year in which they applied for a loan and were enrolled. That was tripled to $1,700. That's the most recent increase — not to say we wouldn't like to do more, if we can, in the future.

G. Robertson: That $1,700 — the most recent figure — is a tripling of what was there previously?

G. Robertson: I have a few questions related to the B.C. loan reduction program. As far as I'm aware, and you clarified this earlier that program provides for forgiving…. Well, I have here in my notes, which stem from a loan reduction press release, that $65.5 million in loans will be forgiven this year. I would like to have from the minister some detail on the number of students that will be benefiting from this program.

Hon. M. Coell: As the member pointed out, it is the B.C. portion of it which is forgiven. This year the number of students who had no dependents was 22,461. They received about an average of $2,200 each as a reduction. The number of those with dependents was 2,313, and they received an average of $6,800, so the total number would be almost…. Well, 24,774 students received loan reductions.

G. Robertson: I'd like some more detailed information on the recipients. I've got a bit of a shopping list here. The minister might suggest a more rapid way of transferring this information: specifically, the number of full-time-equivalents who benefited from this program versus the number of part-time students; the number with disabilities; the number of aboriginal students — again, from provincial funding and not federal funding — and then a breakdown by regions, programs, universities, colleges, institutions.

Hon. M. Coell: I'll try and answer all the questions. If I don't get them all, please refresh my memory.

These would all be full-time students doing at least 60 percent of their coursework. We could provide the breakdown, and will, on each institution, university and college. I don't think anyone does any ethnicity testing that we could get information on to do that breakdown.

G. Robertson: The others would be students with disabilities — whether you do have detail on that and on the regions.

Hon. M. Coell: We can do it by institution, and in doing that, I think we can get the regions as well. There are bound to be people with disabilities in both the no-dependents and with-dependents categories, but it's not an area we can break down.

G. Robertson: Thanks to the minister. That would be great to get the detail by institution, and we can work regionally from there.

Just a question related to the loan reduction program and how the minister sees this as differing from the grant program that previously existed, maybe starting with the rationale for completely scrapping a grant program to move to loan-based student financial aid.

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of other jurisdictions that have also done this. Two things. We wanted to make sure people completed — that they actually completed once they had enrolled and got a loan. This is a bit of a carrot — to complete, and then you get your loan basically repaid by the government for you. It's $30 million this year. It'll be $30 million next year and will probably edge up as we see more students, of the 25,000, enrolled.

The program ran very smoothly this year. We had a couple of hitches but nothing you wouldn't expect

from the first year of a program. It should be consistent after that at around the $30 million mark.

G. Robertson: Then, a question maybe comparing what the province had formerly in the grants program: does the ministry have a comparison of the number of students who are benefiting from grants programs in the past to those who are benefiting now from the current program with loans?

Hon. M. Coell: I may have to get back to the member on the specifics of it. It would be that the person in highest need would still be getting a refund instead of a grant at the other end, but it's still targeted for those students with the highest needs. I can get some more detail on the numbers for the member. It may take a day or so.

G. Robertson: I will welcome that information as well. The primary concern here is that there are students who are now not pursuing post-secondary education because they can't plan and expect that they are going to have loans reduced or paid out in full depending on their need and therefore can't take the leap of faith. It's important that we do everything we can to encourage every student to pursue post-secondary education.

A question on the loan reduction program. There is a fixed budget, and the press release that I have here states: "The amount of each grant depends on the budget and the number of students eligible to have their loans from the previous year reduced." Does this mean that if more students this year over last year are eligible for the grant, they will then receive a reduced amount?

Hon. M. Coell: Next year we have an extra million dollars in this program. We think that it will probably stay in the same realm of the 25,000 eligible. It may go up or down a bit from year to year, and it's something we'll have to monitor.

G. Robertson: So there's an extra million for next year. Will the ministry increase the budgeted expense for the program next year if more students are eligible for the loan reduction to ensure that students in that year's recipients don't receive smaller loan reduction?

Hon. M. Coell: There is actually $1 million a year for those three years. We expect that approximately 25,000 students will apply each year, and it's something we will have to watch. I mean, if one year you had a decrease, that means that students would get more, because it's a fixed budget. If you had an increase over that million, that would mean some would get a slight decrease, but it's something we want to keep as consistent as we can, so it's something I'll have to monitor as minister.

G. Robertson: At this point I'd like to get some sense of the comfort zone that students can have, given that there's a little bit of cushion budgeted here, it sounds like. I would assume that there has been some calculation that that million dollars is enough of a contingency to deal with more students potentially being needy. At the same time, I think the students of B.C. would like to know that the government will be responsive to this in order for them to plan out their education, that they can count on receiving at least the amount of loan reduction they've been getting in this year, which I think is calling on the minister for a commitment to not reduce the amount of loan reduction this year, going forward, for the students that are already in the system. Will the minister address that, please.

Hon. M. Coell: The million dollars is the same percentage increase as the percentage increase of seats, the 4,200 new seats, so I think we're going to be there. What we will do is announce every year what the threshold will be, but I can tell you that in trying to do the percentages with the new seats and the number of students in those seats who will be requesting student financial assistance, it should be within the million dollars. But I must admit that it's something I'm going to watch pretty closely.

G. Robertson: I'm sure the students, too, will be watching closely to keep you honest.

Just circling back, and you may have given me this number in that plethora of information a few minutes ago. How much per student in terms of these loan reductions and students benefiting from them? Is there a magic number here of how much per student these programs do allocate?

Hon. M. Coell: I could give two examples, and we could probably get some more data, as need be. The maximum a student would be able to get in a reduced loan over four years would be $10,000 if they had no dependants. The average of students with dependants would be $34,000 in reduction of loan over that four-year period.

G. Robertson: So a question, I suppose, more for the record: what will happen to this loan reduction program when the Canadian Millennium Scholarship Foundation money runs out, which I think at this point is near close to half of the program?

Hon. M. Coell: We're committed to our almost 50 percent of the partnership. We're working very hard with the federal government to make sure that doesn't happen. There is a desire, I think, from all provinces that the federal government stay connected with these programs and, in some ways, increase their funding for post-secondary education. I don't think that they'll back away at this stage of the game. I think that they'll continue, and they'll probably end up at least doing what they've done, if not more.

G. Robertson: At this point can I assume the ministry is not working on a contingency plan here, that the expectation is 100 percent that the federal government will come through with at least that amount of funding for the program going forward?

G. Robertson: A question around short-term programs and how student financial assistance in the B.C. loan reduction program applies here. The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, I know, is one important body that has called for grants to not be tied to the number of weeks of a program so that students who are on shorter-term programs seeking job training can qualify. However, it looks to me like short-term programs do not qualify. Can the minister speak to this and why this is?

Hon. M. Coell: The loan reduction program is really…. You're enrolled two years and up — two years, I guess, to six or eight years. In these shorter-term programs students really accumulate a lot less debt and are in the workforce much quicker and are able to pay it back, whereas these people are in either two or four or six years. It was decided that the emphasis would be on those who had the most debt. But not to say that some of the shorter-term courses…. People are eligible for loans; they're just not eligible for the loan repayment program at this point.

G. Robertson: I guess my next question is: is there any funding available for short-term or vocational programs that encourage skills training and upgrades?

Hon. M. Coell: The students in short-term programs are eligible for loans. At this point we're doing some work in studying labour market shortages and regions — how you would change that program to do loan reductions for shorter-term programs, if they were needed. Using the same philosophy as the teachers, nurses, pharmacists and midwives, you'd have larger loan reductions if they moved to different parts of the province and actually practised in different parts of the province. We are looking at it. We haven't made any decisions as yet, but we're putting the research together at this point.

G. Robertson: I think in my travels over the last few months as the critic, I've heard repeatedly that the loss of the grants program, particularly for first-year funding and short-term programs, has created one of the problems right now in getting people into the workforce through short-term and vocational programs. I'm hopeful that the ministry can address this and will be able to incentivize students to pursue short-term programs, particularly to help the skills shortage that is upon us.

The funding that is aimed at students at this point…. They must borrow the money to attend school. All of this funding, because it's not grants-oriented…. In order to attend school, you're borrowing money. At this point I think the figures I've heard around debt loads at graduation are upwards of $25,000 for a student.

I know that the minister mentioned an example, a student named Tony — that's the name I scribbled down — who graduated with only $5,000 in debt and landed a $50,000-a-year job, which is an admirable score. I will point out that even with a $50,000 job, if you translate that to a $25,000 debt load, student loan payments will end up being over 20 percent of that new worker's take-home pay, which is a very significant debt load. Does the minister have information on how many students there are who are racking up debt under B.C. and Canada student loans programs?

Hon. M. Coell: It is approximately half of the students in post-secondary institutions that don't have any debt. The other half have some debt. For the average student who graduated from a university, it was $19,500. The average college graduate was about $12,600. They would both be eligible each of their four years — or two years if it was a college course — for debt reduction in each one of those years.

G. Robertson: So a question, then, on this relationship between loan reduction on completion and these average debt loads. What does the minister think is an appropriate level of student debt on graduation, and how is this reflected in the loan reduction program?

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the issues, and not just for British Columbia but for Canada, is that a post-secondary education is by far the best investment you can make as a young person — probably as an older person as well. You know, on average, someone who graduates from post-secondary either with a university degree or equivalent will earn about half a million dollars more in their lifetime. All of the health things — family health, individual health — are improved by that.

What we want to do as a province, knowing that half of the people can afford to go and not require debt, is to make sure that those people who do, have the ability to borrow the money, and then have a loan reduction program to take almost half of that debt away on completion. What you want to do is…. Because to get the benefits, you've got to complete. To make that extra half million dollars in your lifetime, you've got to complete.

So what we want is to do everything possible to ensure that people who start college or university and take out a loan actually complete, because then they will get the benefits back and they will be able to pay back the loan over a significantly long period of time at low rates. It is an investment in themselves. I think that the example I used was a good one, and there are many, many more out there.

G. Robertson: The point is well taken. I will respond to the minister that there are a lot of people out there who, for whatever reason, are hesitant or reluctant to take that leap of faith and know that they have to get through it, that they have to complete. Even at that point it is a reduction of the loan, so there is a constant having faith in the future that is required here, which for some people is an easy thing, and for others it isn't.

I think discriminating against people by their optimism and thereby discouraging some people from pursuing post-secondary education is a consequence of an approach that does not provide anything on the front end or any grant program for students who need to be incentivized going in.

I want to illustrate that increased access to debt is not affordability. I think the affordability keeps getting segued into access to debt. I think that's helpful in some circumstances but definitely should not be the sole tool of the ministry in incentivizing students.

One final question on this, I suppose, is: why is the ministry still requiring that students borrow money in order to qualify for aid?

Hon. M. Coell: It is basically a philosophy that says we want to see students complete their programs. In the past there were many instances where people would take out a student loan, go for two months and quit. Then we would have to, through a process, try and get the payment back for the student loan portion over and above the grant. The philosophy here is: at the end — for staying involved, staying in the institution and completing — you get your benefit. I think it is just a different philosophy at this point.

G. Robertson: Is the ministry currently considering any grant-based programs for those students who may need incentive at the front end, or are those options no longer on the table or being considered?

Hon. M. Coell: One of the things that has not changed in quite a number of years is the bursary system at both the college and university levels. In talking to the university and college presidents, they're very aware that bursaries are a fundamental part of education for people who can't, for one, get the scholarships we were talking about earlier and who would require, on top of the loan programs….

The other thing that is of interest is pretty well all of our post-secondary facilities fundraise in the private sector for bursaries in different areas. As I mentioned earlier, UVic got a bequest of $3.6 million for engineering-student bursaries. There's a long history of institutions doing that as well.

There are other options out there. The Millennium Scholarship grant program, which is federal money that we administer, has some grants available to it. There may be additional federal grants, because of the money that the member was talking about earlier on, that could be coming to the province in the form of student financial assistance in the spring.

G. Robertson: Thank you to the minister. Maybe a little more information on bursaries would be helpful. Are there provincially funded, needs-based bursaries where there is no need to repay or where they're not tied to loans?

Hon. M. Coell: Bursaries, by definition, are for people with lower incomes. Scholarships are for those who can meet the academic challenge. I can get for the member, and will do so, a list of the bursaries of the different facilities in the province. They are significant, and I know that a number of the…. The UBC policy is that no qualified student will be turned away because of financial need, so there are all sorts of avenues open, I think, at the local level as well. I will get the copy of all those bursaries — provincial ones as well.

G. Robertson: Minister, that would be helpful to have specifics on the provincial bursaries that are available. Maybe this feeds into that same list. Are there provincial scholarships and/or bursaries for vocational or training programs?

Hon. M. Coell: Certainly at the college level they do have bursary programs. I can get a list of those for the member as well.

G. Robertson: I'm interested, as well, in what is available in terms of provincial support, bursaries or scholarships for graduates — such as Ontario and other jurisdictions have — and what we have provincially available for graduate students.

G. Robertson: Thank you. Does the minister have any overall data on how many students right now in B.C. are benefiting from scholarships and bursaries from the provincial government?

Hon. M. Coell: That's quite a bit of work, but we will do it. I think what we'll need to do is go back to each individual institution and ask them for a list of their bursaries by department. I'm sure they probably have that. It is not something we have in the ministry, but we can get that information.

G. Robertson: The bursaries — the provincial government doesn't track them specifically. The institutions, through their funding from the ministry, are tracking bursaries and scholarships and the recipient numbers?

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, that's the case. In many cases they're actually not funded by the federal or provincial

government. They've been put in place by the institutions themselves through individual donors.

G. Robertson: I'm specifically interested in what the province is doing in terms of supporting students on a merit basis and a needs basis with these scholarships.

Really, a question, then, to do with college enrolments. I'm curious if the ministry has done studies to examine why enrolments are dropping at a good number of the community colleges and institutes and university colleges. Has the ministry done any studies recently to look at the enrolment drop?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of targets that the province and the individual institutions try and meet. For a number of years the university sector was hitting about 105 percent of its targets. The last couple of years there have been some of the colleges that are within 95 to 99 percent of their target. We want to work with them. One of the things I think we might need to do a better job of is supporting the colleges in advertising so that people know they're there, know the programs are there.

I think there are a number of things that over all we're sort of hitting our targets on, but it would be nice if they were able to get past the 100 percent, like the universities as well. There are a number of things, I think, we can do.

The only tracking that I have seen is when you track youth unemployment. As it goes down, sometimes the employment in colleges goes down. The people who go to college go down because of the economy. But I think there is enough we can do to sort of push that back up so they're hitting 100 percent or more than 100 percent of their targets in the coming years. They've got new seats to fill. We've put the spaces throughout the province, so we want to make sure if it's advertising, if it is something we need to bolster their ability to get out in the community, we want to work with them to do that.

G. Robertson: A question, then. I'm curious as to whether the ministry has done any work, research or examination with students. I think for every curve you examine when tuition goes up markedly and skyrockets, even as it has over the last few years, and enrolment drops, the relationship between the cost of education and the availability of funding that isn't tied to student financial assistance and loans, and enrolment dropping…. I'm curious if the ministry is working with students, consulting with students on examining how closely those factors are tied together.

Hon. M. Coell: I have been meeting with students and getting their concerns from different institutions around the province. I also have a joint meeting with the CFS on December 2 where I'll be talking about this issue in particular.

The one area that seems to be consistent is that sometimes when you have an improved economy, you have lower tuition fees for a short period of time. I don't think we want to necessarily accept that. I think the spaces are there. We just have to make sure that students know about the different programs. I think that probably my responsibility is making sure people know where the vacancies are in the economy so that they can target what they want to take in school.

I can give you an example. I was up at Okanagan College, and there was a welding course where they're actually almost doing shifts because there are so many vacancies in the private sector for welders. On the wall in the welding shop there was a list of jobs. As soon as you could finish your coursework, you could actually go get a job. I think we need to target better than we've been doing — and I think we can do that — by working with the businesses in the regions of the province like we were talking about earlier — in them having some input into what programming they think there are jobs out in the labour market…. We also publish a pretty significant list of labour market information that will assist students. Sometimes we probably have to make that just a bit higher profile.

G. Robertson: It's an interesting anecdote about jobs and the relationship of jobs to students — an interesting story that I've heard. Actually, I've heard it a number of times from faculty members who have traditionally asked their students how many in their class are working outside of school. The answers used to be a scattering of hands — 20 percent. The answer in this last year or two is that all the hands go up. So for all the jobs that are available in the job market, I think the fact that tuition has skyrocketed has forced a lot of students to work while they're going to school. Certainly, that can have an impact on enrolment as well.

I want to just shift to a few questions related to the B.C. loan reduction program and a couple of audits that took place around the program, starting with file 019027, the direct lend, repayment and collection from 2004. Does the minister know why this audit was undertaken?

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if I could get the member to repeat the question. I'm not quite sure I understand it.

G. Robertson: Happy to do so. I understand there have been several audits that have taken place within the ministry, specifically around student financial assistance. I have two file numbers here of audits that have taken place in the last year or two, one being the direct lend, repayment and collection file 019027.

Hon. M. Coell: That was an internal audit done at our request. We asked the comptroller general, because we did not have a long history with the direct lend part of the ministry's function. They did a review audit of

that and reported back to us. I could get a copy to the member, if he'd like to see it.

G. Robertson: That would be helpful, and maybe for the second as well. Can the minister give a quick summary of the findings of the auditor in that?

Hon. M. Coell: We'll actually provide you with a full report. He made some suggestions to the ministry, but it would probably be better if you got the whole report and read it.

G. Robertson: The second audit I have questions about is the student debt loan management review. That is file 019032. It would be very helpful to have that audit report as well. Is that available?

Hon. M. Coell: We have no problem in getting that report. Again, it was requested by us to look at how we could improve our operations, and there are some suggestions in there how we could. I'd be pleased to get a copy of it to the member.

G. Robertson: I just want to clarify that this was the Auditor General that was looking into these matters.

G. Robertson: Does the minister anticipate any further audits of programs within the ministry that British Columbians should know about?

Hon. M. Coell: Historically, I think the ministry has used the comptroller general to do a number of studies where we want to know whether we can do a better job. These are the latest two, and we will get a copy of both of them as quickly as we can to the member.

G. Robertson: Thanks to the minister and staff. I look forward to reading those — my late-night reading habits.

I want to turn to some questions on BCcampus. I was impressed to hear the numbers in the minister's beginning remarks — that there was 400-percent growth in the BCcampus program and 10,000 students this year — so maybe just a quick overview of the mandate of the program and the budget for it.

Hon. M. Coell: I don't want to be too lengthy, but it is a good story, and I wouldn't mind getting some of it on the record. In October of 2002 the provincial government announced its decision to move toward a more collaborative model of on-line and distance education that is called BCcampus, building on the strengths and expertise available in British Columbia's post-secondary institutions.

BCcampus provides a single point of access to all public post-secondary distance-learning courses, programs, resources and support services for learners, faculty, staff and administrators. BCcampus involves all post-secondary institutions in British Columbia and builds on the existing programs and services, reducing costly duplication within the system and improving efficiency for students. An implementation steering committee comprised of representatives of B.C.'s public post-secondary institutions, industry, experts on distance education, faculty and students is guiding the development and implementation of BCcampus in a phased-in approach.

BCcampus offers a number of improved services to students in British Columbia, including access to information on all distance education courses and programs available through the British Columbia post-secondary system; access to student support services; tasks on line, including applying for admission and selecting and registering for courses on line and tracking personal academic history; as well as the extended 24-hour, six-days-a-week help desk for on-line students.

The ability to transfer course credits is achieved easily from one institution to another. It enhances individual choice by giving learners access to a broad range of programs, courses, schedules and delivery formats. Students are able to choose learning that fits their individual needs, with the option of completing their programs of study entirely on line or receiving credentials on line. There's also access to interactive student resources like chat areas to enhance networking, information and peer support.

There are currently approximately 2,000 credit courses offered by distance education in British Columbia. Approximately 900 of those are on-line courses. While some institutions are more effective than others in the area of on-line learning, almost all institutions offer some on-line courses in their programs.

The enrolments in on-line courses registered through B.C. campuses have grown from 2,500 in 2002 to over 10,000 in 2004-2005. With the continued development of automated service enrolments, we expect to see enrolments continue to climb, probably at the current rate of growth.

G. Robertson: How old is this program? Is it meant to be ongoing in perpetuity?

Hon. M. Coell: It was announced in October of 2002 as a new program. It's expected to grow and continue to grow. You know, just looking at the members opposite and my own colleagues, we have a number of computers on our desks now. When I was elected ten years ago — same as you, Chair — there were no computers in the Legislature. I think there are more and more people using on line for everyday life, so I think this will be a program that will expand quite significantly over the next few years.

G. Robertson: To whom is BCcampus accountable? You mentioned an implementation steering committee. Is the steering committee at this point responsible for

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry. My Assistant Deputy Minister Arlene Paton chairs that committee, and it has representatives from a broad range of people, including faculty and students. It's going to be ongoing to give advice back to the ministry on changes to the program.

I think, too, it's worth mentioning that it also helps connect our students provincially, nationally and globally. That's a real advancement, I think, just in the last few years as to what we can do in the province with regard to connecting our students into the global community.

G. Robertson: Are there ministry staff that are working full-time with BCcampus?

Hon. M. Coell: There's actually one staff seconded from North Island College who works with our staff. BCcampus has offices in Vancouver at SFU's downtown office and in Victoria as well.

G. Robertson: In terms of accountability, then — I want to return to that. Programs and institutions typically have a board of governors, a board for oversight. Is this implementation steering committee of that nature? Is it accountable for the outcomes and successes or failures of the program?

Hon. M. Coell: I guess, essentially, they represent the system. Basically, all of the institutions — colleges, university colleges, universities — bought into doing this. They all have their individual boards and associations, but this group represents all of them to steer it and, also, to do some evaluation, eventually, as to what changes can be made to make the system better.

G. Robertson: I'm not sure if I missed it or if it was left out of that overview, but what is the total budget for BCcampus?

Hon. M. Coell: The money that goes to BCcampus is $2.6 million for support services, development and administration, and $1.5 million for program development. There's another $6.34 million that goes to the institutions for the student spaces, and that would be for the 10,000 course registrations. To me, that's money very, very well spent — to see that kind of registration and interest for literally under $10 million.

G. Robertson: The component of this that is on-line distance learning — can the minister describe what that looks like to the students?

Hon. M. Coell: I can highly recommend bccampus.ca — worthwhile for all British Columbians to have a look at — and give some examples. You would go and find a speech and language assistant course 202 at the University College of the Fraser Valley; "Principles of Anatomy and Physiology for Health Professionals," joint-spun with Malaspina University College and Camosun College; social software framework for the BCcampus community, which is the B.C. Institute of Technology's; and it goes on. As I say, there are almost 2,000 courses that are now available on line, so many of the courses you would see at our institutions are on line as well.

G. Robertson: A question, then, about whether the BCcampus program is integrated with or has any relationship to the Open Learning Agency and all the on-line programs that are there.

Hon. M. Coell: I think they're very complementary. I think that Thompson Rivers University, which has the Open Learning Agency, has some added benefits of being paper-based as well as being on line. They also sit on the advisory committee. I think that the BCcampus model and open learning are probably quite compatible, and I don't see any duplication at this point.

G. Robertson: So are there programs that cross over between them, or are they completely distinct in terms of program offerings?

Hon. M. Coell: From my perspective, it's all about options. You have many different options having both of them. I think a good example would be someone who, let's say, is in rural B.C. and wanting to move from a college to a university. They could actually take a university course while they were at college and then move into the university for their final two years.

I think the options are what we've been trying to have in our advanced education system in the province, and these are just two that are comparable and compatible with one another.

G. Robertson: My concern and my line of questioning is more around whether the open learning programs — they predate this — exist, whether there is duplication and whether there are reasons for bringing BCcampus into being that make open learning redundant at TRU.

Maybe a separate direction, then. If you could comment on that and maybe also on the program at UBC, WebCT — if there's a similarity there, as well, in terms of what kind of program.

Hon. M. Coell: WebCT is a course manager in its simplest form. The BCcampus — and I'm trying to make an example — is basically all the institutions on line. That's why you get up to 2,000 courses, whereas the Opening Learning Agency is approximately 200 courses but different courses than are in all the institu-

tions which are now on line. You've got one big advanced education department or facility on line.

G. Robertson: Is there a supervision issue related to BCcampus? Who makes sure that students complete courses?

Hon. M. Coell: Each one of these 2,000 courses is approved by the senate in each institution. You may find that someone is taking a course from Selkirk. That professor or faculty member would be the one responsible for the students in that course. The same with someone taking a BCcampus-accredited course through UBC: it would be UBC that was responsible for making sure that the students completed the coursework and actually achieved success.

G. Robertson: A question, then, about the hands-on component of different courses and how courses can be delivered that have a hands-on component — like nursing, for example — through BCcampus.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, that's probably one of the most exciting things about BCcampus is that because of the technology, you're able to take a course. You may even be able to do virtual labs through your computer, or you may do labs at another institution that has an agreement with the institution you're taking your coursework through. Also, with the ability to do practicums, the ability to get involved with more than one institution, you get the synergy from the faculty in more than one institution.

The reality is that this is becoming successful. It has a lot to do with technology, with how people can access the technology they need to complete their coursework and with how faculty can have students from all over the province at one course at UVic or Camosun College. I can only see this becoming more and more of a way of life for students than it was in the past.

I can give an example. It's not necessarily BCcampus, but at the medical schools — at UBC, UVic, UNBC and now in the Okanagan — those students can actually see and talk to one another in their classrooms in all of the facilities. It's just an amazing piece of technology. That probably is an example of where BCcampus could go in the future. Students taking courses from around the province will be able to connect with one another, to talk to one another and to share support and ideas about the class that they are taking. The ability to do that just didn't exist even two or three years ago.

G. Robertson: A question, then, about the takeup rate among the institutions and how they are embracing and adapting to BCcampus.

Hon. M. Coell: It's significant, I think, that every one of our partners has jumped at the chance to become involved.

There is more technical work to be done, but in some respects, as technology advances, it will give us other opportunities. Basically, I think that the ability for someone to enter a portal like this and go to any institution and then to have those institutions also know what each one of their enrolments is like is not too far away.

Probably by the next year or so, we'll have all of them being able to balance the interest in their course work against other institutions. It has a lot to do with how fast technology is moving, but one thing that impresses me is that every one of our partners wants to be part of the increase in technology and to use this new, I would say, BCcampus as being a very large portal for every one of our institutions.

G. Robertson: A couple of questions, then, coming from the perspective of starting with staff at all the institutions in B.C. How can you assure British Columbians who work in higher education that this isn't a staff-reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Coell: I got some good advice from staff members. Actually, it's probably an increase in staff members, because the increase in students, at 25,000 students, will mean an increase in staff. But it seems to be that at the faculty level, they're using more and more technology and seeing the benefits for their students. The students are actually getting more options out of this, and faculty are embracing it as much as the institutions are.

Just as I said, judging by how many computers are used in the Legislature now that weren't used five years ago, we're embracing technology at the political level as well. It's just a fact of where British Columbia and Canada are going in the information age. Our faculty and students are going to become, more and more, users of technology, and BCcampus is there as an option — and, obviously, a growing option.

G. Robertson: A question, then, from the perspective of the students and concerns they may have about the quality of their education. I know a primary concern I hear from students around the province has to do with class size and the large lecture formats and, with students, the desire to have closer contact with faculty, closer contact with TAs, closer contact working with other students.

In fact, although it is current with the times and all of us use these tools now and are well entrenched with working with them, my question is more around how the students in the province will get the same quality of instruction and education in an on-line setting.

Hon. M. Coell: That's an interesting question. I think what you're going to see is that this is just another option. I don't think you're ever going to leave the need for highly qualified faculty in every campus

because of technology. What I think you're going to see is the ability for faculty and students to interact over greater distances in British Columbia and, probably, to use this as an option in some instances.

I think you're going to see an increase in students in our facilities, an increase in faculty and an increase in technology, and they don't necessarily have to be, any one of them, detrimental to the students' quality of education. I think, actually, the quality of education is going to go up because of increased opportunities. Maybe they can't get something they need at the college they're at. Well, they can go to the college they want to and take a couple of courses from maybe two different other institutions that have different faculty members as the senior leads for those courses. I only see the ability for students and the quality of education getting better because of technology.

G. Robertson: Is it possible now to do an entire degree through BCcampus without ever actually going to the school?

Hon. M. Coell: At this point I'm not aware of any. There may be one or two. It's something people are looking at. There are definitely some overseas. Some of the school boards, I believe, have overseas to get your Dogwood, and that can be done on line from overseas. But you can't get a degree using BCcampus other than, I think, there may be one at UBC at this point.

G. Robertson: Is any of the new-seats money targeted or being funnelled into this program?

Hon. M. Coell: It's a relatively small amount. It's about 230 seats a year, and that is every year. It's a relatively small amount of the seats at 230.

G. Robertson: That's 230 seats. Could you repeat that in a little more detail?

Hon. M. Coell: Each year we add 230 spaces, but they're allocated to the institutional partners. They would be for on-line learning. That's not a great number, but that's the amount of spaces that we've allocated per year.

G. Robertson: Is that by the same formula of dollars per seat? Or because it's on-line learning, is it discounted because it's more affordable for institutions to deliver it?

Hon. M. Coell: At present, it is slightly more. We top-up an on-line seat by $200. I suspect over the next few years that will probably change quite significantly as technology improves, but right now it's slightly more expensive.

G. Robertson: I am going to turn over the line of questioning to my colleague the member for Cariboo North. I have to go to the House to speak to the World Trade University bill that's up. I would just like to thank the minister and staff for all their answers. I look forward to picking up again tomorrow morning.

B. Simpson: I'd like to do a little bit of work more specifically on the new campus in Quesnel as a starting point and to invite the minister, if he gets an opportunity, to come up and see the campus. It's quite a beautiful place, and I know the community is quite excited about it.

However, there are some issues around the campus that I'd like to explore today. One aspect of it is that it's a capital project that, upon completion of the project, will leave the facility in a position where it has no money for fix-its. My experience with capital projects is that there's usually a buffer there, and I'm wondering what, if any, buffer might be available for fix-its as they move into the campus.

Hon. M. Coell: I have had some information re the Quesnel campus, and I just wondered if the member has any other information on the top-up needed or why that would be. I would be interested in hearing.

B. Simpson: I took a tour of the campus a little while back, and it's coming close to completion. They are doing the cleanup and all of that.

My understanding is that there's a problem with the shift over to the campus now that it's effectively owned, whereas they were in a leased building. The maintenance budget for the building as it carries over, for example, doesn't include the ability to take in janitorial staff, who now cannot be contractors as they were under the previous building arrangement, because it was leased, but must now be unionized staff.

They have been told they don't have the ability to have anybody on site for their geothermal heating system, which is a pilot. They have already had some engineering problems with it, and it may require some babysitting through the startup phase. They're going to have to do that through Prince George or a contractor in Quesnel who's not necessarily well versed in it, but they don't have anything per se in the budget.

Then there are other things. Again, in a normative capital project, you normally have some squiggle room for fix-it once you move in and find out what's going on. For example, when you go to the second floor of the building and look at it, you see all of the heating ducts exposed. What they would like to do is put up some griding — and they have some griding around their entryway that would match perfectly — and close all those off. Otherwise, what you're looking at are dust collectors, and it will just detract from the building.

They have been told categorically that there's no room to do those kinds of things. When you go into the librarian's office, it's one of these feats of engineering where you go into a very small office and, in the dead centre of the office, there's a concrete pillar you have to walk around in order to move. Again, they've been told

there's nothing they can do to facilitate any changes or make that office better, because there's no budget for it.

They've been told that basically, when they move into the building, it's a done deal. They have to live with what they've got. Yet there are all kinds of issues around that, and again, from normative practice, you normally do leave some room to make it livable and to fix those kinds of things.

Hon. M. Coell: I wasn't aware of those situations. What I'll do is have staff check Hansard tonight and have an answer for you tomorrow when we sit again.

B. Simpson: There are some other things to look at. There are things, for example, where…. There's a facility for a cafeteria but no cafeteria capabilities in the building. They have a big open space and everything else, which will be tracked for it.

They also have questions around the ongoing maintenance and service budgets. Beyond the move in and the capital component of it, there's the ongoing maintenance and service budget and whether or not there's sufficient provision of funds to actually maintain the building in the form that has been given to them. Those are additional issues.

Hon. M. Coell: We'll add those to the list and get you answers for that tomorrow.

B. Simpson: I appreciate that. I know the community, as I said, is very, very excited, and it would be unfortunate to detract from that excitement and the potential of the building with something like that.

There's another issue, and it affects all small communities. That's the constraints put on by FTEs. It's one of those "if you build it, they will come." But if you can't offer the program because you work on a pure FTE count for funding, you constrain smaller communities from actually doing the kinds of creative things that they could do — building a reputation and then having people be attracted and come.

In the case of the Quesnel campus, there is discussion around making it a focal point for agriculture for the region. I spoke with the Minister of Agriculture and Lands, and he's got some ideas around some focal points there — a farrier school, etc. But we always butt up against the problem that if we can't get enough registrants, we can't get the program off the ground.

I'm wondering if there's any opportunity there for special consideration for either startup programs or programs that have the potential to grow if we can offer a quality service. It's not just the Quesnel situation. That's the situation with the distributed-learning environment throughout the north and in some smaller communities.

We spoke earlier about the review that we're undertaking with the colleges. We had initially — it started with the tuition cap of 2 percent or the rate of inflation — sat down with the universities and BCIT and looked at what the cost to them would be over and above the 2 percent. We have allowed a number in the budget, and I'm hoping the Finance Minister will deal with that in the spring budget as well. We're now going to sit down with the colleges to do just what the member is suggesting — to look at that issue in probably the next four or five months so we can address it next year as well.

We have a really tremendous college system. It's one that has evolved over a number of decades. They're telling us that they're seeing a bit of reduction in tuition, and they'd like our help to deal with that. We're committed to working with them to see that they can hit the targets they set for themselves.

Also, some of the costs are different at the college level than they are at the university level. I think they've been telling us that for a number of years — that maybe a medical school has different costs than the colleges might have. I think that over the next four or five months, we want to sit down with each one of them individually, with some of our staff, and just try and come up with a plan we can put into place over the next couple of months.

B. Simpson: For the minister's reference, and I'm sure some of the staff may be aware of it, we had the skill centre initiative that went through the province. I happen to have put one of those in Quesnel. It has now gone over into the Ministry of Education adult learning, and the college has picked up some of that.

A lot of those programs are also slipping. We just have to find the mechanism, particularly in smaller communities, to keep those programs going, because those are the feeders if we want to bring in first nations communities, young boys that have left the school system and don't have the fundamental skills to then go into trades programs, etc. Again, the funding on an FTE basis for lots of those, because they often now become program-based funding as opposed to FTE funding….

There was an irony in the Quesnel situation. The day the ribbon was cut for the Thompson Rivers University, we had an announcement in Quesnel of staff cuts and program cuts for the local campus and for CNC in general. There does have to be — and I'm glad to hear the minister say it — a rationalization between the college system and its differential value in the whole post-secondary education system versus the university system.

With that in mind, one of the questions given to me is around UNBC and the faculty of education program at UNBC. My understanding is that it was bumped because of some work around the gym, I think it was, and then the medical school up there. I wonder if I could get an update on the status of what the campus situation is for the faculty of education and what the time line is for that. It draws a number of people from around the region to that program, and they are a bit nervous about where the program is going.

Hon. M. Coell: I've got some of my staff.... I want to check just to see what their, UNBC's, time line is. We're not aware of what their time line is. I know that the most important thing for UNBC was to be part of that medical school, and they have probably shifted some of their priorities around. I'll check and see what the time line for education programs is.

B. Simpson: Again, thank you to the minister. I look forward to those responses.

My understanding in this particular case is that they're in one of the schools that were closed. It's where they're running the program, and there are just some concerns about, you know, that facility being an appropriate facility and how long they're going to be in it.

With that in mind, I've been made aware of the time, and 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.