Hansard — Tuesday, November 1, 2005 a.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


Second Reading of Bills		1437
	World Trade University Canada Establishment Act (Bill Pr401) (continued)
	G. Hogg
	Hon. J. Les
	R. Hawes
	Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005 (Bill 15)
	Hon. G. Abbott
	D. Cubberley
	M. Polak
	Hon. G. Abbott

Committee of the Whole House		1444
	Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 2), 2005 (Bill 16)
	L. Krog
	Hon. C. Taylor
	Hon. J. Les
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Hon. P. Bell
	Hon. W. Oppal
	Hon. R. Neufeld
	Hon. B. Penner
	G. Robertson
	M. Sather

	Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply		1450
	Estimates: Ministry of Transportation (continued)
	Hon. M. de Jong
	Estimates: Ministry of Advanced Education and Minister Responsible for Research and Technology (continued)
	G. Robertson
	Hon. M. Coell
	B. Simpson
	H. Bains
	J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong: In this chamber I call continued second reading debate of Bill Pr401.

In Committee A, I just want to advise the House that a technicality has arisen in relation to Vote 40 for the Ministry of Transportation, ministry operations, which requires the vote to be briefly sent back to Committee A. That will be the first order of business in Committee A today. It will take a moment or two. The Opposition House Leader and I have spoken about the matter, and that vote will be properly dealt with.

Following Vote 40, continued estimates debate, for the information of members, on the Ministry of Advanced Education.

G. Hogg: Nice to see some people are awake this morning. I'm sure I'll be able to quickly put you back to sleep.

As debate adjourned yesterday on this item, I was providing insightful, helpful comments with respect to the World Trade University and making reference to how I felt that we should have, indeed, a great deal of pride in the fact that the United Nations and the World Trade University had chosen British Columbia and Canada as a home for one of their facilities. I believe the platform or vehicle of trade to assist developing and emerging democracies and economies is a platform which our sense of global consciousness and our sense of global caring naturally support.

We have an opportunity here in British Columbia and in the Fraser Valley and in Chilliwack to reach out to students from emerging economies around the world. We will have the opportunity to develop relationships with countries, with communities and with individuals on a new level, and this interaction will enable us to commit ourselves to each other and to each other's issues in ways that only personal relationships can foster. Not only will the students, their families and the communities learn and benefit from this interaction, but our students, our families and our communities will also learn and benefit from a better understanding of the world, from the caring that comes from relationships and from a better perspective on global inequities.

Canada is known on the world stage for its fairness, its compassion and its understanding. We can help to build on that persona with the World Trade University. Interaction enables people to build and to commit themselves to each other, and we can be the place for that interaction. The World Trade University has a vision far greater than just trade. It is about increasing global consciousness, about raising hope and expectations and, ultimately, about raising the quality of life through participation in governance and the development of civil societies in engaging the emerging democracies and economies. I believe this is a wonderful opportunity for our province and our country to participate with the development of those global economies for a better understanding and a better way of life not just for Canadians but for those people in those emerging worlds. I'm in full support of this.

Hon. J. Les: I appreciate the opportunity to take a few moments of the House's time to discuss this bill, as the location where this campus will be located is, in fact, in my riding. As is usual, sometimes these things come together as a result of a lot of hard work. That, indeed, was the case here, as well, but there was also — again, this is not unusual — a degree of serendipity that came into play.

As I recall, it was in April of 2004 when, at an event in Vancouver, I first met Dr. Sujit Chowdhury and Craig Young from the World Trade University, and they outlined to me what their vision was for a World Trade University headquarters to be established somewhere in Canada. They wondered at the time whether I had any suggestions I might make as to where they could look within British Columbia.

I happened to be aware that at about that point in time the city of Chilliwack was actively in negotiations with Canada Lands Corp. for the city to acquire 135 acres of what had been Canadian Forces Base Chilliwack, so I suggested to Dr. Chowdhury and to Craig Young that they perhaps might want to have a look at that site. Within ten days or two weeks they paid a visit to Chilliwack and had a look at the site. I introduced them to officials from the Chilliwack Economic Partners Corp., who then worked in the ensuing months very, very closely with officials from the World Trade University.

What we see today is a three-acre parcel that has been set aside from the original 135 for the use of the World Trade University. The buildings that were on that three-acre parcel have been completely renovated by the Economic Partners Corp. to the tune of about a million dollars.

The campus that has resulted for the use and benefit of the World Trade University is, I think, a huge credit not only to the community but to the province as well. I've toured the facilities, and they are, in a word, magnificent.

I just wanted to outline it for the benefit of members as to how that came to be. It clearly and directly plays into our agenda as a province to situate British

Columbia very prominently in global trading relationships and, certainly, in terms of global education opportunities as well. The World Trade University, as other members have already pointed out, enjoys a mandate from the United Nations that was granted to it in 2001. It already has campuses in China and South America, and there will be other campuses established in other locations around the world as well.

It will provide for students, particularly those located in emerging economies, to obtain their applied education opportunities in locations like British Columbia to further their understanding of economics. Given that much of that education will be happening here in British Columbia as those economies around the world continue to emerge, I think it will facilitate the establishment of trading relationships between us here in British Columbia and those emerging Third World economies.

We only need to think about, for example, China, where we have an economy that 20 years ago, frankly, was a somewhat minor player on the world stage. I think it almost doesn't require any underlining at all that China is not only a huge player on the world economic stage today but will increasingly become so. To the extent that students from China are going to be partially educated here at the World Trade University campus in British Columbia, I think that further develops opportunities for us to establish strong trade relationships with China.

That will also be the case for the emerging economies — Brazil, for example, in South America, and African economies that are, at this point in time, seriously underdeveloped. Perhaps we can play a role in establishing links as they, too, develop their economies based on the enormous potential that often is available in those countries. They've not been able to sustain consistent economic growth because of a variety of factors, not the least of which are education opportunities in those countries that often have been insufficiently available.

I am very, very excited, obviously, given that we've been able to bring this enormous opportunity to British Columbia. I've heard some references in members opposite saying yesterday that, for example, an item of concern here that needs to be further discussed at committee stage is that this is really a P3 initiative. Well, yes, it is, but I think that can only be celebrated — certainly in this context, where it's really a public-public partnership. It's a coming together of a community, a province and the international community in a way that I think is, perhaps, a model for others.

Again, though, I want to salute the officials of the Chilliwack Economic Partners Corp., who have done yeoman's work in making sure this opportunity actually came to fruition. I know there will be direct benefits that will flow to the community of Chilliwack as well. Given that this World Trade University campus will be co-located with the relocated Chilliwack campus of the University College of the Fraser Valley as well as the Pacific Regional Training Academy of the RCMP, I think this is a tremendous coming together of a variety of educational institutions and opportunities that will be mutually beneficial and very, very constructive.

Mr. Speaker, I think I will leave it there for now. Again, I'm delighted to have played a small role in bringing this opportunity to British Columbia. More importantly, I wanted to give credit to Dr. Chowdhury, Craig Young and the Chilliwack Economic Partners Corp., as well as my colleagues, for helping to make this vision a reality.

Mr. Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission closes debate.

R. Hawes: I'd like to thank the speakers who did take the time to talk about the World Trade University and the tremendous benefits that it will have for our province. The member for Chilliwack-Sumas is a little bit reticent in taking enough credit for this.

I have talked to Dr. Chowdhury about his role, and this could not have happened without the intervention and the hard work put in by that member. I think he is to be congratulated because this university is something that all of us as British Columbians should be proud of, and proud of having been selected as the site — the world headquarters site — for this university.

R. Hawes: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting after today.

Bill Pr401, World Trade University Canada Establishment Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. G. Abbott: It's a pleasure to rise today and to speak to second reading of the Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005. As I noted at first reading, this bill supports two amendments to Ministry of Health legislation: first, to the Health Authorities Act, and second, to the Vital Statistics Act — both important statutes in this province.

Bill 15 supports the role of nurse practitioners as leaders in primary health along with doctors, midwives and dentists. The bill excludes nurse practitioners from the health sector bargaining unit established for nurses under part 3 of the Health Authorities Act. Bill 15 also allows nurse practitioners the flexibility to request their own bargaining table within the health sector or form an association to represent their interests with employers.

Nurse practitioners are health care providers who are master's level nurses and who have undertaken a comprehensive program with two years of training. This course builds on their basic nurses education and prepares them to function as independent health care providers who have the legal authority similar to doctors, dentists and midwives — and that's a very important feature here — under their regulatory body to diagnose and manage common illnesses, order tests and prescribe medications. Again, this is an important distinction within the health care system.

At the end of the two years these nurses complete a written exam as well as what is noted here as the objective structured clinical examination — remembered, I'm sure, fondly as OSCE among those who take it — which is clinical exam similar to the exams that physicians and midwives take. This is a role which allows them to provide comprehensive care for patients and their families for low-complexity primary care health problems. This role positions them as independent practitioners and requires significant flexibility and an ability to respond to the needs of their patients in a way that is similar to doctors, midwives and dentists.

Thus, like physicians and midwives, nurse practitioners will practise independently and autonomously, caring for patients with health problems such as uncomplicated infections, minor trauma, chronic illness such as asthma, and diabetes. For example, when you go to a clinic with a bad cough or a flu, a nurse practitioner may assess you, order an X-ray of your chest and treat your symptoms with prescription medications. They can manage minor fractures and chronic diseases like diabetes and asthma.

The addition of these health professionals to the primary care arena has proven to be an important asset to health systems around the world. In British Columbia they will help us meet our need for primary health care options for patients by working with doctors, nurses and other members of the health team to provide comprehensive and continuous care for patients.

I should also, as I speak to second reading here, provide a few notes in respect of the background on the history of the nurse practitioner in B.C. Discussion about the need for nurse practitioners has been going on in B.C. now for many years. Our government began two years ago to undertake the serious and collaborative work to make this new kind of health care position a reality in this province.

With the support of the Ministry of Advanced Education and what was then the Ministry of Health Planning, the universities of British Columbia and Victoria opened their doors to B.C.'s first nurse practitioner students in September of 2003. Both universities have 15 spaces available for nurse practitioner students in each year of the two-year program, for a total of 60 at any one time, so there's not a large group of these nurse practitioners at this point in time. In fact, there are only a very few who are practising now — I believe eight across the province. The University of Northern B.C. has recently added their own program for nurse practitioners. Their first class of 15 began in September of this year.

We're very proud of the commitment that each of our academic institutions has demonstrated in getting our nurse practitioners up and running in B.C. We're proud that B.C.'s first group of nurse practitioners graduated this past May. Many have already begun practising throughout the province. Our congratulations to them and to those who worked so hard to make this profession possible in B.C.

Over the past two years government has worked closely with the regulatory body for nurses, the nurse practitioner students, nurse educators, chief nursing officers and leaders from other disciplines such as medicine and pharmacy as well as senior staff of the health authorities. We're very pleased with the unparalleled level of cooperation and partnership between the ministry and the RNABC, now the college, on this work over the past two years. It has set the bar for working together at a very high level, one we also hope to achieve with other professions in the future.

Already, a number of our nurse practitioners have passed their written examination and the objective structured clinical examination. As you may be aware, in August of this year a new regulation governing registered nurses and nurse practitioners took effect. Out of that regulation came a number of notable changes. Let me discuss the two that are most relevant to Bill 15 and the reasons why we're moving forward with it.

On August 19 one of B.C.'s oldest and most well-respected professional associations, the Registered Nurses Association of B.C., or RNABC, was brought under the Health Professions Act. On that day the RNABC became the College of Registered Nurses of British Columbia and was given the authority to regulate the practice of nurse practitioners in addition to registered nurses. This was a historic event for the nursing community, and I want to take a moment to congratulate the college on its new status and role under the Health Professions Act.

We look forward to the nursing community's continued support for the college in its new role. I'd also like to thank the former RNABC for its many decades of dedicated services to nurses and the public.

Madam Speaker, I know you were very much involved in some of those early planning sessions around creating the College of Registered Nurses, and I should congratulate you, as well, on this important achievement.

August 19 marked the first time nurse practitioners were mentioned in our province's nursing legislation. In essence, the new regulation establishes the framework for setting the standards, limits and conditions that govern nurse practitioners. It also protects, for the first time, the title of nurse practitioner. Nurse practitioners are now regulated by the college, and they are expected to follow a set of standards, limits and conditions that the college has put in place.

As a complement to the regulation, the college has established a committee to set the standards, limits and conditions needed to ensure that nurse practitioners work within the bounds of their education, experience and competence. The committee includes nurses, doctors, pharmacists and both public and government representatives.

When you think about the kind of autonomy nurse practitioners will have in the context of the multidisciplinary nature of health care today, you will see how this makes sense. Nurse practitioners will treat patients whose medical ailments fall within the bounds of their education and knowledge, and they are held to rules that ensure that they meet the conditions of their employment and their licence.

The decision to keep nurse practitioners out of the nurses' bargaining unit under the Health Authorities Act is consistent with the approach to doctors, midwives and dentists in B.C. The structure of the nurses' agreement is not amenable to the pattern of practice of independent practitioners like doctors, dentists, nurse practitioners and midwives. Unlike the other categories of nurses, nurse practitioners are authorized to work autonomously and do not require delegation or supervision by a physician or any other provider, as they care for patients with the full ability to diagnose, treat, investigate and prescribe medications. However, we have deliberately left the nurse practitioners the choice to pursue their own association for discussions with employers or to pursue the creation of a new health sector bargaining unit under section 19.5 of the Health Authorities Act.

This amendment to the Health Authorities Act ensures that, like physicians, nurse practitioners can practise with the appropriate level of flexibility and autonomy that is critical to their ability to provide continuity of care for patients. We have made a policy decision to remove nurse practitioners from the nurses' bargaining unit based on their enhanced qualifications and responsibilities.

We recognize that not everyone will agree with this step, and some of the members opposite may not agree with this step. We certainly respect those differences of opinion. But we have considered this carefully — believe me, we have — and extensively, and we believe that the requirement for a high degree of independence and autonomy justifies this action. It is in the best interests of all British Columbians for us to allow nurse practitioners the opportunity to work with health authorities and the government to set the direction for their role in better patient care in the future.

I'd also like to turn now to the amendment around information-sharing under the Vital Statistics Act. This amendment allows cabinet to make an order authorizing the chief executive officer of the Vital Statistics Agency to enter an information-sharing agreement with a public body. For governments to measure the success of the policies and programs they implement, health policy researchers must have access to robust, reliable information. They need real B.C. data for the continuing measurement of B.C.'s population health status. Evidence-based decision-making relies on this kind of data access.

Currently, accessing data from vital statistics databases is challenging, as much of it is based on the personal health records of those receiving medical care in B.C. That personal, private information is rightly protected by the most rigorous privacy legislation in the country. This proposed amendment is about ensuring that our research institutions have the data they need, while at the same time ensuring that private and personal health information remains protected. It is also about providing public bodies that require information on births and deaths with the information they need to determine eligibility respecting benefits, privileges or other interests.

Through this agreement specific conditions will be set for an information-sharing agreement to be made between the CEO of the Vital Statistics Agency and a public body charged as a university research faculty or an organization charged with administering benefits or privileges for citizens. In many cases cabinet itself will be required to issue an order that identifies the agreement, the type of information to be disclosed and the purposes for which the disclosed information may be collected or used. Each agreement must identify the persons with access to the information, the circumstances in which the information may be disclosed and any limits on the disclosure of information by the CEO or anyone else with access.

Agreements ordered by cabinet can only be amended with the approval of cabinet. There are circumstances in which the agency will be authorized to enter into an information-sharing agreement without cabinet approval. One such circumstance would be if information being disclosed is limited to information on the registration of births or deaths. For instance, this might include an agreement to electronically verify birth certificates issued by the Vital Statistics Agency with organizations like drivers' licensing, the Employment Insurance Commission and Revenue Canada, regarding the child tax credit.

Another circumstance that would not require cabinet approval would be if the information is being disclosed to a government agency to verify information held by Vital Statistics and to determine entitlement to a benefit, privilege or other interests. Examples of that might be an agreement to provide information on a fact of death as to the identity information of decedent, driver's licensing, Canada Pension, social insurance number registry and the Ministry of Health client registry to flag fact of death, terminate benefits and protect deceased individuals from identity theft.

Any information-sharing agreement of this nature has to be authorized and signed both by the Vital Statistics Agency and the CEO of the agency receiving the data. The Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner has been informed of these amendments and is supportive of them in principle. Further to this, the Vital Statistics Agency has agreed to have the Privacy

Commissioner's office review all agreements required by the act before sign-off or submission to cabinet. I hope that speaks to the fact that we are placing the highest priority on protection of privacy through every step of these processes.

In those agreements that require cabinet ratification, we are dealing with requests to share information held by the Vital Statistics Agency with small groups of professional individuals who are bound by legal and professional obligation to guard that information. These amendments are necessary because the current regulation-making authority of the Vital Statistics Act does not adequately support large-scale information-sharing or provide adequate privacy protection.

B.C. is leading Canada in many areas of population health care research, but there's always room for improvement. B.C. Vital Statistics Agency collects and retains high-quality data from a range of personal, professional and institutional sources. For this reason, it makes sense to ensure that those working in population and health research can access information held by the Vital Statistics Agency. At this time, the agency wishes to provide information about vital events from its database to designated individuals at Simon Fraser University. This would enable the university to develop its database for the purposes of health population research and education.

Simon Fraser University is hoping to use this information, firstly, to identify environmental exposures that cause mortality; secondly, to identify genetic and inherited traits associated with mortality; thirdly, to monitor infant mortality and associated social conditions; fourthly, to identify low-incidence mortality and potential relationships in remote and rural settings where the population base may be too small to detect inconsistencies unless populations are pooled; and finally, to develop data-mining methodologies to detect patterns that are not apparent through the use of standard statistical methods.

The protection of privacy is the highest priority for government. In fact, B.C. has the strongest privacy laws in Canada. We believe there's good reason to limit access to the information the Vital Statistics Agency has in its database, but we recognize that long-term improvements to the health system may depend on our ability to provide vital statistics information to designated individuals. We recognize that all health practitioners have a personal and professional obligation to maintain the strict privacy required by the law and their own ethics boards, but we also believe that legislation is essential to ensure that any access to the Vital Statistics database remains under strict government control. This legislative amendment will allow information-sharing to take place under strict privacy protection protocols.

In conclusion, our teaching institutions already play an important role in health and population planning. We want to ensure that they have the information they need to provide us with the best information possible. If we can do that, we'll be able to plan and direct the health system in a way that will benefit British Columbians. Those who work in the health system can tell us much about the importance of credible, reliable and accessible health data. We need to arm our researchers, statisticians and students with the information they need to lead us in developing appropriate processes and responses in the health system.

Post-secondary institutions are proven leaders in health care research and innovation. Certainly, we are among the best and the leaders in the world at UBC, Simon Fraser, University of Victoria, UNBC and elsewhere in health care research and innovation. But they require access to the information that will allow them to better understand the health needs of our population, and this government's high standards of evidence-based decision-making require that our best minds and our best researchers have access to the best data available.

So those are my comments with respect to Bill 15. I look forward to hearing from members in this House with respect to their views on that important matter, and thank you for this opportunity.

D. Cubberley: It's a pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 15, Health Statutes Amendment Act, 2005. This bill, we understand, is seeking to amend two statutes: Health Authorities Act and Vital Statistics Act. The amendments to the Health Authorities Act deal with how the province will relate to a relatively new addition to our team of health care practitioners, nurse practitioners. We understand that there are currently only a few nurse practitioners in active practice in our health care system, but that there is a class graduating from the University of Victoria this spring which will bring the total number in the province to about 30 — a relatively modest beginning, but an important one.

We're enthusiastic supporters of the increased use of nurse practitioners as part of primary care teams. We think they will have a particularly positive effect in rural and remote communities that have difficulty recruiting physicians. We also think that they can play an important role in the reform of primary care, which was alluded to by the minister which, in turn, can help relieve some of the pressure on doctors and also on our emergency rooms at hospitals. We believe that nurse practitioners will have an important role to play on the prevention side of medicine and in the management of chronic illnesses and, basically, to improve patient quality of life.

The minister has acknowledged this important role that nurse practitioners can play, but we feel a degree of concern that he employs the uniqueness of their position to suggest a need for flexibility and concludes that they should not be part of the same bargaining system that nurses currently participate in. I believe he said that the structure of the Nurses Union is not amenable to independent practice and suggests that government has made a policy decision to move in that direction. The message seems a little bit contradictory, and there are concerns there. We will have further questions on this during the committee stage of debate.

On the one hand, the minister is saying that nurses should not be part of a bargaining unit because they require greater flexibility; but on the other hand, the minister has said that nurse practitioners should feel free to form their own association and that they can apply for collective bargaining rights and that they can be part of a union. We're also concerned about what kind of consultation on the matter had occurred with the nursing profession, in general, and nurse practitioners, in particular, prior to government making a policy decision. I note that the minister listed many people who were consulted, but that he didn't mention the Nurses Union in his list of those who he had been working with on the development of this.

The NU in British Columbia has played an important role in helping us to understand the importance of nurse practitioners, to advocate on behalf of the program, yet their input into the policy decision seems not only to have been ignored but not solicited. We will have more to say about these things in committee stage.

The second statute amended by Bill 15 is the Vital Statistics Act. We're supportive of the research efforts being undertaken by B.C.'s universities, obviously, and we would agree that they're among the best of their kind in the world, in particular, the research work being done by Simon Fraser University but also at other universities. We support assisting with the goal of furthering that research work, but we'll ask the minister during the committee stage of debate to provide a high level of comfort that patient privacy is indeed being respected. We're pleased to know that there will be a new protocol put in place. We will want to ensure that there is adequate protection for individuals and groups for privacy. Security of information through vital statistics is obviously an important issue. We will want to ensure that the protections are both explicit and adequate. We will look forward to having more to say at committee stage on the bill.

M. Polak: I rise today to be extremely supportive of what I see as a tremendous move toward further innovation within our health care system in British Columbia. We know that primary care is an area that we all struggle to meet the demands of in this province. One of the ongoing issues that we face is one that really has little to do with funding pressures and more to do with the number of people who are available, and that is the area of providing the people who would be offering and assisting with primary care. In that regard, I'm very pleased to see the advancement of nurse practitioners. I'm very pleased to see their inclusion in the multidisciplinary approach that we know is going to advance the health care, the primary care, of all British Columbians.

I have to say that I don't really share the concerns expressed by the member opposite with respect to the excluded nature of the employment of nurse practitioners. I think we see this kind of approach taken in many different fields in the public sector in British Columbia, where there's a recognition that different roles require different approaches in terms of negotiating their relationship with their employers. Certainly, when it comes to nurse practitioners, we're all well aware that they have a different degree of educational background and that they, also, will play a very different role within that sphere of primary care than a registered nurse, who would be part of the BCNU.

We do know that when it comes to the service we provide to British Columbians in our health care system, there are many reasons why nurse practitioners are better able to serve in some circumstances. I'm mindful of experiences that I've had in rural British Columbia with respect to working with other professionals when a doctor wasn't available. To have someone with the ability to diagnose common illnesses, order appropriate tests or, indeed, prescribe medication in lieu of a doctor's availability is going to be a tremendous assistance to our health care service and, certainly, to providing for primary care throughout British Columbia.

I also think we have to look at the way in which nurse practitioners will be viewing themselves. Obviously, this is an evolving field in British Columbia. It will take some time for those people who are working in the field to address the ways in which they want to relate to their employer, and it's important that they are afforded the capacity to determine that themselves.

There's nothing stopping them from deciding that they wish to form their own association and to utilize that to establish their own employment relationship. I think that's certainly a recognition of their independence and their role as professionals within the system. They should have the opportunity to make that determination themselves, and I think it aligns with their role in primary care in British Columbia.

We need to remember that if we were to try and equate the role of nurse practitioners within the system, we would be looking more toward the direction of physicians, midwives and dentists. When we picture it that way, it becomes very obvious that there is, indeed, a requirement that we exclude these professionals so that they can function within the sphere in which they are intended.

We also need to note that in encouraging the addition of nurse practitioners, more and more of them, into the system and encouraging young people to take up this career, there needs to be a look for them at what they see their role as in the future. We know that initially, there was some hesitancy, I suppose we would say, with respect to takeup of some of the training positions. It would probably be fair to say that that had some wrap-up with respect to their perception of what their role would be. I think this assists in clarifying that — that they will truly be operating as independent professionals. To have them as excluded staff in that regard reinforces that. They are independent professionals, and as such, they're going to provide so much to what we can offer for our patients in British Columbia.

Again, it's one of those areas where as you move forward, you have to do things in new ways. We very

frequently hear that we ought to keep things the same. I would argue that the position of the member opposite with respect to expressing concern around the nurse practitioners not being included in the BCNU bargaining unit is really just that argument masquerading as something else. I think it is just a push toward keeping things the same rather than taking a look at how our health care system is changing and how we need to change with it.

That's what this is a recognition of. We need to constantly be examining the service we provide, examining the ways in which we provide it, and we have to be willing to change. We have to be willing to adjust.

By allowing the nurse practitioners the opportunity to make their own determination in that regard, we allow those who are most familiar with their own roles, their own practices, to have a say in how that's going to look on the ground and in their relationship with their employers. I think that's extremely important. Very often governments have their own opinion about how things ought to be structured. Sometimes it works well; sometimes it doesn't work very well. When you involve those who are on the ground, when you involve those who are in the role in making that determination, I think that's when you make the best decisions.

Certainly, when it comes to the nurse practitioners, they are afforded that opportunity to grow and evolve with their roles and to make determinations around how their relationships with their employers might augment that and, in fact, be of benefit to them. That's another thing that we don't talk a lot about in British Columbia. In British Columbia, when we talk about unions and labour relations, unfortunately, we're often wrapped up in the arguments and the debates around what benefits each can gain from the other. Really, at their best, professional associations and unions are there to work together with employers to develop what can be not only the best circumstances for employees but also the best service for those that they are charged with delivering service to.

I think that's a role that the nurse practitioners will be able to fulfil very well, given their excluded nature. It means that as their role develops within the system, they are able to make their determination as to how they will work together with the employer, develop those roles and see that they fit in with the multidisciplinary approaches that are on the horizon as we innovate and move forward in providing quality health care to British Columbians.

It removes the uncertainty for nurse practitioners. They know that they're going to be true front-line, autonomous providers. They know that they're going to be independent professionals. I believe that's going to increase the takeup in terms of those who wish to see this as a career. It also means that it puts them into a professional relationship alongside those with whom they work, such as physicians, in a different manner than those who are part of the existing bargaining unit within the BCNU.

It's appropriate that you have these different groups of folks able to determine their own fate with respect to their employers, so I'm very supportive of this as an amendment. It's an appropriate aligning of where the nurse practitioners fit within the primary care team.

I think this is all leading toward improving and innovating in British Columbia's health care system. It will allow us, yet again, to add to our ability to provide the best possible health care for British Columbians. That's where we're on the road to, and I think this adds to it, so I speak in favour of the amendment and of having the nurse practitioners held as independent professionals in our system.

Hon. G. Abbott: I rise to close debate on Bill 15. I want to thank the member for Langley for her thoughtful comments, and I also want to thank the opposition Health critic, the member for Saanich South, for his thoughtful and measured comments as well.

I am particularly appreciative of both members acknowledging their support for nurse practitioners as they begin what is, hopefully, a new era in health care in B.C. with this very important addition of nurse practitioners. As both members have stated, this will be an increasingly important part of delivering health care in B.C., as more and more nurse practitioners are educated and become a part of our health culture in B.C.

I'm also respectful of the opposition Health critic's concerns with respect to the exclusion of nurse practitioners from the nurses' bargaining unit. I can assure the member that, and I know that — hopefully, I'll be able to convince him and his colleagues at committee stage — this actually is a sensible thing to do.

We appreciate that there are concerns around this, and again, I can assure all members of this House that a lot of thought went into this change before it was made.

Among the groups we consulted…. The question was asked by the opposition Health critic: did we consult with the B.C. Nurses Union? The answer is yes. I know that, because at one I point met with Debra McPherson, the president of the B.C. Nurses Union, about this. I can certainly confirm that she does not agree with this legislation and this exclusion from the nurses' bargaining unit, but I think we did have a reasonable discussion of it, and I know there's been a good deal of discussion between my staff and the Nurses Union about this as well. Again, I hope that in committee stage we can resolve some of the questions that have been raised by the hon. member, and I look forward to that being a productive process.

I am also appreciative of the comments of the members in respect of the changes to the Vital Statistics Act. I think every member in this House would share the concern that was raised by the opposition critic in respect of patient privacy protection. That is an abso-

lutely critical part of what we must do from a public policy perspective in this province, and I'm certainly looking forward to the member's questions and other members' thoughtful questions in this area of legislative change at committee stage.

With those comments, again thanking both members for the thoughtful comments, I move second reading of Bill 15.

Hon. G. Abbott: I move the bill be forwarded to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 15, Health Statutes 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.

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 16; S. Hawkins in the chair.

L. Krog: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Good morning. I wonder if I could have an explanation as to the purpose of this change as set out in section 1.

Hon. C. Taylor: The point is that we would like to use this electronic identifier for businesses so that with one number you can access various services within government. But when someone applies for the electronic identifier, it's really important that we assure ourselves of the legitimacy of the company.

Therefore, we would wish to access the business-hub number system that comes under Canada Revenue Agency, because it is the most complete listing of all businesses, limited partnerships and unincorporated organizations. It's the only one that really has all of these businesses in one place.

So what we're trying to do here…. Section 1 changes the definition for clarity; section 2 gives us the power to actually access it. Our intent is simply that when someone applies to us as a business, we verify that they are a business, and then we give them the electronic identifier, so they can do the one-stop business using that number.

L. Krog: Just for clarity, I'm assuming when the minister refers to business that what in fact we're talking about are incorporated entities as opposed to partnerships or proprietorships.

Hon. C. Taylor: In fact, it is all businesses, and it includes partnerships as well.

L. Krog: With respect to section 3: again, what's the purpose of that particular change?

Hon. J. Les: The purpose of this section is simply to streamline a process to facilitate by regulation, as opposed to by legislation, the inclusion of certain industries, trades and professions under the auspices of the consumer protection authority.

L. Krog: I'm wondering if this really is sort of a codification of a movement towards self-regulation within business, industries, trades, professions and occupations. Is that really the intent behind this?

Hon. J. Les: No, this is not an overt thrust towards more self-regulation. This facilitates regulation through and under the consumer protection authority, which has been established for that purpose.

L. Krog: It seems to me that what these sections are doing is taking away the scrutiny of the Legislature, if you will, in terms of allowing these additions now to be made simply by order-in-council so that, in fact, the government is not going to receive the benefit of debate in the House on these issues. Is that correct? Is my understanding correct?

Hon. J. Les: In response to the member opposite, I would say that this isn't a mechanism to avoid legislative scrutiny. Clearly, the framework of the act has already enjoyed full debate in the Legislature. I would suggest to the member that the mechanism that is provided with this amendment, in fact, enhances consumer protection because it will facilitate the inclusion of groups, trades, professions in a way that makes it happen more quickly, more easily. From that perspective, I think, consumer protection is indeed enhanced.

L. Krog: Which professions, occupations, trades led to this change? I assume that the government is contemplating some particular additions to this. I'm curious to know what those are.

Hon. J. Les: We have recently been approached by several industries. Two examples that I can cite for the member's benefit are the cosmetologists, who wanted to take advantage of this regulation. We've been persuaded, I think, that there's a case to be made for at least parts of that industry to be included in this regu-

lation. The manufactured home dealers have also expressed an interest in being included in this regulation.

L. Krog: With respect to the inclusion of the kinds of industries the minister has talked about, I'm curious to know the regulations that will be involved in regulating the additions to those that already exist. Will that be strictly through order-in-council, I presume? Or is that through any further legislative change?

Hon. J. Les: For the two examples that I've just cited, they can be included simply by OIC. There will be other occasions in the future where government will need to return to the Legislature to deal legislatively with other industries that might want to be included under this type of legislation. I would use the example of the payday loan industry, where if we're to effectively regulate that particular industry, we would need additional provisions in legislation to effectively deal with that industry.

That is, of course, a set of powers not currently granted to the provincial government. The federal government is apparently making some efforts to devolve those powers to the provinces, but it certainly does serve as an example of something that might come our way in the future — that would, in fact, need legislative action before it could be properly included under this legislative regime.

L. Krog: Obviously, the public has a certain expectation when associations, occupations, professions are regulated in the province. I'm just wondering what assurances the minister can provide this morning with respect to whether those regulations will be rigorous. How will those regulations be developed? For instance, if the cosmetologists are brought in, so to speak, and recognized — and, obviously, the public has a certain expectation about a cosmetologist having a licence granted by the province — how does the ministry expect to ensure that public safety is protected, that public interest is protected given, again, that those regulations will not be coming back before the Legislature?

Hon. J. Les: First of all, I'd point out to the member that in the development of all regulations, it's not customary for them to come to the Legislature in any event. But what is contemplated here, clearly, is a very extensive consultation process with the industry working towards the development of a regulatory scheme that protects the public and advances the interests of the industry generally. Obviously, that consultation would include people who are part of that industry but also any relevant educational institutions that service that industry and, broadly, a public consultation as well. So there is a lot of work to be done by any organization or any industry that seeks to be included. It is probably fair to say that they have work to do before we are ready to issue an OIC.

L. Krog: I may be reflecting a great depth of ignorance here this morning, but I'm sure the minister will illuminate me. With respect to the regulations involved — those would be regulations passed order-in-council — will, in fact, any of these groups that are potentially to be added to the list, so to speak, have powers of self-regulation akin to, say, the Law Society or College of Physicians and Surgeons — organizations or bodies of that nature?

Hon. J. Les: This amendment to the legislation does not create new self-regulatory powers.

L. Krog: Just for the sake of completeness with respect to this section of Bill 16, I'm presuming that the various sections that are repealed are simply housekeeping, if I can put it that way, and language bearing — that they have no particular impact. Is that fair to say?

L. Krog: To the Minister of Finance: with respect to these changes and the special resolution, was this requested by what I will call "the industry," or is this a government-driven change?

Hon. C. Taylor: I think you'll be happy to know it was brought to us by the industry. The problem they were trying to solve is that within the credit union system, there are some really big players and then a few big players and quite a few smaller players. To try to get a voting mechanism that ensured that everyone had a proper voice, this idea of double majority came forward where you both recognize that if you did a vote straight on members, then always the smaller players would win. If you did a vote on assets, always the bigger players would win. So this double-majority system allows you to have of your members majority plus one; of assets, two-thirds. And the two combined gives you a pretty good direction of what the credit union community would wish in terms of changing votes.

L. Krog: Again, I take from my reading of it that it is simply with respect to a central credit union, and I take it the "central credit union" term refers to B.C. Central Credit Union.

L. Krog: Can the minister explain the purpose of the change as set out in section 8?

Hon. M. de Jong: The best way I think I can convey this to the member is to anecdotally advise him of the circumstance that has arisen requiring the amendment. A lot of the payments government takes in now are done by a credit card, so the issue that has arisen is, insofar as those credit cards are part of international networks, data is stored as it relates.

When you make your payment with your credit card — with your MasterCard, your American Express card — that data becomes part of an international collection of information, some of it stored outside of Canada. Without the amendment here, our ability to continue to collect payment from citizens via credit card would be compromised insofar as that information does flow through an international network.

L. Krog: If I'm correct in understanding the minister, I take it to mean that the government would, in fact, be breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act if the practice continued without this legislative change. Is that fair?

Hon. M. de Jong: I think it is. I think the statement is correct. We're at a point now where it's time to ensure that these agreements with banks, financial institutions, that facilitate the collection of these funds are having to be finalized. Without the amendment — the protection that is otherwise afforded to citizens regarding their personal information not being sent outside of the country, outside of the jurisdiction — we wouldn't be able to sign those agreements.

L. Krog: I wonder if the minister could explain to the House what agreements he's talking about so that I can be clear in terms of my question and understanding of this. Right now I go in, and I pay for my licence with a credit card. Obviously, that flows through my bank and to some international collection body. Obviously, that gives access to personal information about me. So what the government is asking for in the terms of this legislative change is, essentially, permission to participate in that system.

Is it also, then, asking for — how shall I say? — permission to sign agreements that the minister has mentioned in his previous answer? If so, what agreements, in particular, are you referring to, and can you explain to the House?

Hon. M. de Jong: I apologize for the lack of clarity. The specific agreements are the agreements government would sign with lending institutions that process the credit card payments. I think everything the member has said summarizing the purpose and the issue that gives rise to the need for the legislative change is correct.

L. Krog: Again, I wonder if the minister could explain to the House: how do the changes contemplated in this section relate to the changes made in 2004 to ensure that public bodies store and access personal information only in Canada?

Hon. M. de Jong: Well, in a sense, it's an exception to that, and that's the short answer, insofar as by utilizing the credit card form of payment, the section contemplates that some of that information flows beyond our borders.

L. Krog: What sort of information would in fact be flowing, then, and would it provide access to any other information in the control or under the jurisdiction of the government? What information is contemplated that would be available that wouldn't otherwise have been available?

Hon. M. de Jong: Essentially, everything that's part of your credit card transaction — your credit card number, the amount of the transaction and all of that information that comprises the transaction. If you choose to utilize your credit card to make the payment, that information, then, is exigible.

L. Krog: My question to the minister is if he could explain to the House what the purpose of section 9 is.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, maybe the best way for me to try this is anecdotally, at least to describe the problem that has arisen that gives rise to the need for the amendment.

There is information that is available, that is public in British Columbia, and there is information that is not, and there are rules around what information can be transferred beyond our borders and disclosed beyond our borders. Situations have arisen, however, where the protections that are available, the legitimate protections that are available to British Columbians, have…. There has been something of a conflict develop.

An example I can think of is a situation in which information that is public in British Columbia and, in fact, appeared on a website in British Columbia, where an individual or an agency — I can't remember which — made the argument that even though that information is public in B.C., the fact that it appeared on a website and was therefore accessible from outside of British Columbia is a violation of the protections afforded under the act.

The advice government has received is that under the present legislative regime, that may, in fact, be the case. So the essence of what is being proposed here is

that if information can lawfully be made public in British Columbia, it is not a violation of the act for that information to be accessed from outside of British Columbia.

L. Krog: Does this mean that personal information of British Columbians can be stored and accessed outside of Canada under the laws of another country without that British Columbia citizen's consent?

Hon. M. de Jong: If I understand the member's question correctly, the answer is no. It merely covers a situation in which information is already publicly available, and it eliminates the possibility that accessing that otherwise publicly available information would be a violation of the act.

Hon. M. de Jong: With my friend's indulgence, I'm going to suggest that we stand down sections 12, 13 and 14…

L. Krog: I'm wondering if the minister can explain the purpose of the change as set out.

Hon. P. Bell: There are two objectives behind these changes. The first one is to move from the concept of deferred indefeasibility to immediate indefeasibility. The protection here is intended to ensure that an innocent purchaser is protected in the event of a void document or void instrument trying to be registered. It has been the policy of government in the past to do this. However, since we are now at a land title authority, it's important that we give the authority the ability to protect a purchaser who unknowingly purchases a property that is identified with a void instrument.

L. Krog: The basic tenet of the Torrens system was that a purchaser contaminated with fraud wouldn't acquire indefeasible title and that you could always bring on an action to set aside that conveyance or to seek damages or whatever the case may be. I'm wondering: does this change, in fact, eliminate that basic right as it exists now?

Hon. P. Bell: In fact, this grants a greater level of protection, and I'll try and be clearer in my response this time. It has always been government policy, under this government and every other government, to protect purchasers in the event of a fraudulent instrument. Because land title operations now fall under an authority, they do not have the ability to develop policy or to structure policy, so it's important that we give them the legislative instrument that protects a purchaser who is presented with a void instrument. It strengthens the protection, in fact, of the purchaser and ensures that the policy that has always been in place amongst government is adopted under the authority model.

There is a second component to this overall bill, as well, and I'm happy to talk about that once we get through the initial part.

L. Krog: Would this section give legal immunity to registered owners who didn't acquire their title in good faith in any way? Would it have that impact?

L. Krog: As I understand it, this bill is to provide added protection to bona fide purchasers for value. That appears to be the intent. By protecting their title even if it was based upon the registration of a void instrument, is that in fact the impact?

Hon. P. Bell: That is correct, and it allows for compensation in the event that a void instrument is presented and you're not able to track down the person who perpetrated the act. So it protects the consumer.

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, the effect of this would appear to be at the expense of earlier titleholders who may have been defrauded of their title. In other words, we've moved perhaps one or two steps down the chain. We have purchaser C now who purchased in good faith, honestly, from purchaser B. Purchaser B, in fact, obtained title fraudulently or without bona fides. Does that mean that purchaser A — if you will, the original owner — who somehow got defrauded into getting it to B, will now have no recourse against C? I've tried to explain that as well as I possibly could, and the minister in his wisdom seems to understand.

Hon. P. Bell: The vendor gets the compensation in that event. The purchaser gets the land in that event.

L. Krog: In terms of the compensation, and I don't want to jump ahead, but as I…. Do I understand that there will be some form of fund to pay that compensation, or is the minister simply referring to the issue of damages sought in a court?

L. Krog: These sections in total seem to increase the potential liability of the assurance fund. Is that in fact correct?

Hon. P. Bell: I should highlight that we're actually now moving into a section that does something a little bit different than our initial discussions. This allows for compensation principals to the assurance fund in the event of a partial error on the part of the system and a partial error on the part of a purchaser. Previously if the purchaser made any error, there was an inability to apply to the assurance fund for any compensation whatsoever. Where there is a shared responsibility for the error that takes place — those are actually the sections that we're now moving to here. It's a bit of a different proposal.

To answer the member's question, the experience that has been had is that this will impact relatively few individuals and should not have any significant impact on the assurance fund. But it is important that we protect the few that would not be protected if we don't pass these parts of the bill.

L. Krog: If I understand it, the government is proposing these changes because it will enhance consumer protection, if you will, as opposed to detracting from it.

L. Krog: And finally on this section, due to the changes that are being made, individuals now who are defrauded and wouldn't have any right to sue the titleholder will now, in fact, have access to the assurance funds. Is that correct?

L. Krog: My question is to the Attorney General on this. Again, if he could simply explain the purpose of this particular change.

Hon. W. Oppal: The purpose here is to ensure that lawyers who are operating in a limited liability partnership are responsible for only their own negligence, as opposed to the negligent acts of a partner. That's the purpose of the legislation.

The current wording is somewhat vague. As the member well knows, the Partnership Act was amended in 2004, and there are some ambiguities in that act. The way the legislation presently stands, it could be interpreted to mean that a partner in a limited partnership would be liable for the negligent act of another partner.

Hon. M. de Jong: Again, that is the section that we have asked and the member has kindly consented to stand down.

L. Krog: I hope I'm not detracting from the great business of government by these questions this morning, but a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum: what is the purpose of this particular change?

Hon. R. Neufeld: This is a process of allowing the Oil and Gas Commission, which regulates the oil and gas industry across the province, to start a fund within the Oil and Gas Commission that actually is made up of revenues from the industry to rehabilitate orphan sites across the province.

An orphan site is a site that has been left by industry — some of them are very old; some of them are relatively new — where maybe a company has gone bankrupt or something to that extent and has left the province with the expense of fixing the well and doing the things that should be done to it to actually abandon it. Also, in numbers of cases when it's on private land or private agricultural land, farmers or ranchers are out the lease fees that they should have received. This fund will reimburse them for those lease fees and will also actually restore the land to its original condition so that the agricultural industry can use it again.

I think there are 36 sites across the province that we know of. In actual fact, about 17,000 wells have been drilled in British Columbia since drilling for oil and gas started in the early '50s. So we're actually in pretty good shape. We're on the edge, where we're catching it before it gets out of hand. If you look at the neighbours east of us, they'll drill between 15,000 and 20,000. In fact, this year 20,000 wells are anticipated. They have an awful lot of wells that are abandoned and left.

We don't want to get into that position, so it was my intent to actually have this done before now. But because we've had a busy calendar in the first four years of government, I've not been able to do it. This is actually a good-news story for the province as far as the environment goes, as far as landowners go and as far as the people of British Columbia go — to have industry pay for cleaning up these sites.

L. Krog: My question again to the minister: can the minister advise the House of what sort of moneys we're talking with respect to this fund versus the potential costs of remediation that will flow from the 36 wells that I believe he mentioned?

Hon. R. Neufeld: Last year, actually, government put forward about $1.6 million to permanently reclaim 12 wells that were on private agricultural land, because we needed to get on with doing it. We're doing nine of those as we speak. The other three are winter access only, so that means we can't get to them until probably after Christmas. We should be well in budget for that. The fund will set up a continual fund of $1 million and will be replenished as needed as we move forward.

To look at some of the other wells across the province — the other 24 — I don't believe we have a number in mind, although the ministry will have some ballpark figures. They won't have the exact figures, because some of it we won't know until we enter the wells and find out what has been done and what hasn't been done. Regardless, those other 24 will be covered by that fund. As I said, it's $1 million. As we need to replenish it, we will replenish to make sure we keep a minimum million dollars.

Industry is pleased with this process. They're happy that it's taking place, because it does deal with some of the industry players that may have left the province and the taxpayers of British Columbia high and dry.

L. Krog: In some of my questions I have perhaps jumped a little ahead of myself, and I appreciate the minister's full response in this regard.

With respect to the funds that will be generated as a result of this change, the minister has indicated that there will be at least $1 million in this fund. I'm wondering: is it the intention that surplus funds will simply go into general revenue?

Hon. R. Neufeld: No. The Oil and Gas Commission is a self-funding process — I think the member knows that — through fees charged to the oil and gas industry. The million-dollar fund will stay with the Oil and Gas Commission for them to administer in a manner that they deem is best to make sure that the wells are cleaned up. None of that money comes to general revenue, although all the money is reported in general revenue for the Oil and Gas Commission. It's a transfer in and a transfer back to the Oil and Gas Commission.

L. Krog: With respect, I note that it requires an application by a landowner. Is it intended that that ability to apply will be available only to an owner who owned the land at the time the site was actually worked on? Is it intended to apply to a current owner or any subsequent owners? In other words, if I purchase a piece of property and it has a well on it — I know it has a well on it; I know it's a problem — will I be entitled to compensation under the terms of this proposal?

L. Krog: Just so I'm clear, what it means is that a purchaser can negotiate a favourable price on a piece of property because of the well on it and then can turn around to the province and get compensation from the Oil and Gas Commission to restore the land to what would be full and fair market value. It seems to me that's the effect of the section the minister has referred to in his answer. I just want to know: is my understanding correct then?

Hon. R. Neufeld: As I said earlier, it is the current owner. So if you look at that — a person like you said yourself…. You own a piece of land, and you're going to sell it. There is an orphaned site on it. You know it, and actually, the potential purchaser will know that because it's registered — okay? So they will know that. The current owner will receive compensation up until the time that another owner happens to take over that lease and that piece of property.

L. Krog: My question is to the Minister of Finance on this. If she could simply explain to the House again the purpose of this particular section.

Hon. C. Taylor: When the amendments were made to the Partnership Act in 2004 to set up these limited liability partnerships, a mistake was made. Section 30 corrects the mistake. The mistake was that it seemed to exempt the partnership from the responsibility for wrongdoing of the members. This puts it right back, clearly saying that the partnership is liable for any wrongdoing of its partners. So it's correcting a mistake.

L. Krog: Section 33 adds the San Juan River Estuary Ecological Reserve. I'm just wondering if the minister can explain to the House what the effect is of moving it from schedule B to schedule A.

Hon. M. de Jong: There is undoubtedly a succinct and accurate answer available to that question, and momentarily the minister who is in a position to offer it will, I'm sure, run breathlessly into the chamber, knowing that the question does require that…

In the meantime, it's a good opportunity, Madam Chair, to talk about our great parks system in British Columbia. I'm obliged to the member for saving me a rhetorical flourish.

L. Krog: My question is to the Minister of Environment. What is the effect of moving the San Juan River Estuary Ecological Reserve from schedule B to schedule A?

Hon. B. Penner: The practical effect is adding 111.5 hectares to the ecological reserve and providing a mapped boundary, which had not existed previously.

L. Krog: I take it, then, in fairness, that this amounts to an enhancement of the protection of these particular areas?

Hon. B. Penner: Yes, this will provide more protection to a greater area of land. It will now be a total of 191 hectares that are included in the ecological reserve.

G. Robertson: I'm just seeking clarification on whether this is in fact removing some of the park area for another purpose.

G. Robertson: I will try again on that. Can the minister qualify whether there is foreshore being removed from Broughton Archipelago Park for other purposes?

Hon. B. Penner: This statement is being removed because it is redundant with the official plan for the park. It's no longer necessary.

G. Robertson: Is there any material change in the size of that park affected by this change?

Hon. B. Penner: There is no change in the number of hectares that are protected in that park.

M. Sather: On subsection (i), the Omineca Park, striking out "and (5)," which is a 30-metre road right-of-way, and substituting "…Placer Claim 'Bill 10….'" What is the effect of that in terms of the size of the park? What is the size of that placer claim Bill 10?

Hon. B. Penner: This park is 132,296 hectares in size, so it's quite considerable in size. This change does not result in any change in the number of hectares in the park. There's apparently an inadvertent error that was made in the description in 2004, and this amendment seeks to clarify or correct that error.

M. Sather: Could the minister tell us just very briefly, noting the time: what is the effect of these mining claims in parks? What is the general policy? Let's be specific to Omineca Park. Mining is allowed in this park, I understand. Mine claims are taken out of the park, the way I'm seeing it, if need be. Is that correct?

Hon. B. Penner: I'll just answer this question. In class-A provincial parks, there is no mining. Omineca Park is a class-A provincial park, and there is no mining in Omineca Park.

L. Krog: I have a number of questions to ask on section 35. Noting the hour, I would move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

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

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

Hon. M. de Jong: Just following what I said in Committee B in the House a moment ago, it appears from the Hansard record that the actual vote with re-

spect to Vote 40 for the Ministry of Transportation, ministry operations wasn't actually conducted in the correct way, so with the agreement of the Opposition House Leader, I wonder if we might put Vote 40 in a formal way to the committee.

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

G. Robertson: I would like to start off this morning's questions addressing international students in B.C. I have several questions starting with a question on the state of the request for an amendment to the University Act that would allow the international students to be able to run for and sit on the boards of governors of their institutions. Could I have an update on the state of that?

Hon. M. Coell: It's something we're aware of. We have no problem making that change. It would be something we would look at in legislation, possibly in the spring or in the future.

G. Robertson: Can I take the minister's word that this will be done before March 2006 so that the international students who are running for student spots on their university boards know that this is a possibility in 2006?

Hon. M. Coell: I can say to the member that it's something we're aware of and that we would like to see changed. We'll work to that end.

G. Robertson: I'm a little concerned, and international students are concerned. This has been several years in the works. We've had nodding of heads for several years on this, but it has been dragging on. International students have certainly voiced their concerns to me as the critic on this subject, so I will continue to press for international students to have that ability to run for the boards of governors in their institutions.

One other question regarding international students: what is the B.C. government doing regarding passing the needed legislation and signing an agreement with the federal government that will enable international students in B.C. to be able to work off-campus as in other provinces such as Manitoba and New Brunswick?

Hon. M. Coell: We have actually entered into an agreement with the federal government to do just that. We're working through the processes, and it doesn't require legislation. It's just an agreement.

G. Robertson: Thank you for that response. I'm going to hand this over to the member for Cariboo North for some follow-up questions.

B. Simpson: I'm just wondering if the minister could fill me in on questions that I had last night that he had committed to answer today.

Hon. M. Coell: I think I can do that. There were a number of questions that the member had asked.

The maintenance budget for the building. I wasn't sure whether it had the ability to take on janitorial staff. My staff have let me know that the college's current collective agreement stipulates that all new campus facilities must be maintained by unionized college personnel, and the college's current budget includes a funding contribution towards the cost of that ongoing maintenance. So that should be fine once the buildings are complete and the maintenance begins.

The geothermal heating system is a pilot project that we spoke about. The college has received some funding in its base budget for the operation and maintenance of the building systems. This would include the geothermal system, once it's up and running.

The comments re the heating ducts and the exposed grids. The work to complete that is underway. The college has advised that it will be completed by December and that the undertaking of this type of work at the last minute is part of the major capital project funding. So that should be in place.

I think we talked about…. There was a librarian's office and engineering and a concrete pillar that were all of some issue. The college explains that many of the various last-minute minor issues that arise from these capital projects are near completion. We have been assured by the college that all of these can be and will be addressed before the startup of the new campus. So it looks like they're on top of many of the issues that we talked about.

There was one other — the cafeteria. The space was there, but the cafeteria wasn't developed at this point. The college committed at the start of the project to self-finance the purchase and installation of cafeteria equipment through community fundraising. That was the idea. They would create the space, and then they would go out and do the fundraising for that activity. They still say they're committed to doing that at this point.

I think that covers the questions, but if there are any more, I'd be more than willing to get some answers for the member.

One of the questions around the cafeteria, however, is whether or not the collective agreement becomes the issue there. There was a sense that they could go out

and maybe do it through community involvement, but because the campus is under collective agreement, it would require individuals within the union to staff it, and that then becomes a problem. Is there an opportunity for the community to have something in there that is either private enterprise or a volunteer group that uses it for fundraising?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a number of options for the college. They would, however, have to work with the union that is representing the college workers at this point. We would offer them suggestions on what other campuses have done with cafeterias and work with them if asked.

G. Robertson: A couple more questions on regional college campuses, specifically relating to aboriginal programs. I have a question related to the Secwepemc Cultural Education Society in Kamloops, which is now a satellite campus at SFU. I'm curious what funding has been made available by the ministry to this institution as it grows?

Hon. M. Coell: I wonder if the member could clarify. Is it SFU or Thompson Rivers University in Kamloops that he's asking about?

G. Robertson: It is SFU, I believe, that has taken on stewardship working with and operating that program in Kamloops.

Hon. M. Coell: Simon Fraser may have a partnership that we're not aware of. Quite a few of our institutions do have partnerships with different bands throughout the province to give on-site training. They would have access to the special projects fund, which we talked about last night, that has the $1.8 million in it. I could check with SFU for the member, if he wishes, and see how long that program has been going and how it's being funded.

G. Robertson: I would be interested in hearing more detail on that. I've had concerns voiced to me about facilities, portables that are requiring upgrades. Given the significant amount of capital investment in new buildings and infrastructure, it would be good to know whether some of that is going into this campus or program specifically.

The second question is related to the Institute of Indigenous Government–All Nations Institute and whether there has been capital funding included in the infrastructure — $800 million for that institute?

Hon. M. Coell: The Institute of Indigenous Government is in the Open Learning building in Burnaby, and I recently met with them. We're going to do some renovations. Actually, there are some under construction right now, giving them more classroom and administration space and some common place for study. We have been reviewing them to see whether there is any potential partner with some of the other universities or colleges. They're up and running, and the students are there this semester as well.

G. Robertson: The All Nations Institute. I actually met some students in my riding in Vancouver who have been taking courses at the All Nations Institute. Our concern now is that the campus has been shifted out to Burnaby to the Open Learning campus there, to the building there. Is the ministry looking at continuing to provide facilities or funding for facilities in Vancouver, where most of these students now live?

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the problems is that the space they were inhabiting was rented and not as good a quality as the Open Learning space that they will have now. With the renovations it actually gives them a lot better…. It's a smaller campus, but it's a lot better. It's ten minutes from SkyTrain and is on bus routes, but it is more out of downtown Vancouver. The member is quite correct.

G. Robertson: I think the concern with students I talked to was that it's a two-zone bus trip. It's a significant jump from being able to be right in downtown and attend school and may be a disincentive for a number of those aboriginal students.

Can the minister describe any other specific recruitment projects related to aboriginal students and attracting them into post-secondary beyond the $1.8 million in special project funding? Are there other programs or funding associated with encouraging aboriginal students to pursue post-secondary?

Hon. M. Coell: I think one of the successes of the post-secondary programs for aboriginal people is that each of our institutions has a coordinator that coordinates either the development of programs or the ability to make the campus friendly for aboriginal learners. Each one of our campuses has those programs. There is everything from friendship and welcoming centres on most campuses to programs that are funded through the base funding.

We also have a memorandum of understanding with the federal government on funds for post-secondary education, because it is both a federally and provincially mandated interest. Of course, what we were talking about was the special projects fund from which each of the institutions can get some funds to add to additional programs as they see fit in their different areas.

G. Robertson: I was made aware of a program starting up at UVic called LE,NONET — working with aboriginal students to encourage them and support them by a number of means. This is being sponsored primarily by the Millennium Scholarship Foundation with federal dollars. Has the provincial government

Hon. M. Coell: I met with the CEO, Norman Riddell, last week about this program, and it is specifically federal funds. We'll be watching the program with some interest, with UVic and the federal government. But it is a federal program.

G. Robertson: Shifting to slightly different questions related to Thompson Rivers University and a question on the status change from university college to university. I understand that to date there has been no change in the funding formula, the core funding for the institution. However, given that they are shifting to a university and the demands that inevitably face universities for funding, is there a provision in the funding going forward to TRU to increase that, considering its university status?

Hon. M. Coell: The startup funding for the change. They were allowed $5.1 million. The Open Learning Agency also received funding for 2,200 FTEs in the transfer from the Open Learning Agency to the Thompson Rivers University. Thompson Rivers is expected to grow by about 800 full-time-equivalent students and will receive an additional $5.5 million in funding to accommodate that growth.

G. Robertson: In terms of ongoing core funding to the institution. Is their formula going to change to that of a university in terms of the funding support?

Hon. M. Coell: In the negotiations with the Thompson Rivers University, they felt that they could maintain with the additional funds that I just mentioned. The $5.5 million in growth would be sufficient and then the startup of $5.1 million and also the transfer of the FTE spaces from the Open Learning Agency. I think they're happy with the funding formula they've got now with the startup fees.

G. Robertson: It's good to hear that's the case now. I will be curious to see how that develops and whether the pressure to request more operating funding as a university increases.

Similar question, I guess, related to the other university colleges or institutes who are pursuing…. I know the member for Surrey-Whalley asked some questions related to Kwantlen specifically. I have heard rumblings from Emily Carr Institute and University College of the Fraser Valley, among others.

The status — you mentioned that there is work being done to look at this. Does that apply to all the university colleges, colleges and institutes that are pursuing the university status at this point? Or is it specific to Kwantlen at the moment?

Hon. M. Coell: I've spoken to most of the board chairs and the presidents with regard to Emily Carr and the other three university colleges. In the throne speech in the spring we basically made it fairly plain that we weren't opposed to changes. But they would have to have a business and an academic case to make those changes. I think some of them are doing that.

The last time I met with the presidents and the board chairs, I suggested that they look at 18 months, four years, eight years and that this wasn't a process that would happen overnight, but we would be looking to see what business case they could make as a university college and what academic case they would also make — how it would benefit students.

One of the things I've stressed is that in any changes we wanted to protect the college system and the courses given through the college system. I understand the sort of desire to reach a greater potential for every institution, and each one of those has different attributes that could do that. We're going to work with them to try and develop the best possible outcome for students.

G. Robertson: A question related to the business case is: are they all going to require university-level operating grant support from the ministry? Is the ministry expecting that these changes, as they have to date with Thompson Rivers, will be able to somehow maintain the university college– or even Emily Carr Institute–level operating grants? Within their business case are they putting forward that they will need increases to their operating grants?

Hon. M. Coell: That is very a good question, because we're watching Thompson Rivers, as the member asked, just to see what the pressures are in becoming a university. The pressure is in the academic plan as well as the business capital plan. I think that would be a significant matter for consideration as the requests to become a university came forward from the other three and Emily Carr.

I'm convinced that when they're doing the academic case — which is, I think, the most important — and the business case, they may do and suggest changes to their operations. But the bottom line is that we want to see changes that improve the quality of education for students.

G. Robertson: I have one question here related to the Open Learning Agency and the status of the move to Thompson Rivers and the enrolment figures — if the minister could give an update on that?

Hon. M. Coell: The Open Learning Agency. Actually, I was up in Kamloops not too long ago, and they're moving dirt around and putting the foundations in for the building. That building should be completed for them no later than March of '07. Then the move from Burnaby will take place.

In talking to Thompson Rivers University, they're quite anxious to have them there so they can start to

grow the users of the Open Learning Agency. It's been pretty flat for the last few years, and I think that may have something to do with the change and the move to Kamloops. So we're anxious to get that building completed and for that move to take place.

G. Robertson: Can the minister give some detail on the total costs involved in making that move into Thompson Rivers?

Hon. M. Coell: If the member could give us a few minutes and maybe go on with the question, I'll find that answer for him. It's buried in a pile of paper here.

G. Robertson: While we're waiting, I'll hand the mike over to the member for Surrey-Newton for a few questions.

H. Bains: A couple of questions on Kwantlen. There's a discussion going on right now to move from a college to a university designation in Kwantlen. They're moving very fast actually. A couple of concerns that come out of the community and from different people are on the trades campus that is being built in Cloverdale. Is there direction from the ministry to the college, or to the university that could be, to continue to have the trades campus as part of the college or university — whichever the case may be — in the future?

Hon. M. Coell: Absolutely, it would be the ministry's position. I touched on it briefly prior. One of our concerns with any of the university colleges moving to full university status is that the college portion of what they're delivering, which we believe is very important, would take a back seat. We want to make sure that if there are any changes, the trades and the college courses stay a high priority.

H. Bains: Has the ministry asked for any specific safeguards to ensure those two concerns that the minister has laid out?

Hon. M. Coell: Other than when I spoke to the board chairs and the presidents, making that point…. If they were going to bring forward a business case and an academic case for a change in status, we would be very concerned that the college portion remain strong or was even enhanced in some way.

H. Bains: The other part that is a concern out there is the consultation process. Is there a direction from the ministry to the college principal and the board on what kind of consultation? Whether it's with the community, faculty, students or other stakeholders, is there a requirement by the ministry for the college to go through a consultation process?

Hon. M. Coell: There isn't any direction from the ministry, but it's certainly something I would expect when they brought a case forward — that there would be a consultation part of that, developing the business and academic case. The University College of the Fraser Valley is having quite a discussion in the media about their desires. If we were going to consider anything, there would need to be a community consultation process involved in that.

H. Bains: Faculty being one of the key components of delivering education services out of any college or university, can the minister assure that consultation with faculty takes place? As late as last week some discussions were held with the faculty and their representatives. They're telling people who care to listen that there has been no or very little consultation with the faculty. What can the minister do to ensure that those consultations take place immediately and that they are required in order for us to move ahead?

Hon. M. Coell: I think the member makes a good point. I think any business case that would come forward for a change would have a consultation process that would include students, faculty, the business community and the community at large. I will be asking the faculty associations as well as the CFS to be part of my minister's advisory council to trigger that that's the sort of communication we want to see.

H. Bains: Just one last time. If the ministry can take a lead to make sure that consultation takes place and that it takes place in a timely fashion so that people involved in delivery of the education system are involved in the planning stage right through until the end decision…. As I said, there hasn't been consultation according to the faculty and their representatives. Can the minister assure that some directive may go from the ministry to the college so that if they haven't done that consultation, they engage those stakeholders as soon as possible?

Hon. M. Coell: There are a couple of issues. One of the things is that this is a longer-term process. I don't think there are going to be any decisions next week or next month. As I said to the institutions, look at 18 months, four years or eight years. I think there would be a whole difference in the planning concept that would come after the application by the institution. I would think there would be community consultation and internal discussions at both phases.

So I don't see there being a need to preclude discussions with faculty or students in the phase over the next 18 months or four years. But after that I would expect — and I believe this is the case — that most of our institutions have that ongoing dialogue for changes, either through the board of governors or the senate or the different advisory committees that are set up within each institution.

H. Bains: The consultation process is underway. They have met with the local MLAs. They have met with the community leaders as they call it, but one part

of it that is missing — which I think could have been and should have been right from the beginning — is the faculty association and faculty.

My question is: can we send some directive that yes, all those consultations and local MLAs and the community leaders are important, but so is a meeting with faculty and students? That has been lacking, and they are concerned about it. If some directive could go from here to the college, they could start engaging them right away.

Hon. M. Coell: Yes, I will. I view what's going on now as some lobbying rather than planning. That may grow into planning, but I think what the institutions are trying to do is gauge what kind of public support they have from their elected officials, be it mayors and councillors or MLAs and MPs. I think they need to be talking to students, and they need to be talking to faculty as well.

G. Robertson: I have a series of questions on faculty, as well, starting with a question related to the post-secondary employer council that was created February 2004 through an order-in-council and that is now involved in the bargaining between post-secondary educators and the ministry or the government. Can the minister give some summary of why the government established this post-secondary employer council?

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, the question — and I'll try and answer it the best I can — is probably best put to the Minister of Finance because PSEC reports to the Minister of Finance. The Post-Secondary Employers Association was created some time ago but just officially became the bargaining agent for college and university college institutional employers last year, I believe.

G. Robertson: So the council has been established. What I understand, though, is that not all of the employers participated in the accredited association and that some of the institutions have participated directly in bargaining with the association and many have not. So I'm curious as to why this is a voluntary participation council. And what is resulting from that?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, this is Finance's legislation, and I'll do the best I can to answer. They're all required by legislation to be part of the outcome. The employers decided to have a common table that would be a voluntary table, but at the end of the day each one of the decisions has to be ratified by every one of the institutions.

G. Robertson: Thank you for that clarification. I'm curious: is the government not able to ensure that all of the employers participate in the association? Is it not legally entitled to make that mandatory participation, or is it more an option and the government has chosen to make it voluntary?

Hon. M. Coell: I have met with Cindy Oliver of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators and talked about this issue. I think that being that the change was a year ago, the employers wanted to have a volunteer table or common table, and that's moving ahead. I think one of the aspects is that many of our institutions feel they're unique. There is a common grid for all of them that they have to sign on to, but there is flexibility for different parts of the province.

I'm getting into an area that I'm really not all that knowledgable about, because it's another ministry. So I'm probably not able to answer the member's question as best I could, and he could go to the Minister of Finance and Finance estimates debates.

G. Robertson: Sounds like it might be advisable to bring this to the Minister of Finance's attention for more specifics. The way I understand it, there is a great intention in having all the employers on some sort of grid and being able to have a central bargaining structure and to benefit from lower benefit premiums, common carriers and less third-party mediation. But it sounds at this point like the bargaining has broken down. I know from my own riding, in Vancouver-Fairview at Emily Carr with the faculty there, there are significant issues and job action being considered. Is the ministry involved at all in addressing the looming crisis with faculty in institutions like Emily Carr?

Hon. M. Coell: A number of issues. Actually, I have visited Emily Carr recently and had a tour of all of the facilities and saw some of the issues that faculty is concerned about on that campus. We're working with PSEC. I know the government will probably, in the near future, come out with its mandate for negotiations, but what we do as a ministry is look at some of the issues that are important to our institutional partners — the colleges, university colleges and universities — and bring them forward at that time as well.

G. Robertson: Has the ministry itself been involved in trying to find solutions to the breakdown in bargaining with these different institutions?

Hon. M. Coell: Again, we work with PSEC. As a ministry, we try and address any of the policy issues at that table, but the province has to bring forward its mandate for bargaining, which it hasn't done yet. But I don't believe there has been any breakdown in negotiations. Those negotiations are going to start in the spring.

G. Robertson: It is my understanding from faculty I have met that there have been significant challenges on the bargaining to date. At some stage over this past year, I believe Vince Ready has actually been involved.

Can the minister clarify what Vince Ready's involvement in the bargaining with PSEC has been?

Hon. M. Coell: We have information on the past mandate — the zero-zero-and-zero mandate. I think what the member is looking at is what's going forward. We have 18 of the colleges, universities and university colleges that have settled. There are four that are still negotiating and three that are not negotiating at this point. Most of those in the next couple of years, again, will be up for renegotiation, and that would be dealing with the province's new mandate.

But I think I'm dealing again in an area that is another minister's responsibility, so I would recommend that the member take the issue to the Minister of Finance. I'm sure she'd be pleased to discuss it.

G. Robertson: A more general question related to faculty would be how the ministry is working to attract and retain the best possible faculty to British Columbia, given that there has been a faculty wage freeze for several years now. What is the ministry doing to attract and retain the best faculty?

Hon. M. Coell: Just a number of observations. We haven't seen a shortage of college faculty; we have seen a potential at the university level in some of our research. But a lot of the things that we've done over the last four or five years with the LEEF program, leading-edge endowment fund, the chairs, keeping research chairs here…. That was about $52 million in making sure that we attract and keep highly qualified research faculty at the institutions — the research and innovation strategy.

The emphasis, I think, on graduate-level students at some of the universities will be important. When we see the increase in students, that's important. We also see an increase in building and development on the campuses — $800 million. Through renovation and building of new facilities, laboratories…. Those all attract and help to retain.

I view it as very multi-faceted. You've also got to have the facilities. You've got to have the funds in place to do the research and to attract people. You have to have a growing number of students that will attract and grow the number of needed faculty at institutions.

The BCKDF. I think we've spent more than $600 million in the last few years on redevelopment and research-type projects, so it's multi-faceted.

I guess from my perspective in government, we're doing a good job. You can always do a better job, so over the next few years we'll be reaching out to the industry in British Columbia to see what they need and to put more money into graduate-level students that can take the patents and inventions from the public sector into the private sector, generating more income to invest more in the advanced education system.

G. Robertson: So the question then is whether the ministry has figures on the number of new hires, faculty new hires, and conversely figures for the number of faculty — B.C. professors and instructors — who have left the province over the last few years.

Hon. M. Coell: Some of the research we've done — and I would be willing to share that with the member as well — shows that there isn't a looming shortage of college, but there are some potential challenges with the universities. Just to give you an example, when the University of British Columbia opened the Okanagan campus, they had 30 positions and they had 1,300 applications. That's very typical of what's going on at the university campuses right now. There are far, far more applications than there are jobs. So I think we're in good shape at both the college and the university levels.

G. Robertson: I want to voice concerns that all is not well, from what I have heard from faculty and students. I think this relates more broadly to quality of education and specific examples related to faculty, going back to last year's post-secondary education advisory council. There were no college or institute faculty invited to that council.

The new degree-granting board. There were no educators named to that board. It was presidents exclusively.

When you combine this with a zero-zero-and-zero mandate and challenges, significant challenges, on the bargaining side to improve the support for faculty in B.C. as well as — as the minister outlines — a big focus on the research side of education, which is admirable and certainly necessary in this day and age…. However, if it is coming at the cost of more support for teaching and learning, there are very real impacts on the quality of education. Those are impacts that I have heard concerns about from students around this province — that the drain is shifting toward commercializing research and raising private funds to support the institutions, rather than being invested by the government of B.C. in improving quality of education, improving quality of teaching and learning and the scholarship of teaching and learning.

I want to shift now to a few questions related to adult basic education. I would like to know if the ministry has met its service targets for delivery on adult basic education courses.

Hon. M. Coell: I appreciate the question. We are aware that there has been a recent decline in ABE student enrolment, and I share some of the concerns. There are a number of reasons that you can't quantify at this point. But with the booming economy, a lot of times people find jobs, and they put off going back to school to do upgrades. The other one is that with the GPAs coming down in the universities, some people are not doing the upgrades for marks that they needed in the past to get in.

Not to belittle the potential enrolment loss. We're going to be doing a number of studies. We're also put-

ting in some performance measures, some baseline and three-year targets for student spaces in the programs. Also, ABE, English as a second language and adult special education — we want to see the student FTE targets over the three-year period, and we'll be reviewing the courses as well.

I do acknowledge that there has been a decrease in enrolment in those particular courses, but we are going to put in some measures and also look at some of the reasons for that. As I said, I think some of the ones are pretty obvious in that the potential for finding jobs without needing that is one which is sort of a good thing and a bad thing at the same time — and also the GPAs going down in the universities.

G. Robertson: It sounds like there is work being done, which is encouraging. Can the minister outline funding that is targeted directly to doing the studies and measurements and setting targets and funding for adult basic ed, developmental ed, English as a second language and FTEs who are being assigned to do that work?

Hon. M. Coell: Two questions there. Any of the studies would be done by ministry staff. They would be taking that on as part of their day-to-day work.

A good example of the developmental FTEs that the member raises: in '03-04 we were at 13,197, and in '04-05 we were at 12,711, which is getting to 96.6 percent of their target. It's not that that in itself is bad. We want to make sure there isn't a trend there, so we want to set targets and do some work over the next two or three years to make sure that doesn't become a trend, that it actually is a blip that we can tick upwards to get 100 percent of the target in the coming years.

G. Robertson: My understanding with some of this drop in enrolment is that it is related to programs no longer being made available. I would be interested in the minister's explanation of ESL service losses at Kwantlen University College, service losses at Camosun College and programs that I'm aware of at Vancouver Community College that are no longer available. Therefore, enrolment has dropped because those programs are not being provided and supported.

Hon. M. Coell: It's more the opposite way. If they don't have the demand, they don't run the course. What's happening is that the demand isn't there, so some of the courses don't run, and that's where you get down from the 100 percent to the 96.6 percent.

The other thing is that with the province in…. We're seeing an increase in grade 12 graduations, which would mean that some of those courses might not be needed.

There are a whole bunch of factors that we'll be looking at. One is the increase in graduations from grade 12. The improved economy, the GPA going down — all of those things will need to be considered. The fact that we're graduating more people from grade 12 is a good thing. The fact that they aren't registering for these programs is not a bad thing for them as individuals, but it is for the course and the institution that was used to funding and running these courses.

My hope is that this is merely a blip and is not something that is a trend and that we can change the courses and work with the institutions to maybe make the courses more relevant to those who are graduating or those who need help in the other areas.

G. Robertson: Will the minister clarify when the studies, measurements and targets for outcomes will be completed, so we know where we stand on this and what our objectives are?

Hon. M. Coell: There are really three answers to the question. As government, we're working with the Ministry of Education on a literacy strategy, which will be developed over the coming months and then implemented over this mandate. The ABE outcome survey will be publicly released in a couple of months and then the preliminary results of that probably in a month.

G. Robertson: I have a question on a completely different vein related to graduate spaces and very real concerns that I've heard, and certainly that I share, related to the lack of support for graduate students space expansion that obviously predates the minister's involvement with this ministry. We have many years now of government not being committed to expanding graduate students spaces. I'm curious whether there is an intention to fund more graduate spaces in the years to come.

Hon. M. Coell: Actually, it's a longstanding program problem in that there were no graduate spaces funded after 1991 other than the ones we've put in, in the new-era commitments. I have been working with UBC and the other universities on developing a new plan for graduate students and possibly taking some of the 25,000 seats that were at the bachelor level and moving them into the graduate level. That would probably require some funding or some changes to funding formulas.

I think UBC especially wants to move towards a higher number of graduates on their campus, both masters- and doctoral-level students. We'll be working with them over the next 12 months to start to initiate some of those.

G. Robertson: I'm encouraged to hear that there is action with UBC. I would urge the member to be talking with the other universities around the province who, I'm sure, have some desires to expand their graduate spaces as well.

Just a quick question related to the UBC medical school and the expansion of programs to UVic and UNBC. From what I understand, the satellite staff who are working at UNBC and UVic are essentially UBC medical school staff. However, they are getting no benefit from that and are indeed working for UVic and

UNBC. Is the ministry doing anything to address staff who are actually satellite for a different university and unable to address the differential there?

Hon. M. Coell: I'm not aware of that. I've always thought that one of the benefits of being a UBC faculty member would be the ability to work in Prince George or Victoria, but I'll look into that and get back to the member on that.

G. Robertson: I have a few questions on the research and technology portfolio specifically. I just wanted to start with questions on the British Columbia Innovation Council, if the minister could give some figures on the total budget and then, within the budget, the operating and administrative costs versus the grant and funding expenditures.

Hon. M. Coell: The total budget for that program is $5.741 million. The operating costs for the council are $292,000. The government transfers are $5.449 million. The budget provides funding in the form of an operating grant to the B.C. Innovation Council.

The mandate is to accelerate and expand science- and technology-based commercialization and economic development. The council provides a one-stop point of access and support to high-technology companies, educational institutions, technology industry awareness groups, federal science and technology agencies and university research labs, and also funds the university-industry liaison groups.

G. Robertson: Would the minister be able to provide a more detailed breakdown of the expenses and grants that are paid out and of the grant recipients of BCIC funding?

Hon. M. Coell: I would contact them and do that. I would also do it over the last three years so that you can see where the changes have been.

G. Robertson: I'm just going to skip for a second. The member for Vancouver–Mount Pleasant has a few questions related to the SFU school for the contemporary arts and their new campus.

J. Kwan: I just have a few questions for the minister relative to the Woodward's project and the SFU contemporary arts proposal. First of all, I wonder whether or not the minister has received an official proposal requesting capital funds for that initiative.

Hon. M. Coell: The school of contemporary arts capital identified in the 2005-2006 Simon Fraser capital plan is $33.9 million. Their request to the ministry is $18.9 million.

J. Kwan: Has the government approved that request, or what stage is it at within government in terms of the approval process?

Hon. M. Coell: The recent capital funding for SFU was directed to the Burnaby Mountain campus and new Surrey campus, and it was $107 million. That was part of the BCKDF research projects.

On this one, we're waiting for Simon Fraser to come back to us as to where they're getting their portion of the funds. They're looking at some innovative ways, and I suspect they're probably looking at one or two donors that might come in with their portion of it as well. We're working with them, but nothing has been finalized yet.

J. Kwan: Yes, I understand that SFU has an initiative on the hill, relative to capital funding, and of course, with the contemporary arts component — even with the Woodward's component — they also have a different location in the downtown core. So there are several pieces within the capital initiatives that I know SFU is looking for.

With regards to the overall funding for all of the initiatives, I get it in terms of where that is at. More specifically, though, for the component related to the Woodward's building, the time line is coming right up for people to make a decision on whether or not they're in the capital plan for that development. Time is of the essence. Do I understand correctly from the minister that the only thing that the government needs from SFU is their definitive plan on how they're going to raise their component of the capital dollars, which I understand is to be split 50-50 with the government — to be matched by the government?

If that information is forthcoming to the government, then will the request be approved? Is that where it is at, in terms of the stages, and is the dollar figure being asked of the government $18.9 million? Am I correct with that information?

Hon. M. Coell: That decision hasn't been made. We've identified what that number is: $33 million. They asked initially for $18.9 million from the provincial government. They haven't finalized any of their commitment yet, so we haven't made a decision with regard to that. I can tell you I think it's a very exciting and positive attribute for SFU to have in the downtown east side. I'm looking forward to working closely with them.

J. Kwan: Is the dollar figure the government is contemplating, $33.9 million, the total project cost? If the funding was being asked on that basis, it would be half of the $33.9 million from government, and government is contemplating whether or not they would approve that piece — subject to SFU identifying clearly and providing the information to the government where they would raise their half for the capital project. Is that, in a nutshell, what I heard from the minister?

Hon. M. Coell: The $33.9 million is what SFU has identified as their capital costs for it. They put in an initial request for $18.9 million, which we haven't con-

sidered yet because they haven't finalized their funds. I know they're looking at a number of different options as well as a combination of funds from different donors. It's something that we'll probably be dealing with in the next few months. It would be a matter of priorities for the government and the ministry. This one has been, as you say, ongoing for some time, and it's one that I have had some input into and, as I know, the member has had some input into.

J. Kwan: The figure is somewhere between $16.9 million to $18.9 million. They're asking $18.9 million, but the total cost is $33.9 million, divided by half because there are to be matching funds. Then we're looking at $16.9 million — somewhere in that region.

Could the minister please advise: is there some time line attached to the process here — expectations of when SFU will come forward with their information or expectations of when the government will actually make the decision? As I mentioned, time is of the essence here. Of course, as we know with the construction boom that is going on at the moment, anytime there is a delay with these kinds of decisions, there are huge ramifications cost-wise down the road.

Hon. M. Coell: The simple answer is: we're working with them to try to expedite this as quickly as possible. We are aware that they're doing a number of fundraising opportunities, and we're waiting for them to bring those back to us as well.

G. Robertson: Returning to a few last questions on research and technology. I'm curious, with the B.C. Innovation Council….Would the minister provide information on how the B.C. Innovation Council functions regarding identifying and making grants? What is the process for making those decisions to allocate funding?

Hon. M. Coell: The Council is really an amalgamation of the Science Council and the Advanced Systems Institute over the last couple of years. We have just announced a new CEO, and that is David Dolphin from UBC. He will be taking over, and a new board will be announced. Then we'll work with them on how those grants will be allocated, but they'll be allocated in the areas that I mentioned previously for the member.

G. Robertson: Can the minister clarify how that board is chosen? I'm assuming that the board of the BCIC is required to make those approvals for funding allocations. What is the process for selecting that board?

Hon. M. Coell: Those appointments would be made, because it's a Crown corporation, through BRDO. They would be vetted, as any other Crown corporation appointment would be, and ratified by cabinet.

G. Robertson: Some questions related to the knowledge development fund, then: can the minister just outline the total budget and, along the lines of the B.C. Innovation Council, offer some clarity around who makes the decisions regarding the funding that is allocated from the knowledge development fund?

Hon. M. Coell: I can just give the member a little bit of information. The BCKDF program was established to fund research infrastructure in post-secondary institutions, teaching hospitals and affiliated non-profit agencies. To date a total of 483 projects and $335 million in funding have been approved. This funding has leveraged another $326 million from the Canadian Foundation for Innovation, the CFI, and an additional $272 million from other non-government sources, so approximately $934 million have been allocated.

Since June of 2001 BCKDF has awarded another $230 million funding for capital projects at British Columbia institutions, which levered close to another $400 million — significant funds.

The Canada Foundation for Innovation does the quality and peer review. They make a recommendation, and then we just match that recommendation. It's really the federal government agency that does the short-listing, you would say, and then the province just comes to the table and matches it.

G. Robertson: When you say "the province," who specifically is making the decision to match the federal funding? Is there a debate or a discussion about it, or is it a rubber stamp?

Hon. M. Coell: The ministry does review each one of the recommendations. We don't add to it. I suspect we could subtract, if we didn't want to fund one that we didn't feel was in the best interest of British Columbia. I believe that all of the recommendations the federal government has put forward through the Canada Foundation for Innovation have been funded.

G. Robertson: So does the ministry end up responding to the Canada Foundation for Innovation with acknowledgment or affirmation of the choices, or does it go beyond the ministry for that decision?

Hon. M. Coell: In some cases it would be within our capital budget within the ministry. In other cases it would need to go to Treasury Board and have approval at that level.

G. Robertson: Can the minister just clarify: is there a set pattern or protocol around what size of funding allocation can be approved by the ministry and which goes to Treasury Board, or is it haphazard?

Hon. M. Coell: It's any project above $1.5 million that would go to Treasury Board. Anything below that would be dealt with within the ministry.

G. Robertson: As much as I'd like to spend the rest of the day with you all, my House Leader has other

priorities. For my colleagues, I would like to thank the minister very much and all the staff for the forthright answers. I look forward to working together for the betterment of B.C.'s post-secondary education system and all the different ways we can do that collaboratively. I look forward to all the materials you have mentioned being able to forward to us so that we can help do that together. With that, I have no further questions.

Hon. M. Coell: I would also like to thank the members opposite who have posed a number of questions and ideas to us for consideration. We have committed to provide some further information — some detailed information we didn't have with us. We'll do that as expeditiously as we can.

Hon. M. Coell: I would move the committee rise, report resolutions 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.